House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
On 9 March we introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has been carried forward into the new Session. This legislation will deliver on our manifesto commitments to make punishments tougher for the most serious offenders and to introduce more effective community sentences, and work is also under way on the non-legislative reforms set out in my White Paper last year, which aim to tackle the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and improve the rehabilitation of offenders in the community.
Rob Butler
It is essential that the public have confidence in the sentencing decisions reached in our courts. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that an important element in that confidence can come from judges and magistrates explaining clearly the aims their sentences are designed to achieve, recognising that they are about not just punishment but rehabilitation in order to reduce reoffending and then create far fewer victims of crime in the future?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend speaks from experience about these matters, and he will know that by law the court must explain the effect of a sentence and its reasons for deciding on it in clear, ordinary language. The pre-sentence report pilot that I announced in the sentencing White Paper also aims to increase sentencers’ confidence that their determinations will indeed improve outcomes for offenders and reduce reoffending.
Marco Longhi
Sedgley in my Dudley North constituency has recently seen gangs of youths coming together, throwing stones at passing cars and at people’s property and generally engaging in behaviour seen as very intimidating towards neighbours, so will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the following three things? First, please can we refrain from describing this type of activity as “low-level antisocial behaviour” because victims of these crimes certainly do not see it as such? Secondly, could we ask the police and the judiciary to look at prosecuting and indeed convicting so that sentencing is meaningful and therefore acts as a deterrent? Thirdly, can we please engage with colleagues across Departments to look at investment in schemes for young people that are tailored for them?
Robert Buckland
I understand, Mr Speaker, but my hon. Friend had to cover a lot there because the question of offending by young people and children raises complex issues. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the way in which we describe this behaviour, and indeed I made that very point in my maiden speech to the House. We should label that criminality as “criminality”, and it will sometimes be in the public interest to prosecute, because we have flexible community orders for children to address their offending behaviour, involving parents and carers in that process, too. But there are alternatives, and it is important to commend restorative action and early interventions to prevent children from getting into the criminal justice process in the first place.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Government’s 2019 manifesto promised to do “right by victims” and
“to fight crime against women and girls”,
but I have to say to the Secretary of State that nothing seems further from the truth. Women do not need rhetoric; they need legislation, but he appears more interested in silencing protests than giving a voice to victims of sexual crimes—more interested in defending statues than women and girls. Will the Secretary of State show that he cares by working cross-party to implement Labour’s Bill on ending violence against women and girls?
Robert Buckland
That was not a question; it was a soundbite, which bears no reality to what this Government have been doing. We have passed landmark domestic abuse legislation, we work tirelessly in the fight against violence against women and girls, and we continue to do that in our new Bill, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which presents a golden opportunity for Labour to work together with us. But what did they do? They voted against it on Second Reading; they voted the whole thing down. I will not believe Labour until they truly match their rhetoric with their deeds; so far their record has been dismal and weak.
Mr Lammy
In 2019 Philip Leece viciously raped a woman on her way home from a night out; she was 26 and soon to be married. Adding insult to injury, he published the name of his victim online and ridiculed her as being too fat and disgusting to rape. For that, he received a pathetic fine of £120. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not commit to implementing Labour’s whole Bill on ending violence against women, will he at least agree to implement Labour’s proposals for tougher sentences for those who name and shame victims of sexual offences?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that distressing case, and he can rest assured that over the years in which I have dealt with the unlawful and criminal naming of victims in that way I have not hesitated to take action as a Law Officer. Indeed we are already making preparations to see what can be done to improve and strengthen the law in this area, because, make no mistake, the naming of victims of sexual abuse—and other types of offending as well where anonymity is an essential part of the process—is not just wrong, it is criminal and we will do whatever it takes to help stamp it out.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Legal advice and legal aid underpin a fair, rules-based society. The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under continual review to ensure provision across England and Wales, and legal advice is always available through the Civil Legal Advice telephone service.
Navendu Mishra [V]
In Greater Manchester, we are lucky that the Greater Manchester Law Centre provides an excellent service for people across the city region, but in my constituency of Stockport there are no community legal aid providers; it joins the 78% of local authorities in England and Wales that do not have that service. Does the Minister agree that these legal aid deserts are denying vital support to millions of people, and will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that there is the necessary funding for every area to have an acceptable number of legal aid providers?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Legal aid is essential, which is why I am delighted that when the law centres sought support from the Government, every penny piece requested was provided—including, by the way, to Greater Manchester Law Centre, which received £140,000. We are standing behind excellent legal aid providers, including those who provide it digitally and remotely, because when it comes to legal advice, what matters most is quality, not necessarily geography.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) is spot on, is he not? The Government must address the vast deserts where no legal aid providers exist. The disabled and vulnerable in most of England and Wales have been denied access to justice due to the Government’s inaction. How can the Minister possibly justify a situation where 37 million people in Stockport, Hull and across the rest of England and Wales do not have access to a community care legal aid provider? He talks tough, he promises all sorts; he does nothing. Get on with it!
Alex Chalk
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. What a shame that when there was a Labour Government, he did nothing to stand up to the Labour Prime Minister who decried “fat cat” legal aid lawyers and said that he was going to
“derail the gravy train of legal aid”.
Where was the hon. Gentleman then? Nowhere. This is the Government who are getting behind legal aid and getting behind the civil legal aid service, and who, by the way, funded the community justice fund, which provided support for the Disability Law Service that he wants to see, and so do I.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Complainants in rape and sexual offence cases are protected by automatic reporting restrictions. There is a lifetime ban on reporting any matter likely to identify a victim from the moment the offence is reported. As the Lord Chancellor has outlined, we are giving consideration to what more we could do to provide greater deterrence and punishment when an offence is committed.
Charlotte Nichols [V]
While we still see instances of victims of sexual assault being named publicly, women continue to be silenced from naming their abusers by civil actions from those who are wealthy enough to take them. I wrote to the Prime Minister in March asking him to take action on this, but the Minister’s reply of 13 April missed this point entirely. Will he now say what steps he will take to prevent victims from being gagged by wealthy and powerful abusers in civil courts?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, we want to make sure that there is equity before the law, and no matter how rich or powerful someone is, they have to obey the rules as they are laid down. As the Lord Chancellor has outlined, we are giving consideration to what more we can do in this area to make sure that the anonymity of victims in this kind of case is protected and there is sufficient deterrent and punishment for those who name their own victims, or indeed those who are victims in court, so that it does not occur.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
Prior to coronavirus, outstanding case loads in the Crown court were low by historical standards. However, coronavirus has put huge strain on the court system, in common with so many other public services. The Government have taken decisive action, with 60 Nightingale courtrooms, a quarter of a billion pounds spent on improving the justice system, 290 safe jury trial rooms and 1,600 extra staff. It is thanks to those decisive measures that magistrates court case loads are now 60,000 cases lower than they were at the peak over the summer.
Laura Trott
I thank the Minister for his answer and for his previous engagement on the issue of a Nightingale court in Kent. Will he provide an update on when he thinks the court will be established and up and running?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate for a Nightingale court in Kent. My colleague Lord Wolfson is working very actively on that question and I strongly hope we will be in a position to make a positive announcement in the very near future.
Seema Malhotra
The employment tribunal backlog stands at a staggering 51,000, which is 45% higher than pre-pandemic levels. The Minister will blame that on covid, but he knows the system was broken before, with cuts made by his Department. Now, as we see multiple employment claims shooting up and some employers using covid as a cover for fire and rehire or cutting people’s employment rights, we have a tribunal system that is unable to cope. Labour warned about this and called for a package of urgent measures. When will the Minister finally step up and take responsibility for the backlog of cases?
Chris Philp
In common with so many other areas of the justice system employment tribunals were profoundly affected by coronavirus, but we have taken decisive action. The number of employment tribunal sitting days is being increased dramatically, and the tribunal is benefiting from the 1,600 extra staff hired across Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and from the enormous investment in technology, which is enabling across the court system, including the tribunal, 20,000 remote hearings a week. Those are the actions we are taking to address the issue the hon. Lady raises.
John Spellar
The Minister is being remarkably complacent, because he must know that much of the backlog was actually caused by massive cuts by the Conservative Government. That was a huge error, impacting not only on very serious criminal cases in the Crown court, but on dealing with the petty crime and antisocial behaviour that is blighting our communities. He also knows that cases are taking years to get to court, with the impact that that has on the availability or willingness of witnesses. When he will he stop putting out this complacent line and get a grip of the problem?
Chris Philp
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the situation prior to coronavirus. The outstanding case load in the Crown court prior to coronavirus was 39,000 cases—low by historical standards and substantially lower than the 47,000 cases left behind by the last Labour Government. Moreover, under this Government, crime, as reported by the crime survey, has dropped by 41%. There is no complacency. A quarter of a billion pounds has been spent, 1,600 extra staff have been hired and 23,000 extra police are being recruited. There is no complacency here.
Dr Evans [V]
I asked the House of Commons Library what was going on in the east midlands pre-pandemic. Interestingly, in Bosworth the number of court cases in the backlog has stayed the same. That is partly because there was an 11% rise in Leicester courts, but a 12% fall in Leamington Spa. Clearly, covid has had a massive impact and I pay tribute to the court staff working tirelessly to clear that, but overall there is a mixed picture. What is the Minister’s Department trying to do to tease out what is covid and what is pre-existing, and, most importantly, to share good practice to try to deal with all those cases?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his interest, of course, in his constituency and his region. There is a great deal we are doing across the country, including in the east midlands. I mentioned the investment of a quarter of a billion pounds. We are also saying that for Crown court cases there will be no constraint on the number of cases listed. We are encouraging the judiciary the length and breadth of the kingdom, including in the east midlands, to be forward-leaning in listing. We have, of course, already opened the Nightingale court in Nottingham and are planning to open a further Crown court in Loughborough in the late summer, which will accommodate large multi-handers—it will be a supercourt. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome that important step, which will benefit his region.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Even the Minister’s own MPs accept that there is a crisis in the court system. There are now a record 57,000 outstanding Crown court cases. Lawyers are concerned that they cannot safely see their clients in cells and facilities in many courts are inadequate for the same purpose. The temporary leases on many of the Nightingale courts will come to an end within weeks. Defendants are spending longer than ever in prison and on remand, and some are wrongly feeling pressured to plead guilty rather than face months and maybe years before their cases will be heard. Will the Minister confirm his plans for the future of Nightingale courts, put a stop to the other planned court closures and tell the House just how long is it going to take to clear this backlog?
Chris Philp
I am rather perplexed to hear the shadow Minister talk about planned court closures. There are not any planned court closures and, in fact, as I have said, we have opened up 60 new Nightingale courtrooms and will be looking to continue those as long as they are needed. I already said, in the last answer, that we are planning to open up a new Nightingale court in a number of places in the country, including in Loughborough. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that the judiciary can list at will in the Crown court to encourage the recovery, which we are supporting with money—I have mentioned the quarter of a billion pounds several times already—remote hearings and extra staff. The pandemic has caused enormous difficulties for the court system, as it has for public services. Jury trials and pandemics do not mix very well. We have taken decisive action. That decisive action is delivering results.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Will the Minister look to fast-track rape cases by providing DNA testing hubs requiring immediate testing of the accused on request, like breath tests, and confirm that positive tests, alongside a dated audio recording from the victim’s mobile phone saying that they do not consent to sex, would be sufficient to enable immediate imprisonment through fast-track Nightingale courts to massively scale up the number of rapists taken off our streets and put behind bars? Will he meet me to discuss this?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is raising an extremely important point. Some of the questions that he is raising, to do with DNA testing and disclosure, are being addressed in the rape review that is due to report very shortly. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing would be delighted to meet and discuss some of these—[Interruption.] He is leading this work and he would be delighted to discuss these points; he gave me that undertaking just a moment ago. We are looking to expedite and ease these matters through, for example, the wider use of section 28 pre-recorded evidence, so people can give their evidence more quickly. On prioritising hearing rape cases, the hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point. Listing is a matter for the judiciary, but I know that judges think very carefully about the kind of points that he made when they decide which cases to prioritise.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a long and keen interest in the Supreme Court. It is entirely legitimate to look, in the wider context of constitutional reform, at the Act that underpinned the creation of that court to see whether it can be improved and updated. I will be open and consultative as that work is carried out, and I will say more at a later date about which aspects of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 I intend to consider.
Sir Edward Leigh
For 600 years, the House of Lords and, latterly, its Appellate Committee did a superb job of being our Supreme Court. Nobody has ever given a proper cost-benefit analysis of what has been gained by abolishing it, apart from spending so much more extra public money. I doubt that the Government, or any Government, have the guts to abolish this wasteful institution, but will the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor make it clear that we do not have a written constitution? We are not America. The Queen in Parliament —in other words, this House of Commons—is supreme, not the Supreme Court. That is particularly important if the Scottish National party should ever carry out its threat of a unilateral referendum against the wishes of this House of Commons in an Act of Parliament. Will the Secretary of State—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sir Edward, you should know that it is not supposed to be a speech; it is a question. You have been here so long you should know that.
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to decry the rationalist approach that was taken by the then Labour Government to our unwritten constitution. He is absolutely right to warn us against a descent into a United States-style constitutional court, which will do no one, least of all the judiciary, any good. I pay tribute to the members of that august body, but it is right that in the wider context of constitutional reform, we look at all aspects of our constitution to make sure that we get the balance right and to emphasise the point that Parliament is supreme.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
The Leader of the House described a Supreme Court ruling on his Government’s plans as a “constitutional coup”, yet we now see the UK Government using the same court to prevent the Scottish Government from implementing human rights legislation. Is the message to judges from the UK Government that they should just stay out of Downing Street’s business, but stand by if needed to prevent the devolved nations from implementing democratically agreed policy? How does the Secretary of State think that that will protect the Union?
Robert Buckland
Tempted as I am to talk about the particular issue that the hon. Lady raises, there is an ongoing Supreme Court reference. That is a normal use of our constitutional devices to make sure that all parts of the kingdom, including the devolved Administrations, legislate in a way that is consistent with the powers that they have. That is what is happening; it is a very good example of a mature democracy in operation.
With regard to the hon. Lady’s underlying political point about the Scottish Government’s decision to legislate in that way, this country is among the leaders in the world in child safeguarding. No amount of virtue signalling about the incorporation of international conventions that will make no difference to the quality of safeguarding of children in our country will get away from that fact.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
Is not one of the key features of our unwritten constitution respect for the independence, integrity and quality of our judiciary? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we have no intention of going down the American route with any political interference in the appointment of our judges?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely on the nail, as ever. He knows that I have long valued the principle of comity, which is that we as parliamentarians respect the independence and role of the judiciary, and that in their work the judiciary likewise respect the position of Parliament. That is what comity is all about, that is what I believe in, and that is what we will embody in our policies as we develop them.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Reducing crime in prisons is a key priority. We are delivering on our commitment to invest £100 million in bolstering prison security and clamping down on the weapons, drugs and mobile phones that fuel violence and crime behind bars. This investment enhances security at the entry point to prisons, using the latest technology, and strengthens staff resilience to corruption, as well as targeting organised criminals who exploit prisons as a lucrative market.
Andy Carter
As the Minister says, many of the crimes committed in prison are related to illegal contraband that finds its way inside. Constituents who live close to Thorn Cross Prison in Appleton Thorn in my constituency have told me about their increasing worry about daylight drops in gardens that border the open prison. Could the Minister tell me what steps he is taking and what residents can do to address that real concern, particularly where children are playing in gardens and their parents are concerned for their welfare?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point on behalf of his constituents. The Government’s £100 million investment to prevent crime in prison has enabled hundreds of security items to be purchased that will assist his constituents, including 176 search dogs, 300 metal detection archways and wands, mobile phone detection technology and 51 X-ray body scanners. We have also developed clear guidance for prisons on managing trespassers within the open estate, including protocols on reporting evidence to the police and addressing the site-specific security risks. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further if that would be helpful.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to the Chief Coroner, his predecessor and his staff for their work in supporting coroners during the covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 has had an enormous impact on coroners and their staff; it is therefore to their very great credit that in 2020 the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest remained at 27 weeks, as it was in 2019.
Steve McCabe [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer, but my constituents who are served by the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service often express frustration at delays when they are making burial arrangements. It is a particular issue for Muslim and Jewish families, for whom burials should take place as soon as possible after death. What is being done to ensure that coroners’ courts engage with local religious group to address these problems and make sure that religious beliefs are respected and honoured?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Coroners are independent judicial office holders, so they will operate independently. However, I can say that the Government have provided over £4 billion to local authorities to ensure that those coroners who are doing this important work have the resources they need. So far as the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service’s timeliness is concerned, the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest in that area was 10 weeks, down from 14 weeks, in 2019. I am pleased to say that that is well below the average in England and Wales.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
As at 31 December 2020, the cumulative length of service by all band 3 to 5 prison officers was more than 243,000 years. From late 2016 to the end of December 2020, the number of prison officers has increased by more than 3,600. Having experienced staff in prisons is vital to ensuring that they remain safe, secure and decent.
Ms Rimmer
I thank the Minister for his answer to my question. We both know that being a prison officer is a difficult job that takes years of experience to perfect, yet a combined 86,000 years of experience has been lost since 2010. Does he accept that this has had a catastrophic effect on safety, and will he commit to giving prison officers the pay rise his experts recommend to tackle the problem?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for rightly paying tribute to our prison officers. Let us just pause to reflect for a moment. At the beginning of this pandemic, Public Health England estimated that, on a reasonable worst-case scenario, more than 2,500 prisoners could die in prison. Because of the excellent work of our prison officers, that figure—although each one is a tragedy—is closer to 119. It was prison officers who delivered that. I am pleased to say that, even in this difficult financial situation, our prison officers received between 2.5% and 7.5% increases last year. We are also investing heavily in the security equipment needed, including PAVA spray, SPEAR—spontaneous protection enabling accelerated response—training, and body-worn video cameras, that make prisons a better and more conducive environment not only for prisoners but for prison staff.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
The Minister must surely recognise that there are consequences to 86,000 years of staff experience being lost since 2010, because what happens when there are not enough experienced staff can be summed up in one word: violence. In 2019, violence was 134% higher than in 2010. Even last year, with prisoners locked up alone, violence was 38% higher. Self-harm has doubled, and assaults on staff have tripled. Experience matters. With further cuts coming, thanks to the Minister’s friends in the Treasury, will he recognise this? How is he going to make our prisons safer?
Alex Chalk
I agreed with the first half of that but not the second half. It is absolutely right that we have retention. May I reassure the hon. Lady that there are an additional 3,600 prison officers? In fact, I am sorry to say that what she said about the data on violence is wrong. The violence in terms of assaults on prison officers has gone down by 20%. I hope she will also be reassured to know that the leaving rate is down by nearly 3% as well. We are getting behind our prison officers. We are investing in our prisons. We are providing the security, providing the investment and making sure that their brilliant work can continue long into the future.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I recognise the deep distress that the theft of a much-loved pet can cause, which is why laws are already in place to deal with offenders who commit such abhorrent crimes, but more can be done. The Environment Secretary, the Home Secretary and I have had discussions to consider further action, and I have set up a taskforce to investigate and tackle this issue from end to end, looking at prevention, reporting, enforcement and prosecution.
Mr Harper
I welcome the setting up of the taskforce, because what is important is not just the sentencing but the deterrent effect, so that we see fewer pets—dogs, particularly—being stolen. The Secretary of State’s answer will be very welcome, but can he say what more can be done? I ask him this on behalf of my two rescue labradors, Sophie and Chase, but also on behalf of the newly elected police and crime commissioner in Gloucestershire, the Conservative Chris Nelson, who made stopping pet theft one of his key election priorities.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I declare an interest, as an owner of a cat. Let us not forget that this applies to a number of much-loved animals, who have, particularly in lockdown, proved an invaluable source of solace and comfort to many millions of people. He is right to talk about the wider issue. Those who minimise pet theft forget that it is often the thin end of a wedge and it might even involve organised crime. We need to take a zero tolerance approach here in order to deal with wider criminality, so we will be looking at the nature of the black market that exists and the rises we have seen with regard to the value of individual animals. All that is very much on the table.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
We have increased resources to handle calls and inquiries relating to probate applications and, as a result, the average time taken to process such an application is running at between four and six weeks. We have also had a big push towards moving the process online—to be digital—and in March more than 75% of grants were done digitally.
Wera Hobhouse [V]
One of my constituents applied for probate and was mistakenly sent the wrong will. This was discovered only after they chased it and they discovered that the case had been closed, with no word from the probate office. When the correct will was sent, it was lost and once again my constituent was not informed. It took nine months for probate to be granted from when they first applied. The loss of a friend and a relative is already an incredibly difficult time. Can the Minister tell me and my constituent what he is going to do to improve communications in the probate office so that nobody has to go through a similar experience?
Chris Philp
Thankfully, distressing examples such as that are extremely rare. I encourage Members who encounter them to write to us at the Ministry of Justice so that we can make sure they are rapidly resolved. The number of complex cases where there are various queries and difficulties has reduced by two thirds since January—they have gone down from 2,500 to 650. I urge constituents to use the digital system, because for straightforward digital cases we are now issuing probate in one week and, even for stopped cases, where there is a query, it is being done in four weeks. We should all be urging our constituents to use the digital service to make sure this is as fast as possible.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and letter to the Department on this issue, and we will be providing the response. There is already a mechanism in place to facilitate transfers of sentenced persons to and from the United States. British nationals serving sentences in the US can request to be transferred to a UK prison under the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons.
Sir Desmond Swayne
In the particular circumstance, and given the powerful case I have made in correspondence, can the Minister fix it for my constituent to commence his sentence in the UK?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has fought doggedly on behalf of his constituent. The prisoner transfer agreement that exists between the US and the UK has been in place for 31 years. It does not allow for the so-called “takeover” of sentences. The only way this individual can be transferred is for his constituent to return to the US, commence his sentence and apply for transfer to a British prison. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that, once that application is agreed by the US, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will endeavour to process the transfer as quickly as possible.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
In 2019, 11,257 cases were prosecuted for an assault against an emergency worker and in that year 9,066 resulted in conviction and sentencing. As you may know, Mr Speaker, the Government are legislating to double the maximum sentence for an assault on an emergency worker from 12 to 24 months. Just this morning, we had Committee proceedings taking evidence on that and the move was widely welcomed by the police chiefs who gave evidence to our Committee.
Chris Bryant
It sounds as though that was a very well-written piece of legislation in the first place because it seems to be having an effect. However, we do still have large numbers of emergency workers being assaulted and the Sentencing Council still has not produced new guidelines to insist that magistrates must treat simply spitting as a “proper assault”. Especially in the last year, that has become more important than ever before. May I ask the Minister: how many of the people who have been prosecuted have had sentences longer than six months? That is the key to determining whether lengthening maximum sentences to two years will be effective.
Chris Philp
I should start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the instrumental role that he played in bringing forward the legislation to which I have just referred. On the question of Sentencing Council guidelines, I understand that the Sentencing Council, which is independent of Government, is in the process of looking at the sentencing guidelines. I hope that it will reflect the very strong feelings on both sides of this House about the seriousness of assaulting an emergency worker and that it will bear that in mind when it publishes those revised guidelines. I am afraid I do not have to hand the number of those being sentenced to more than six months; of course many will be. Where the assault is more serious, it will be prosecuted as grievous bodily harm or GBH with intent, which carry much higher maximum sentences. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with those figures if that will assist him.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We have innovative and ambitious cross-Government action plans to tackle reoffending as part of our uncompromising mission to cut crime. For example, we are introducing GPS tags for serious acquisitive offenders to track their movements for up to 12 months post release and increasing the length of curfews. In January, we announced a £70 million investment, which included enhancing the Department’s approved premises and providing temporary basic accommodation for prison leavers to keep them off the streets and reduce reoffending.
Ben Everitt
I thank the Minister for that answer. It is jobs that I am interested in. We know that having a job can reduce a person’s chance of reoffending by up to 50%, so what steps is his Department taking to support young offenders to get on the job ladder? I will give a local example here. We have an excellent “Ban the Box” campaign, which Milton Keynes College supports, to end that cycle of reoffending and offer a chance to young people to turn their lives around.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend has identified, with his usual wisdom, one of the three pillars of success post incarceration: a house, a friend and a job. He is quite right and I congratulate Milton Keynes College on its participation in the “Ban the Box” campaign. The Ministry of Justice has also been pleased to support business in the community at the event marking the remarkable milestone, it tells me, of 1 million roles covered by “Ban the Box” in March this year. We adopted “Ban the Box” in the civil service in 2016 and about 350,000 of those 1 million jobs are now in the civil service. More widely, as part of our approach to revising offender management, we are working very closely with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that those who leave the secure estate have a fair shake in the job market, which, as he rightly said, will go a long way to cutting reoffending.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Supporting victims to seek justice is a significant priority for the Government. We are investing in vital victim support services—more than £150 million this year—and a new victims code sets out the level of service that victims can expect to receive from justice agencies, but we must go further. The victims Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will enshrine victims’ rights in law, hold agencies to account for delivering those rights and set expectations for the standard and availability of victim support.
Dr Huq [V]
The Minister talks about a victims Bill. There has been one in every Queen’s Speech since 2016 and we have not seen any concrete action. So can I ask him to remedy that by starting with a particular concrete action? Can he back the amendment that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and I are tabling to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to address the fact that 50% of women seeking abortion at clinics face intimidation and emotional distress? We want national legislation put in place to provide clarity for women, police and girls rather than relying on councils all the time, which do not have the bandwidth, resources or time to do this issue justice.
Kit Malthouse
I take the hon. Lady’s rebuke about a victims law, but she should be reassured that we are currently scoping the outline of that Bill with an intention to consult for prelegislative scrutiny later this year. We are firmly of the conviction that the victims code, which became effective on 1 April this year, is worthy and should be enshrined in statute and that is what we are aiming for. As to her amendment to the Bill, no doubt it will be considered as part of the legislation going forward.
Debbie Abrahams [V]
At a recent Oldham roundtable on domestic abuse, we heard of the increase in abuse during lockdown and the issues that the victims were facing. In particular, the lack of measures to address wider cultural issues, the fact that poverty is a driver and consequence of abuse, and the lack of availability of appropriately adapted or supported safe accommodation, were all cited as issues with the Government’s new Domestic Abuse Act 2021. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Act is as effective as we all want it to be? At the moment, it is just a sticking plaster over a gaping wound.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is quite right that legislation is only half the fight. The implementation of that legislation, and what we actually do physically on the ground for the victims of domestic abuse, are key to ensuring that we reduce the number of victims and increase the number of perpetrators who receive punishment.
When I was Housing Minister, I was pleased to work closely with the supported housing sector, particularly in the area of refuge, to ensure that refuges stayed within the housing benefit regime, rather than moving towards universal credit. One key plank of the argument that we made to Treasury colleagues was that that would enable greater investment by the sector in this area, as it could then be confident on the income stream that will arise from people who are within that kind of accommodation. I have just taken over the brief on victims, so I will shortly be talking with colleagues in MHCLG about what more we can do on supported housing—not just for people in that particular situation, but more widely for those who are seeking either to build a better life post incarceration or to escape victimisation.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The first duty of any Government is to protect and deliver justice, but justice for victims of violence against women and girls is becoming ever more distant. Rape convictions have fallen by more than 50% in the last two years—a record low, according to the Crown Prosecution Service. Worse still, more and more victims are dropping out of the process altogether. The Government are due to release a violence against women and girls strategy, but Labour’s is ready to go and includes: a fast-track system; a dedicated Minister for survivors of sexual violence; and a survivors’ support package, which would aid victims before, during and after the process. Will the Minister commit to taking these proposals forward now? If not, can he explain to victims why this Government choose further delay and inaction?
Kit Malthouse
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment, but I am afraid that I reject her rebuke as to inaction. With my other hat on at the Home Office, I have been working very hard over the last two years to address some of these issues, in particular, for example, by setting murder as one of the key national priorities; a third of all murders are domestic. In order to prevent murders, the police and others have to reach back into the crime types that result in that catastrophe, not least domestic violence and abuse. There is an enormous amount of work going on.
The hon. Lady should not believe that the fact that we have not yet published our rape review—I hope to publish it shortly—means that work has not been under way. For her and other Members’ information, I chair an action group—a taskforce—that brings together the police, the CPS and other partners across Government to focus on this issue, and to see if we can drive better outcomes for victims and better performance in the courts; there is an enormous amount of work going on. Having said that, this issue is not one on which there should be a political divide. If there are good lessons to be learned from the Opposition or, frankly, from around the world, we would be foolish not to have a look at them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
In the Gracious Speech last week, the Queen outlined this Government’s plans to recover from the covid-19 pandemic and to build back a better country for our future. The justice system has a vital part to play in that—to cut crime, to protect victims, and to guarantee fairness in our society. My ministerial team and I look forward to steering a number of new Bills through Parliament during this Session. As I said earlier, I am pleased that our new pet theft taskforce will now look at how we can better protect people from the awful crime of pet theft and ensure that action is taken against those who perpetrate it and those who organise it.
Kerry McCarthy
Will the Secretary of State advise on what is being done to ensure that prisons reopen for family visits as soon as possible? The guidance on the Government website has not been updated since 29 March. Although I am told that prisons can reopen once they reach stage 3 of the national framework, I certainly know of some that have reached that stage but still are not open, which is very upsetting for the families involved, so will he give us an update?
Robert Buckland
Of course, Her Majesty’s Prison Bristol will be near to or in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I am glad to tell her that the majority of prisons have now reached stage 3 in accordance with the plan that I published last year. The individual decision making is very much up to governors and regional group directors, but I can assure her that Ministers and senior officials are driving forward progress on reopening, allowing visits, and indeed considering moving to the next stage, stage 2, which would further open up the prison environment —consistent of course with public health guidance and the needs and the safety of prisoners.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
What a brilliant question! I have always regarded myself as an early adopter of technology as one of the first in my family to own a Sinclair pocket calculator—remember those?—so I am now given the opportunity to early adopt in criminal justice as well. There are lots of ways that we can use technology to decrease offending. For example, I referred earlier to the GPS trackers that we are fitting to a group of criminals post release. Some 50% of those released from prison following, for example, conviction for a burglary go on to reoffend. If we know where they are all the time, then they are less likely to offend, but also, if there is a burglary, the police are able to match their location to the data to eliminate them or make them a person of inquiry. Similarly, Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that we are rolling out alcohol abstinence tags, which we fit to the ankles of those who are convicted of a crime where alcohol has driven their criminal behaviour. At the moment, compliance with these tags is well over 95%.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
In reply to my earlier question, did the Secretary of State really say that the incorporation of international conventions—we were talking about the UNCRC—will make no difference to the quality of safeguarding of children in our country? I was so taken aback that I have changed my second question. I have to ask: does he actually believe that, and is it just this international convention or are they all as impotent as he appears to think that one is?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Robert Buckland
Volumes of possession actions remain significantly low as a result of measures that we took in response to the pandemic. Indeed, although the ban in England on bailiff-enforced evictions will end on 31 May, the requirement for landlords to give extended notice periods to seek possession orders in all but the most egregious cases has really struck the right balance. We intend to taper down these notice periods to pre-covid levels by October, which will help to manage demand in the courts. I pay tribute to senior judiciary for working at pace to develop a case management approach to possession cases.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that her concerns are wholly misplaced; I would be kind enough to say that. Some of the objection to this is, frankly, synthetic. The last Labour Government introduced it in Northern Ireland in 2003 without any concomitant reduction in turnout. Countries such as France and Canada and other mature democracies have long had this system in place. We will provide free identification for the tiny minority of people who do not have it. Frankly, the people of this country are wondering why on earth this has not been done before and are bewildered by the Opposition’s confected objections.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend rightly identifies an expanding area of business, sadly, for the courts and the police. He will be pleased to know that just last week, I held a meeting with the National Economic Crime Centre at the National Crime Agency to talk specifically about this issue. He will understand the complexity of online fraud in particular, whereby the offender may well be overseas, laundering money through a third territory and banking it in a fourth. Nevertheless, we need to do more to increase our capacity and capability to tackle this issue, to which we are all, including me, subject.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a lot of experience, not just as a Member of this House but as a former police and crime commissioner. He will be reassured to know that the female offender strategy continues. In particular, with regard to the work that we are doing on pre-sentence reports, we will help courts and decision makers come to conclusions based upon community sentence treatment requirements, whether that is support for addiction or for mental health problems, which are a constructive direct alternative to those short terms of imprisonment that he rightly criticises.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to hold the Government to account on these issues. He will recall that the White Paper I issued last year set out our plans for a framework that will do just that, by targeting the most serious violent and sexual offenders, ensuring that they serve longer proportions of their sentences of imprisonment in custody, therefore reflecting more appropriately the severity of their crimes and protecting the public, and ensuring that we introduce robust and effective community options for those who commit less serious offences.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will be encouraged to know that the Judicial Appointments Commission, senior judiciary and I work together on that very issue, to ensure that the professions are doing all they can to encourage and support applicants from a black and minority ethnic background. In particular, I pay tribute to CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, for driving forward that important diversity. There is much more work to be done, and progress for all of us is frustratingly slow, but I will continue to put my shoulder to the wheel to ensure that we see sooner rather than later someone of a black and minority ethnic background sitting in the Supreme Court.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise an issue that affects many people. One issue is the embarrassment and shame of people who fall victim to such fraud that they could have been tricked in the first place. Not only is supporting victims to overcome that stigma very much part of the victims code that we introduced in the past month or so, working with the sector, but as we develop the consultation into our new law, there will be opportunities fully to reflect the pernicious nature of online criminality. By helping to design out fraud, the financial services sector can make its greatest contribution to the reduction of such heinous crime.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the context of those recommendations, prison officers received rises of between 2.5% and 7.5%. It is right to say that in one specific instance the recommendations of the body were not accepted—we are mindful of our overall duties with regard to the public purse—but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in terms of the recruitment, support and promotion of the vital role of prison officers, the Government will not stint in their unwavering support and encouragement.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the election of Commissioner Akinbusoye, who is one of the 29 Conservative police and crime commissioners—a full 70% of the available slots were secured by the Conservative party at the elections two weeks ago. My hon. Friend is quite right that police and crime commissioners have a critical role to play in offender management, given that more than half of crime is committed by reoffenders. At the severe end in particular, we know that, on average, all murderers in the country have committed at least seven previous offences. In my role as Policing Minister, I will work closely with police and crime commissioners to make sure that not only as chairs of their local criminal justice board but more widely they can play an important role in driving down reoffending.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and would be interested to know more about the specific approach being taken. I assure him that south of the border the concept of supported accommodation and a supported approach is very much at the heart of what we are seeking to do, particularly with regard to young offenders. The development of the use of smaller units and diversionary work has been very much at the heart of what we have done over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman will see that the number of children now incarcerated has fallen from 3,000 to just over 500 or so in the past year. That is a dramatic improvement, but I am certainly interested to know more about the Scottish Government’s initiative.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous campaigning on this important issue. He knows that I have always placed heavy emphasis on the need to examine the law carefully in this area, because I accept that there are loopholes. I asked the Law Commission to undertake an in-depth review of economic crime law and, if necessary, to make recommendations on options for reform. It began its work last November and is aiming to publish an options paper later this year. We will work with the Law Commission to implement any next steps.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Robert Buckland
We commissioned an independent review, which was published after public involvement, and we have now conducted a consultation process, again with full involvement from civil society. We will have plenty of opportunities, in this House and in the other place, to debate and scrutinise any legislation that comes forward. There are ample opportunities for all of us to take part in this important process, and I am sure that the product of those deliberations will indeed be one of quality that enhances the balance between the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next item of business.
St Ilids Meadow postal round
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition to the House on behalf of constituents of Ogmore regarding the inadequate postal service being provided by Royal Mail to the residents of St Ilids Meadow housing estate in Llanharan, in my constituency. I would like to draw the House’s attention to a separate petition organised by a constituent, which has attracted 100 signatures. The petition notes that St Ilids Meadow is not yet served as part of permanent postal route but instead is delivered to in an inconsistent manner by way of overtime work at the Pontyclun sorting office. The petition further notes that post has taken as long as four weeks to arrive and waiting times have shown little sign of improvement. Residents have missed letters about medical appointments and letters advising the clinically vulnerable among them to shield, and work-related correspondence vital to their being able to continue to do their jobs from home. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Royal Mail to make the postal round at St Ilids Meadow, Llanharan a permanent postal round. And the petitioners remain etc.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Ogmore,
Declares that the postal round at St. Ilids Meadow, Llanharan be made a permanent postal round rather than one which is overtime only.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Royal Mail to make the postal round at St. Ilids Meadow, Llanharan a permanent postal round.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002663]
Ministerial Code/Register of Ministers’ Interests
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on enforcement of the ministerial code and the publication of the register of Ministers’ interests.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
May I start by congratulating the right hon. Lady on her multiple new roles? I apologise for the fact that she has to put up with me for her debut. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is unable to be here, but I know that he is looking forward to working with her.
On 28 April, the Prime Minister appointed the right hon. Lord Geidt, former private secretary to Her Majesty the Queen, to the position of independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. In taking up the appointment, he agreed revised terms of reference for the role, which strengthen its independence. One of his core tasks is to oversee the preparation of the list of Ministers’ interests. In giving evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last Thursday, he confirmed that it was his intention to publish the updated list on Ministers’ interests by the end of this month.
Angela Rayner
The ministerial code is clear: there must be no misuse of taxpayers’ money, nor actual or perceived conflicts of interest, but time and again Ministers act like the rules are for other people—none more so than the Prime Minister himself. Last year, he declared £15,000 from a Tory donor for his sleazy jet trip to a private island. This weekend, we read that the real cost was double that, and paid by someone else entirely.
People might ask, “Why is this important?” It is important because it goes to the very heart of our democracy. Who do our Government answer to: the public, or private interests? We learned only from the media that the Prime Minister has blocked the publication of the independent commissioner’s report. Can the Minister tell us why the delay? Does she accept that the rules apply to everyone, even the Prime Minister, and will he accept—
Mr Speaker
Order. This case is with Standards, and really we ought to keep away from it until Standards has been able to deal with it.
Angela Rayner
Okay. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The list of Ministers’ interests is also mysteriously delayed, I assume while the Prime Minister tries to remember who paid for his flat, but does the Minister accept that if the Prime Minister can block the independent adviser from investigating he cannot in practice be fully independent, because the code clearly is not preventing actual or perceived conflicts of interests?
When the Home Secretary lobbies on behalf of a former adviser flogging substandard face masks, who lands a £100 million contract without tender and at double the going rate, who cannot perceive that as a conflict of interest? It is something that we know not from the Home Secretary declaring it, but because it was revealed in an admin error. Then there is the Health Secretary, who appears to have ordered an official to recommend a bid that he had not even read from a former Tory MP, who pocketed another £200 million of taxpayers’ cash. Surely the independent adviser must investigate those cases with no prime ministerial veto.
Finally, there is the Prime Minister’s own top adviser, Lord Lister. He concealed being paid by a luxury developer owned by yet another Tory donor, which was granted a record-breaking taxpayer-backed loan by the very public body that Lister chaired—money that was meant for affordable homes, but given out at mates’ rates for luxury flats and private profit. Will the Government release the loan agreement, along with the correspondence on that decision, and hand it to the independent investigator, and when will they publish their report on officials’ second jobs? When Ministers and advisers use the public purse as a personal cashpoint, the public have a right to know.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we start, the supplementary was meant to be two minutes. I did interrupt, so I allowed some leeway. I will therefore also allow some leeway for the reply. When we mention Members of the other place, it is meant to be on a substantive motion. I know that seems strange, but these are the rules of the House, which I do not make; the House has made them and adopted them. We must stick to the rules. We do not criticise individual Members of the other House except on a substantive motion.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The right hon. Lady raises issues about the ministerial code, the arbiter of which is the Prime Minister; the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is a matter for that Committee; and the role of the independent adviser. She also touches on various reviews that are taking place and matters for the House authorities. As you pointed out, Mr Speaker, these are not things it would be appropriate for me to pontificate on, but I will try to answer the general thrust of the accusations the right hon. Lady makes today, and I shall speak frankly, because I know she appreciates that.
The charge the right hon. Lady makes is that the people she names are somehow on the take. That is the charge she is making here today on the Floor of the House: that they have not been focused over the past 16 months on working their socks off to save lives, to get a vaccination programme up and running and to do the things that the public need us to do, but that they have, unbelievably, entered into politics, made sacrifices and overcome the obstacles that she will be aware of to get into this place not to serve in public life but to do a mate—more accurately, a Tory mate—or someone they vaguely know, or met in a lift once, or perhaps do not know at all, a favour. That is the accusation that she is making today. I am afraid that that is why the Labour line of attack is not getting traction, well rehearsed though it is. It is not getting traction with the public because it is not plausible. It is based not on fact but on speculation, innuendo and smear.
Perceived conflicts of interest are not those that the right hon. Lady has made up. The public care about scrutiny—they do. They care about accountability, transparency and standards in public life. What they see through though is the performance she has given today, which is designed to smear decent colleagues and denigrate British business. I would direct the right hon. Lady to the National Audit Office report, which refutes the accusations she has made about MPs, civil servants, business and members of the public—but I am sure she already knows that. I would suggest to her that an Essex MP is perfectly entitled to forward an offer from the Essex chamber of commerce to help in a pandemic. MPs do it all the time—it is part of our job—but the right hon. Lady already knows this, too, and so does everyone else. The urgent question today has more to do with Labour’s internal politics and divisions than the conduct of Members of this House and enterprises that have been working to help the NHS and to save lives.
The right hon. Lady has made particular accusations today about colleagues, and I want to make a final point, Mr Speaker. If you were to take every single MP she has made an allegation about this afternoon, if you were to look at all the political donations they have received since the pandemic started, since January 2020, and if you were to add them all up and then double them—no, quadruple them—you would just about match what the right hon. Lady herself has received in the same time period. She should thank her lucky stars that we do not play the same games that she does.
The right hon. Lady is in a new position shadowing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who now looks after some of the most pressing issues facing this nation: the Union of the United Kingdom, devolution, the recovery from this crisis, national security, community resilience and the British brand around the world. That is what we are focused on. I hope that, after her debut today, she will be too, and I wish her well.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
The role of the independent adviser is an important one, and I personally was impressed by Lord Geidt’s evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last week. Ostensibly, the delay in the publication of the Register of Ministers’ Interests was due to the vacancy in that important position that arose after the resignation of Sir Alex Allan. What does my right hon. Friend suggest be done should such a vacancy arise again, so that the register is not delayed in the future?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes some very good points. He knows, because I have appeared before his Committee regarding this and other matters, that there have been delays to certain things, in part because of what the Government have had to deal with over the past 16 months, but those appointments are in train now. As he also knows from the evidence his Committee took, the register is due to be published very soon. I am sure that things will be on a much more stable footing as, hopefully, we come out of the pandemic.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Annex B of the ministerial code says it is
“important that when a former Minister takes up a particular appointment or employment, there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety.”
Given that David Cameron worked as an adviser for Greensill Capital and is reported to have share options worth tens of millions of pounds, do the 57 messages to senior officials that we are aware of regarding Greensill Capital give any cause for suspicion of impropriety? Will that be investigated by the independent adviser? One of those messages to a senior civil servant said the decision
“seems bonkers. Am now calling CX,”—
the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
“Gove, everyone.”
Is that acceptable? Does that give cause for concern about impropriety and will that be investigated? When the Minister is on her feet, can she tell us what action, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster got the call, did he take on behalf of his old boss?
Penny Mordaunt
As I said in my opening response to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), these issues are being looked at—there are reviews in train—and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those until they have reported. However, I think all Members of this House will want things looked at. They will want to ensure that we get to the bottom of these issues, and I hope, too, that we will look at the wider issues around the Gupta Family Group and the role of the SNP in those matters.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I welcome the appointment of Lord Geidt and also the modest increase in the terms of reference to increase his independence. Do my right hon. Friends accept that it is possible still for us to go a little further to increase the degree of independence of Lord Geidt and his successors, and that it is not too late to add the extra levels of independence that have been suggested by Lord Evans and, among others, me to make sure that the role has extra credibility, without necessarily giving way to some of the extraordinary allegations that seem to prejudge some of the important work being done by independent or cross-party reviews already under way in this important area?
Penny Mordaunt
May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done on these and related matters? It is very helpful when colleagues make positive suggestions. My understanding is that a response has been sent to Lord Evans, but we are keeping all things under review. We clearly want to ensure that we arrive at a situation where we can have the greatest possible transparency and ensure that we retain the trust of the public.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Accepting everything that the Minister says about the probity of her colleagues, does she not think that it would be in their interests for their names and their reputations to be cleared by a system that is wholly independent of the Prime Minister? Complaints against Ministers could be investigated, those investigations would be instigated by someone independent of Government, and thereafter their conclusions would be published. Surely that would be good for her colleagues.
Penny Mordaunt
I think I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is in those colleagues’ interests that there is credibility and weight to any investigations. The difficulty is that we have this peculiar and unique relationship between Ministers and the Prime Minister—they are not employees; they are in a particular category—and therefore we have a situation where the Prime Minister is the arbiter and is responsible for the ministerial code. What we are doing in all of these processes is trying to arrive at the condition that the right hon. Gentleman describes, but still stay within the boundaries of what is legal and what is correct.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Thanks to the efforts of this Government at the beginning of the pandemic, at no point did Blackpool Victoria Hospital or other local organisations such as Blackpool Council run out of PPE, despite the obvious global shortages. The public would rightly expect Ministers to do everything within their power to source PPE to keep people safe, so does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the actions taken by this Government were both proportionate and necessary, given the circumstances?
Penny Mordaunt
I do, and as well as thanking Members of this House who forwarded information to try to help address the PPE shortages, I should put on record our thanks for the incredible work of the procurement teams in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care. One criticism the National Audit Office did make was that paperwork was not done on time, but I always remember one of the people who had done an incredible job during that period saying, “I would rather be criticised for late paperwork than a nurse not having gloves.” That is what enabled us to get equipment to the frontline during an incredibly difficult time for supply chains all around the world.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am not going to comment on any of the individual issues, as that would be wholly inappropriate; I want to ask the Minister why such a long time has passed since the last register of ministerial interests was published. It is not even now an accurate list of Ministers, because so many Ministers have changed. Would it not make far more sense and be more in the interests of the public if the register were published every month, and if all the details that related to an individual Member of this House were also published in our register, so that a member of the public could simply see everything that is relevant to that individual Member?
Penny Mordaunt
We have seen all sorts of innovations over the last year given what technology now enables, and the hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible suggestion. It is for Lord Geidt to take these matters forward, and I am sure he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Given that the NAO has found “no evidence” that Ministers were involved in any decisions around emergency PPE procurement, does my right hon. Friend agree that throwing unsubstantiated mud like this for party political advantage damages not just the Government but our political processes and is deeply irresponsible?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend—and it also damages business. Without the efforts of the private sector, whether it be pharma companies or production lines changing to produce what the country needs, we would have been in a really sorry state. Let us be frank, part of this agenda is to discredit the private sector.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
If the Prime Minister does not respect the ministerial code how can he be expected to judge the behaviour of other Ministers who may have breached it?
Penny Mordaunt
The Prime Minister does respect the ministerial code and he is the arbiter of it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
MPs make mistakes from time to time and when that is drawn to their attention they apologise and we are severely admonished for them, but it is extraordinary that the new register of ministerial interests has not been published yet, and when Ministers start to double down and reports are not published, people start to wonder what the Government have to hide. Is the Minister saying to us today that no one has breached the ministerial code of conduct and that this is all just a misunderstanding that will be sorted out when various reports are published?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman’s question again betrays what is actually taking place this afternoon. I do not know; I do not have a crystal ball to see into the future. I am in the same position as everyone else, but what I do know is that to make unsubstantiated allegations about people is quite wrong.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Members right across the House received offers of support from businesses right around the country to make a huge contribution during a time of national crisis. Is it not the case that every Member has a responsibility to forward these offers of help and that all these offers were then judged on the same basis independently by the civil service, and to undermine this national effort is actually pretty damaging for the entire country?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If there is one message I want to get across this afternoon, it is that if we are ever again in the situation that we found ourselves in last year, I would urge British business to step up as it did before. The public do not think the things that the Opposition say. They know that businesses in their communities did an incredible job, and we will stand up for them and thank them for their achievements last year to keep this nation safe.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
I do not think anyone is criticising business, but it is quite clear that we need an inquiry into lobbying, procurement, and ministerial and civil service conflicts during the covid crisis. However, experience shows that such inquiries are not effective if requests for information are ignored, so does the Minister agree that what we really need is a judge-led inquiry with the power to order production of evidence and to take evidence on oath, and with the threat of appropriate sanctions for non-compliance and for perjury or equivocation?
Penny Mordaunt
In preparing for this urgent question, I had in my pack a list of the inquiries that are going on into one aspect or another, and it ran to something like one and a half pages. My personal view is that I do not think we need any more reviews. We have the Committee on Standards, we have the House authorities, we have the Boardman review; we have all these pieces of work looking at all the issues that hon. Members have raised this afternoon. What I would like to do is focus on the matters of substance that are facing this country and ensure that we take the trust of the public with us in that respect. I would also say to the hon. and learned Lady that I am afraid that part of the agenda is to question business. That is what is going on this afternoon.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The National Audit Office found no evidence that Ministers were involved in any decisions around emergency PPE procurement—or in the procurement of ear pods at £250. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party had spent more time helping us fight the virus rather than banging on about wallpaper and the procurement of PPE, it could have gained back some trust from the British public?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is perfectly legitimate for any Member of this House to raise issues around how we hold people to account and how we scrutinise things, but he has characterised how this is being presented, and he will know from his constituents that the public take a dim view of it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Paragraph 1.3.c of the ministerial code states:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
Does that rule still apply, and does it also apply to the Prime Minister?
Penny Mordaunt
Of course it still stands; it is the ministerial code. I am sorry to say that this is another question that does not make any substantial allegations or provide any facts or evidence; it is smear and innuendo, and it is not the way to behave.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The National Audit Office found no issues with the PPE contracts. The Labour-led Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, commended the Government’s vaccine programme as world-leading. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this attempt from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has more to do with her bid for votes from the Labour membership than with any concern about public procurement?
Penny Mordaunt
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will reflect on what she has done this afternoon, and if she does have ambitions in the leadership department, I would ask her to reflect on whether what she has done today is the hallmark of a leader.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
The ministerial code states that the register of interests must be published twice a year. The latest one is five months late, so it has been 10 or 11 months since the last one was published. At the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last week, Lord Geidt told us that he was determined that a full list of Ministers’ interests would be published
“as quickly as possible…by the end of this month.”
Can the Minister confirm that all Cabinet Ministers have resubmitted their interests and give a more precise date for when the new list will be published, given that the end of the month is during parliamentary recess?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the right hon. Lord Geidt will publish the register before the end of this month. That is what he has said; I am sure that he will wish to do it in a way that is helpful to the House and that he will have heard what the hon. Lady has said. I do not know which Cabinet Minister has filled out which form; all I can tell the hon. Lady is that as a Minister of the Crown, I have certainly filled out mine, and I am sure that my colleagues have done so as well.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care for their efforts to ensure that the Cumbria local resilience forum and our North Cumbria health trust were kept stocked with PPE at the height of the pandemic, enabling them to keep my constituents in Workington safe. I remember the pressure that Ministers were under at the time and will forever be grateful for the often late-night correspondence dealing with potential issues. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that Government Ministers did everything that they could to get their skates on, as they were urged to by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and pass on all offers from businesses to help to secure vital PPE at a time of national crisis?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record the tremendous job that was done in his local patch. He is saying that credit is due to Ministers, but actually credit is due to colleagues across the House. For many months, I took a call every morning at 10 am, sometimes from hundreds of colleagues across the House. People from every single political party put forward offers of help for PPE and all sorts of things that the health service needed. That is part of our job, and people made a huge difference to the effort by doing it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I wrote on 25 March to the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, about the No. 10 refurbishment. I asked 24 questions on potential breaches of the ministerial code. Two months on, I have still not received an answer. Is this an admin error or do the Government have something to hide? People in Luton North and across the country deserve answers, especially when they are struggling to keep a roof over their head, never mind defending a luxury refurb. Will the Paymaster General please ask her colleague the Cabinet Secretary to respond to those questions?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will respond to the hon. Lady. He takes his responsibilities very seriously. The problem is that the matter is now the subject of a review—it is a subject for someone else to look at. I think, in all honesty, that there is nothing I or the Prime Minister could say at the Dispatch Box that will satisfy people until someone independent says it. I have to say, again, that this is a sideshow. I very much encourage the hon. Lady to return to the matters of substance, which I am sure are the issues that her constituents care about.
Mr Speaker
I will just say for the record that I expect MPs’ letters to be answered. MPs on all sides have a job to do, and they can only be helped by early answers to their correspondence.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Over the past few weeks, I knocked on hundreds and hundreds of doors in my constituency during the local elections, and not a single constituent mentioned the wallpaper of the Prime Minister or his holidays. What they were concerned about was welcoming the implementation of Brexit, how the Government were handling covid and the success of the vaccination programme. Does the Paymaster General agree that unless the Labour party gets its act together and starts listening to the people and their concerns, it will remain the Opposition party?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree; I had a similar experience on the doorstep during the recent campaign. That is not to say that the public do not care about standards in public life and accountability. They do care about those things; they just recognise this for what it is, which is a load of flannel.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
The first part of this urgent question is about enforcement of the ministerial code. I have heard a great deal about reviews and recommendations, codified guidelines and inquiries—maybe too many inquiries or the wrong inquiries. I am not besmirching anybody here and I am not alleging anything, but if somebody in the Cabinet Office has broken the ministerial code, what is there to enforce their taking the right action and resigning from their position?
Penny Mordaunt
Ultimately, that is one of the responsibilities of the Prime Minister. It is because of the unique status of a Minister—that they are not an employee—that that exists. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
My constituents care about scrutiny, transparency and standards in public life. Will the Minister reassure the people of Anglesey that all offers to supply PPE were assessed by independent civil servants using a rigorous eight-stage process to ensure that any contracts awarded delivered not only high-quality supplies, but value for taxpayers’ money?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is, I think, a perception that if a business flagged their offer to a Member of Parliament or a Minister they somehow bypassed the system. They did not. They still went through those eight rigorous checks and the National Audit Office has confirmed that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I have a high regard for the Minister, but I am afraid I struggle with her explanation on this issue. On 22 February, inadvertently or not, the Prime Minister made a misleading statement to the House regarding PPE contracts. He stated that they were all published. They were not. That is based on a High Court ruling and is irrefutable. His lack of apology and correction of the record is clearly a breach of the ministerial code. That this happens with seeming impunity—
Mr Speaker
Order. A criticism is only on the substantive motion. This cannot be used. It has already been tried earlier. The rules of the House must be obeyed. I know it is not what Members want to hear, but I am in charge of ensuring that the rules are kept to. Unfortunately, we cannot continue with that question.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
We all know that Government procurement is a long, clunky and expensive process. It was therefore of clear national importance for the Government to fast-track some procurement decisions, particularly in relation to PPE, to protect people and keep people safe. Does the Minister agree that the recent elections in Teesside, where we gained a new Member of Parliament and a landslide for the Tees Valley Mayor, show that the public support our decisive decision making over the Labour party’s political point scoring?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The British public want us to focus on the issues that matter to them. They want us to recover quickly, both economically and in dealing with the backlog of issues we have in education and healthcare. They want us to get on and deliver. What they do not want is this Punch and Judy politics. They are tired of that. They want some delivery. They want some competence. That is why they are electing Conservatives across the country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Government face a slew of allegations over contracts for mates, lobbying, conflicts of interest and influence. Does the Minister think now is the time to exempt a new Government agency, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, with £800 million of public money from existing procurement and freedom of information rules? When faced with sleaze, surely the response is to stop the sleaze, not the scrutiny?
Penny Mordaunt
Sadly, again more smear. It seems that anyone who was awarded a contract for PPE or anything else is a Tory mate, even when they turn out to be a Labour party donor.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to her place—or to one of her many places, I should say—but I cannot really welcome the tone of her questions. I am surprised that she is continuing with these unsubstantiated allegations. Perhaps in all the excitement of the reshuffle and the announcement of her shadow Cabinet, she has forgotten that the elections have already taken place—or perhaps she has another election on her mind. Is not the truth of the matter that since 2010 this Government have strengthened the ministerial code, strengthened the requirements around the publication of Minister’s interests, and introduced the requirement to publish all Government contracts over £25,000? The record of the Governments in the past decade has been to massively increase public scrutiny and transparency.
Penny Mordaunt
That is absolutely correct, and I could add to the list the things that we have also done to increase transparency and accountability at a local government level, which we know was an area that needed to be looked at.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
The Minister has been deflecting from the fact that whether she likes it or not, there have been breaches of the ministerial code. Does she believe that simply trying to deny it or attacking anyone who tries to raise the issue is a satisfactory response to her earlier assertion that the public care about transparency and scrutiny?
Penny Mordaunt
I have said several times this afternoon that the public do care about that and they are right to do so. We should be here to answer questions about those issues. What I am not going to put up with is decent colleagues, decent businesses and members of the public being smeared by innuendo. I think that I have made my views very clear on that, and I hope that Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—and I do wish her well—reflect on that.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
10-point Plan: Six Months On
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Last November, the Prime Minister announced a radical and ambitious response to the economic impact of covid-19. This was, of course, the UK’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. Its aim is to build back better, to use our recovery to level up the country, to scale up new industries and to support jobs throughout the United Kingdom as we accelerate on our path to net zero by 2050.
Six months on, I am pleased to inform the House that we are already seeing this ambition being delivered on. The 10-point plan is projected to create and support up to 250,000 jobs, and mobilise £12 billion of Government investment and up to three times as much from the private sector by 2030. We are investing in the UK’s most important asset—our workforce—to ensure that our people have the right skills to deliver the low-carbon transition and thrive in the high-value jobs this will create. This is the case for the engineers and construction workers who will build the new offshore wind farms and nuclear plants to provide clean power to our homes, to the retrofitters who will make homes more comfortable and efficient. This work of course builds on the strong progress we have already made as a country in decarbonising our economy. Last year, we hit over two months of coal- free electricity generation, which is the longest streak since the industrial revolution. Two weeks ago, we broke a new wind power record, with both onshore and offshore wind turbines generating 48.5% of the electricity in Great Britain. The plan is projected to reduce UK emissions by 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2023 and 2032. I am sure Members are aware that that is equal to taking all of today’s cars off the road for about two years.
Since the 10-point plan’s publication, we have enshrined the UK’s sixth carbon budget in law, proposing in that a target that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. That is an enormous commitment, but one that we are working extremely hard—flat out, indeed—to achieve. Our Energy White Paper has set out a comprehensive, strategic vision for the transformation of the energy system consistent with delivering net zero emissions by 2050. We have also launched our new, ambitious UK emissions trading scheme, for consultation later this year.
On offshore wind, we have confirmed up to £95 million of Government investment for two new offshore wind ports: Able Marine Energy Park—AMEP—on the south bank of the River Humber, which will receive up to £75 million of government investment; and Teesworks offshore manufacturing centre, on the River Tees, which will receive up to £20 million. Those investments have already been endorsed by business. Since the launch of the 10-point plan, we have seen a 501% increase in British businesses signing up for the UN’s Race to Zero initiative. Rolls-Royce is working on the world’s largest jet engine, which will cut aviation emissions, as part of its £500 million UltraFan engine project. Jaguar Land Rover has announced plans to be all-electric from 2025, with Ford, Bentley, Volvo and Nissan stating that they will do this from 2030. Just today, GE Renewable Energy has announced that it expects to create up to 470 green jobs to support the delivery and operation of all three phases of the Dogger Bank wind farm, the world’s largest offshore wind farm, located off the north-east coast. The impressive growth of the offshore wind sector presents a great example of how delivering net zero will help us level up across the UK. It also demonstrates the confidence that international investors have in our contracts for difference approach and the immense confidence employers have in our people, particularly those in the north-east, where so much of this infrastructure is being deployed.
However, this is not just about energy; each of us has a contribution to make. We are helping businesses and people to go greener every day, by delivering on our commitment to greener business, buildings and transport. In March, we published the UK’s industrial decarbonisation strategy, the first strategy of its kind from any major economy in the world. It sets out clearly how industry can meaningfully decarbonise, remaining competitive and reducing emissions, instead of simply offshoring our industries and pushing emissions abroad.
To that end, the industrial energy transformation fund has already allocated nearly £300 million to 39 projects to help industry transition to a low-carbon future. This month we began the process for deciding the first carbon capture cluster locations in our industrial heartlands, which will be operational by the mid-2020s, with another two set to be created by 2030. All of this increased investment totals £1 billion, helping to support 50,000 jobs, potentially, in areas such as the Humber, the north-east and the north-west, and in Scotland and Wales. We are providing £1 billion of funding to phase 1 of the public sector decarbonisation scheme, which will support up to 30,000 jobs. These jobs will be in building services, engineering and design, low-carbon heating, installation of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures.
The 10-point plan is our commitment on meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Further strategies for sectors of the economy will be set out over the next year. This will include publication of our heat and building strategy, ahead of COP26, to set out our long-term approach to reducing emissions from all buildings in this country. It also includes our hydrogen strategy, which is backed by a £240 million net zero hydrogen fund investment, to support—I stress this point—both green hydrogen produced by electrolysers, and blue hydrogen enabled by carbon capture and storage.
We have also committed a further £20 million to increase the number of on-street charge points for electric vehicles. We will provide £50 million to help people and businesses install these charge points. We will also publish our transport decarbonisation plan as soon as possible, setting out an ambitious pathway to end UK transport’s carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is fully engaged and committed to publishing that.
The impact of those commitments can already be seen. As of March 2021, battery electric vehicle sales stand at 7.7% of the market, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle sales are 6.1%, which is a huge increase of 88% and 152% respectively from only a year ago. Our acceleration towards low-emission vehicles will not only contribute to cutting our carbon emissions, but strengthen British industry through supporting up to 40,000 jobs by 2020.
All these policies and initiatives are coming together and will be set out in our net zero strategy in the autumn. The strategy will build on the 10-point plan, and it will make the most of new growth and employment opportunities across the UK as we build back better and greener from covid-19.
It will not have escaped hon. Members’ notice that we will be hosting COP26 towards the end of the year, and what we are doing now is setting the scene for that historic event. In that context, our ambition and our leadership are absolutely crucial. The 10-point plan demonstrates our commitment not only to the green recovery, but to the kind of leadership that we want to show in this vitally important year. All these actions bring us a step closer to net zero by 2050, meeting this planet’s greatest threat with ambition and innovation, which is absolutely necessary if we are to hit our goals. I believe passionately and sincerely that a new era of green jobs through Britain’s green industrial revolution has been inaugurated. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The climate crisis is the single greatest long-term challenge we face. As Secretary of State, I was proud to pass the world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 with cross-party support. In that spirit, although we believe that the UK should be going further and faster, we also recognise that our targets for 2030 and 2035 are ambitious by international standards. But the Secretary of State’s central challenge is whether targets are matched by the scale of action required in this decisive decade, and once again, his statement showed that the Government are very good at self-congratulation but perhaps less good at self-awareness. The evidence is that there is a wide gap between rhetoric and reality. Crucial areas are not being dealt with, and the scale of finance is not being delivered, leading us to be off track on our targets.
Let us take a few key issues. The first is buildings, a crucial part of decarbonisation. Last year, the green homes grant—remember that?—was the flagship measure, which the Secretary of State said would
“pave the way for the UK’s green homes revolution.”
Now it is the policy that dared not speak its name in the Business Secretary’s statement, and no wonder—it has been a complete fiasco, with contractors not paid, installers forced to make lay-offs and homeowners unable to get grants. As importantly, when the scheme failed, more than £1 billion was not reallocated but simply cut from the budget. We desperately need a comprehensive plan for the massive task of retrofitting and changing the way we heat millions of homes, with the finance to back it up. It is a big task. The heat and building strategy was supposed to be published last year but has been delayed and delayed. Can the Secretary of State promise that when it is published, it will finally contain the plan and the finance we need?
Next, let us turn to electric vehicles. Again, we were supposed to see the transport decarbonisation strategy last year. Today, the Secretary of State did not even give a date for publication, so perhaps he can tell us in his reply when we will see it. We support the 2030 phase-out date, but the Climate Change Committee says—this is really important—that we will need 48% of the cars sold in the UK to be EVs by 2025, in just four years’ time. Despite the recent progress that he talked about, we are way off that, at less than 15%. We are not financing gigafactories, on which there is a global race. Our charging infrastructure remains inadequate, and the Government have actually cut the plug-in grant. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government are not investing enough to make the EV revolution happen in the way that is necessary for our car industry’s future and consumers?
On offshore wind, we should be proud of our world leadership on generation, and I welcome today’s jobs announcement, but according to RenewableUK, only 29% of capital investment in recent projects has been in the UK. Can the Secretary of State tell us when the Government will finally deliver on their pledge for 60% of the content of our offshore wind to be domestic?
On manufacturing, there was no mention of steel in the statement, which seems a surprising omission, given how crucial it is to our country, our steel communities and the green transition. A clean steel fund of £250 million announced two years ago and only to be delivered in two years’ time is, I am afraid, wholly inadequate. The Secretary of State knows it, his Back Benchers know it and our steel industry knows it. Will he acknowledge that, and what is he going to do about it?
On hydrogen, we are investing hundreds of millions, which is welcome, but it is against billions being invested by others. On aerospace, the Jet Zero Council is all very well, but jobs have been lost in aerospace during this crisis, as the Secretary of State knows, and our investment again fails to measure up internationally.
Here is the worry I have about the scale of investment. The Secretary of State talks about investment over the decade of tens of billions, public and private, but everyone from PwC to the CCC says that we need that investment not over a decade but each and every year to get on track for our targets. In that context, the Treasury’s crucial net zero review was due in autumn 2020, and now it has been promised for spring 2021. Well, we are in spring 2021. Can he tell us when it will finally see the light of day? It is a crucial piece of work.
All this means that we are way off meeting our fifth and sixth carbon budgets. Green Alliance estimates that policies announced will only lead to 26% of the reductions necessary to get the UK on track for 2030. Can the Secretary of State tell us how far off track he thinks we are for our fifth and sixth carbon budgets?
The climate emergency is a massive challenge for our country—the biggest long-term challenge we face. There is also a massive opportunity for our country, with our amazing scientists, our brilliant workforce and our world-leading businesses. But to make that future happen, we need a Government with the aspiration and commitment that matches the ingenuity and aspiration of the British people. Instead of a piecemeal 10-point plan, we need a comprehensive green new deal with the scale of investment and commitment that meets the moment and the emergency. I am afraid that I do not believe the Government’s record measures up to the scale of the challenge we face. We will hold them to account on behalf of the country.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. The heat and buildings strategy was always due in 2021; I know that because I commissioned it when I was the Energy Minister. I hope it will be published shortly. We also have a hydrogen strategy. He mentioned that our £240 million hydrogen fund was little compared to other countries, but private sector investment has been very successful in the deployment of offshore wind. The reason we have a commanding position—the No. 1 position—in offshore wind deployment is not because of the Government writing cheques; it is because the Government created incentives for the private sector to invest. That will be exactly the way in which we will scale up the hydrogen economy.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned offshore wind and the UK content of the supply chain. We are absolutely focused on that; we potentially have an auction round 4 at the end of this year, and I am committed to increasing—in fact, we have policies to increase—the level of UK content in offshore wind. The GE Renewable Energy announcement in Teesside only a couple of months ago, in which it committed £142 million, is exactly the kind of investment and commitment to the UK supply chain that we want to see.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Point 4 of the 10-point plan refers to the need for large-scale battery factories for electric vehicles—sometimes called gigafactories. They need to be up and running within five years, so will the Secretary of State update the House as to where we are in securing them? Will he also comment on the state of discussions about the future of Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port, with its ambitions to build electric vehicles there?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend mentions gigafactories and the opportunities that they represent. There are conversations as we speak between people who are making batteries and the car makers; clearly, the dynamic between the auto manufacturers and the people who will be making the batteries is an important one. I hope to make a positive announcement about that soon. In relation to Ellesmere Port, there are very positive discussions with Stellantis. I am very much engaged with this matter, and we are particularly hopeful that we can make some movement in the summer on this too.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I welcome the statement in so far as it goes, but there is need for further clarity. Hydrogen has been mentioned on a couple of occasions. When exactly does the Secretary of State expect the hydrogen strategy to come forward, and how does he expect the business models to operate in practice?
We have concerns not just about hydrogen and the delays in that regard, but in relation to carbon capture and underground storage. The House will be cognisant of the fact that in 2017 the Government pulled the plug on £1 billion-worth of investment in Peterhead. We know that there are plans to have two clusters in place by the mid-2020s. One of those clusters has to be in the north-east of Scotland, linking the north-east of Scotland with Grangemouth, because of course Scotland has contributed more than £350 billion in oil and gas revenues to the UK Treasury. There can be no just or fair transition if the communities that I represent and others in Grangemouth are left behind.
My final point is in relation to an issue that appears to have escaped the notice of the Secretary of State in his statement, and that is transmission charges. He will be aware that our renewables project in Scotland must pay to access the grid, whereas the renewables project in the south-east of England gets paid to access the very same grid. I see that the Energy Minister is in her place. That is important because she wrote to me on 12 April and said:
“On the specific question of grid charging arrangements, it is important to note that this is a matter for Ofgem as the independent regulator.”
However, as the Minister knows only too well, Ofgem’s strategy and policy is determined by the UK Government. Indeed, the Government’s own energy White Paper states, on page 86:
“We will set out our vision for energy as a guide to Ofgem, by consulting in 2021 on a Strategy and Policy Statement for the regulator.”
When will that consultation begin and when will this Government stop holding back Scotland’s renewables potential?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman raised three issues. The hydrogen strategy should be coming out in the summer. It is a twin-track strategy, as I described it as Energy Minister. We are committed to the production of both green, electrolyser-produced hydrogen and blue hydrogen, which comes from carbon capture.
That leads me to the hon. Gentleman’s second point. He will know that there are a number of attractive sites for carbon capture here in the UK. We have set out our road map for two clusters by 2025 and two more by 2030, and we are in the process of deciding how to proceed on that. He can rest assured that Acorn is a very attractive project; it is something that I have looked at, and I am sure we will have some more information on that.
On offshore transmission charges, the hon. Gentleman knows that this has been an issue for a long time. I committed to looking at it as Energy Minister, and we will have a consultation on that. He must also appreciate that the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), is absolutely right: this is ultimately a matter for Ofgem, which, as he knows, is an independent regulator.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I too particularly look forward to the publication of the transport decarbonisation plan. In west Cornwall, we are working up a plan to bring the towns of St Ives, Penzance and Hayle together in a low-carbon transport plan, bringing together the railway, the roads and multi-use off-road tracks. Will the Secretary of State look at how he can help us to achieve that? Also, if it so happens that he is down in my neck of the woods in a month’s time for the summit, maybe he could meet us to hear about our ambitious plans to provide low-carbon transport for all people living in west Cornwall.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that I would be happy to meet him in Cornwall at any time of his choosing, provided, of course, that it fits in with my diary commitments. I am fully aware of the transport decarbonisation plan being absolutely crucial to his constituents—
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman asks when. Unfortunately, wide though BEIS’s purview and authority are, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will have a more accurate perspective on when that strategy will be published.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that how we heat our homes and insulate our buildings is an urgent issue that will affect every house across the entire country. He told the Select Committee a few weeks ago that the heat and building strategy would arrive at the end of Q2. Unless I have misunderstood, that is not before COP26; it is around now. Can he update the House as to why it has been delayed once again?
Kwasi Kwarteng
When I was Energy Minister, I wanted it to appear in the first quarter and I think I made public commitments to that. The hon. Gentleman will understand that many of the issues have been discussed across Government, and I am very confident that the heat and building strategy will be published soon. I cannot, however, give him a firm cast-iron date on this.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I welcome the focus on electric vehicles in the 10-point plan and the £1.3 billion investment in accelerating the roll-out of the grid infrastructure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a comprehensive network of ultra-rapid charging points in order to accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles and to get rid of a lot of the range anxiety?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When MPs talk to their constituents, we hear them talk about range anxiety, and it is critical that we have the right charging infrastructure to drive forward the EV roll-out. We have committed public funds to this, but I am very happy to discuss with her, as it is obviously critically important. I feel that we are in a good place, but I would be very interested to hear her ideas.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The 10-point plan announced 50,000 new jobs in energy efficiency, which may or may not have been in addition to the 80,000 new jobs that were due to be created by the green homes grant announced last summer in the Government’s plan for jobs. My repeated written questions to the Department to clarify whether those 50,000 jobs are in addition to the 80,000 have not yet elicited a clear answer, so could the Secretary of State tell me how many jobs in energy efficiency have been created so far, and what plans are in place to create more, now that the green homes grant has been scrapped with no plan to replace it?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The 50,000 jobs related to the green homes grant. The hon. Lady will know that there were three elements to the green homes grant. One related to the decarbonisation of public sector buildings. That was £1 billion deployed through Salix. That has gone extremely well. Of the remaining £2 billion, £500 million was to be disbursed by local authorities for council housing, social housing and people who are vulnerable. That programme is going very well. What has been rejigged has been the half that related to owner-occupied buildings. It was a short-term stimulus plan that was due to run out in March this year, and we are looking at a replacement scheme.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I welcome the ambitious plans that my right hon. Friend has set out to clean up our energy system and support green British jobs as we work to end the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2050. However, can he confirm that he will prioritise keeping bills affordable, particularly for lower-income households in Stoke-on-Trent, as we transition towards net zero?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will know that this is a critical point. There is always a balance between trying to decarbonise and making sure that energy bills are low to protect people. That is why we have a warm homes discount, which has worked very effectively. We have deployed money, and committed to that in the manifesto, with a home upgrade grant of about £2.5 billion. We are always looking at schemes not only to decarbonise, but to keep the costs low for those who are most vulnerable.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One could be forgiven for thinking that COP26 is approaching and the Government need to make some headline announcements. What is missing in the Secretary of State’s statement today is a clear set of metrics against which this House, this country and the world can measure the Government. Will he take on board the thoughtful recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, which said that he should report properly to this House with clear targets and metrics which we can hold him to? I know that he is a man of intelligence, and a man who is committed to this; if he is that committed, will he open up that scrutiny so that we can really hold the Government properly to account?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Let me declare an interest: I served under the hon. Lady’s chairmanship on the Public Accounts Committee and I am very grateful for the time that I spent on the Committee. Of course, I will treat the Committee with the respect and courtesy that are due it. I look forward, as do my officials, to being asked about any of the Government’s programmes in respect of the net zero agenda.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I welcome the commitment in the 10-point plan to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but we have very few electric vehicle charging points in Southend and many parking restrictions. We would very much like to see them on new builds and in people’s driveways. With petrol and diesel cars being banned by 2030, will my right hon. Friend please help us to get more of these charging points in Southend before we become a city?
Kwasi Kwarteng
That begs the question, when will Southend become a city? Leaving that to one side, of course I will help my hon. Friend achieve those goals. The electric charging point roll-out is perhaps the most important metric—the most important thing to do— in order to achieve our goals with respect to electric vehicles.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Following on from the question of the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), there were some positive comments from the chief executive of Stellantis yesterday to the effect that things were moving in the right direction but we were not quite there yet. May I take this opportunity to remind the Secretary of State that Cheshire West and Chester Council and the local enterprise partnership have been working very closely with the civil servants over the past few months to make sure that the right deal is in place. They stand ready to do anything else they can to get this thing over the line, which is what we all want to see.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am conscious of the work that the hon. Gentleman has done, as he put it, to get this over the line. I was gratified to see Mr Tavares’ comments yesterday and I think that we are in a reasonable place. We obviously need to work very hard together to get it over the line, but the situation in Ellesmere Port is moving in a positive direction.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank and welcome everything that the Secretary of State has said today. May I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in extolling the virtues and benefits of the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland—of course headquartered in Banchory in my constituency—as being essential to our drive towards net zero? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, if his Department were to choose this project, it, along with the energy transition deal, would demonstrate again to the people in the north-east of Scotland the value of remaining a part of our United Kingdom?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to see this degree of cross-party fraternity on that. All I would say is that the Acorn project has a lot to recommend it.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
The Government talk of a green industrial revolution, but surely they should be working through the concept of a green new deal bringing together attacking climate change and addressing social justice and job creation. On job creation specifically, how do the Government come to the figure of a quarter of a million new jobs by 2030, as many non-governmental organisations and think-tanks believe that the Government could be creating closer to 1 million jobs over the decade with the right policies of investment, with areas such as Northern Ireland achieving 50,000 more new jobs?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Of course, the number of jobs depends on the definitions that you use. The 250,000 number specifically relates to the measures in the 10-point plan. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, as he has been in the House for a while now, that as Energy Minister I always used to say that we have about 400,000 so-called green-collar jobs today and our target was for 2 million by 2030. That is a much wider range of jobs than those specifically created by the 10-point plan, and that is where there is a discrepancy in the numbers.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
There is a lot of older housing stock in my constituency and I therefore fully support the Government’s aims to make our homes warmer and greener. I appreciate that there are issues with the green homes grant scheme, but will the Secretary of State commit to boosting investment in energy efficiency measures in our homes, because that will not only be good for the planet and good for residents in helping to reduce bills, but create tens of thousands of quality green jobs?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s points. He and I stood on a manifesto in 2019 that expressly committed us to spending £9.2 billion over 10 years on exactly the kinds of measures that he mentioned. That is something that I am very focused on.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Thousands of my constituents work in the nuclear sector, which only this week has seen students from Warrington University Technical College beginning prestigious degree apprenticeships at Sellafield in Warrington—proof that the sector is a vital partner in the skills and levelling-up agendas, meeting our decarbonisation goals and creating high-quality green jobs. The Government have rightly concluded that we need much more nuclear power in the mix to reach net zero. However, under their watch, three large-scale nuclear projects have been abandoned due to the lack of a financing mechanism, which the Government claim to have been working on for four years. Why is nuclear financing more complicated than nuclear science?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not think it is. The hon. Lady will remember that the third of the Prime Minister’s 10 points was expressly committed to nuclear power. I was very pleased, as Energy Minister, to visit the nuclear college at Hinkley Point. I am sorry that I did not manage to go to Sellafield. We are completely committed to this, and we will bring forward in this Parliament legislation that will further commit us to creating more nuclear power in this country.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The 10-point plan recognises the immense value of local jobs in offshore wind production—something that my constituents are anticipating as Barrow and Furness is the home of the second-largest wind farm in the world. However, wind is not the only crucial renewable energy source in Cumbria: nuclear is hugely important and, as the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, we are reliant on it. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend update the House on the financing policy that sits behind this to enable these jobs to be created?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will realise that sensitive discussions are being held all the time, but I refer him back to my answer to the previous question. The third point of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan was all about nuclear power. It said explicitly that we are committed to having a decision on a plant before the end of the Parliament. We are in conversations with operators and developers—very fruitful conversations, I might add—to bring that about, and we have an ongoing commitment to increasing, not decreasing, capacity in nuclear power.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that wide-scale housing insulation is key to bringing down household emissions? If so, can he explain what possible rationale he had for axing the green homes grant scheme? Will he take this opportunity to publicly apologise to the businesses affected by the shambolic delivery of the green homes grant schemes, including those businesses that his Department failed to pay for the work that was carried out under the scheme in good faith, some of whom were reportedly forced to make staff redundant?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The accusation that BEIS somehow did not pay people who worked on the scheme is a very serious one and I need to investigate it. I do not think that was the case but, as I said, I will investigate.
As I have mentioned, the green homes grant was composed of three elements. One was the decarbonisation of public sector buildings through Salix, the public finance body, and another relied on local authorities to distribute funds to enhance social housing and decarbonise those buildings. Both those elements were successful. The other element related to owner-occupiers. It was a short-term scheme that was always designed to end at the end of March, which it did, and we are looking to develop a replacement.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
Falmouth boasts the deepest natural harbour in western Europe and it is well placed to play a leading role in the UK’s ambition to deploy a gigawatt of FLOW—floating offshore wind—capacity by 2030. FLOW deployment in the Celtic sea alone could create more than 3,000 jobs. Local universities and the private sector have come together to accelerate deployment with a Strength in Places fund application. Will the Secretary of State visit the port of Falmouth with me—perhaps while he is in Cornwall next month—to see the exciting plans for ensuring that Cornwall is at the heart of this emerging sector?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not sure which is coming first—St Ives or Falmouth—but I am sure that arrangements can be made for such a visit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he please outline how the intended £12 billion of Government investment—with potentially three times as much from the private sector—to create and support 250,000 green jobs will be distributed throughout the United Kingdom? In particular, what will happen in Northern Ireland, which currently seems to be increasingly outside of the UK plan but has the potential to play a tremendous role—for example, at Harland & Wolff in Belfast and, indeed, other booming sites of industry throughout Northern Ireland—in achieving our industrial revolution?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has brought that question up. He will know that I speak regularly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), about investment in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to net zero. The hon. Gentleman will know about the offshore wind opportunities in Northern Ireland, I am particularly excited about the opportunities for hydrogen, and he will also know about the operation of Wrightbus and its efforts to bring hydrogen into the transportation system. There are exciting opportunities for Northern Ireland in relation to the net zero 10-point plan and I would be happy to discuss them with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about the paper he is going to produce this year on heating buildings and about point 2 of the plan, on the hydrogen strategy. Will he make sure that the plan properly recognises that significant numbers of homes, including in my constituency of Forest of Dean, are not on the gas grid, and that we need solutions that work for the people who live in them so that they can have what they want, which is greener heating for their homes that is affordable and deliverable on the necessary timescale?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend will know that in the United Kingdom we have an extremely diverse range of buildings and dwellings, which means that a one-size-fits-all policy just does not work for energy in the UK. There are lots of ways in which we can decarbonise buildings, which is exactly what will be spelled out in the heat and building strategy and—to a lesser degree, but more focused on hydrogen—in the hydrogen strategy. I would be happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend what we are doing to ensure that his constituents who are off the grid can get cheap, affordable green energy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to the 20 questions. I wish him well for his extensive tour of Cornwall.
Debate on the Address
Affordable and Safe Housing for All
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 358 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (h) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to prevent the potentially ruinous costs of remediation works to make buildings safe being passed on to leaseholders and tenants; and call on the Government to set a deadline of June 2022 to make all homes safe.”
I am pleased to open the debate for the Opposition today. I look forward to shadowing the Secretary of State on housing. Although he and I may have different outlooks, I hope we can make positive progress together on the key issues, particularly the cladding scandal. I want to put on the record my thanks to and admiration for my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who will shine even brighter in her new role as shadow Leader of the House.
If this year has taught us anything, it is the importance of home. The stay at home order put that sharply into focus. For those of us in stable, warm, comfortable homes, with room to work and live, lockdown has been difficult in many ways, but we have not battled daily. For those renters sharing a home, for those living in damp and overcrowded housing or in unsafe, unsellable blocks covered in flammable cladding, or for those without a home, living in temporary accommodation or on the streets, and for those in insecure work or those missing out on support schemes with mounting rent arrears, “Stay at home,” has felt like a prison sentence.
Ministers have taken some welcome action, such as the moratorium on evictions, but alongside housing charities I am deeply concerned that the rolling back of those protections will now lead to a wave of homelessness. The Secretary of State promised that no one would lose their home because of coronavirus. He must now come forward with a comprehensive plan that achieves that. The pandemic has massively exposed the deep inequalities in our society. If now is not the time to bring the country together with a shared mission of decent, affordable homes for all, like the mission arising out of the second world war, when is?
Housing is a fundamental human right. Everything else—getting the kids to school, going to work, health and mental health, and holding down a job—flows from having security in your home. Yet far from the “Housing First” mission being at the heart of our response to build back better, the Government’s approach has all the hallmarks of the past eleven years of failure and their belief that the market knows best, and if they cut perceived red tape and pump prime the market even more, that will work. Well, it will not, and we have the last eleven years of that failed approach to prove it. Rough sleeping—doubled. House prices—up 50%. Home ownership down, new social house building down 80%, and 230,000 fewer council houses. Now, more people are living in expensive, poor-quality private rented housing, subsidised by a soaring housing benefit bill.
This Queen’s Speech doubles down on the Government’s failed ideology. It lays bare whose side they are on. Developers will have watched in glee—the planning Bill is a developer’s charter, with everything they could have wanted to maximise their profits off the back of communities and first-time buyers. We want more affordable home ownership in all parts of the country, but this approach will not deliver it. The issue is not whether developers are getting planning permission; they are. It is that they are not then building. Meanwhile, this Queen’s Speech says nothing on homelessness; nothing for renters living in overpriced, poor-quality homes, thousands of whom are on the brink of eviction; nothing on the social housing Bill promised after Grenfell; nothing for those stuck on council waiting lists because right-to-buy properties are not being replaced; and nothing to address the climate emergency after the Government’s flagship Green Homes grant was dropped. Those gaping holes speak volumes: millionaire developer donor mates dealt a winning hand; renters, leaseholders, first-time buyers and local communities dealt a busted flush. Far from a national mission to put homes for all first, we have more of the same.
Nothing illustrates that better than the building safety crisis—a crisis that now goes way beyond Grenfell-style cladding and has broken the market in flats across the country. Without serious intervention, the nightmare will continue for leaseholders and tenants for years to come. The fire in east London two weeks ago should have been a wake-up call—if the Secretary of State needed another—to tell him that his hands-off approach just is not working. Thankfully there were no fatalities, but it could have been much worse. The block was covered in the exact same cladding that caused the Grenfell disaster. What is more, residents tell me that the balconies contributed to the fire spreading, the waking watch failed to reach everyone and there was no plan for the evacuation of vulnerable residents.
Residents have been pleading with the Government to fix their block for years. New Providence Wharf was mentioned in the House of Commons at least 10 times before this fire. Even after receiving millions from the building safety fund and being put on the “name and shame” list, the developer had not even started removing the cladding by the time the fire took place. Leaving it largely to the private sector has not worked. It was never going to. We have asked, begged and pushed the Government to step in. Now must be the time to act. That is why with our amendment Labour is today asking every Member of this House to vote to enshrine a cast-iron deadline to make all homes safe.
June 2022 will be five years since the Grenfell disaster. Nobody should pass that milestone living in an unsafe block. I believe the Secretary of State when he says that he wants to do the right thing, but we need much more urgency. We need leadership. We need sustained and concerted action from the Government to underpin the process and restore confidence. I want to work with him to get this right, and quickly. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has set out strong proposals. The Labour Front Bench has too. Let us work together across this House and sort it out.
I welcome the additional money put into the building safety fund, but the fund still has lots of problems with its scope, deadlines, application process and transparency. As ITV’s survey of leaseholders out today showed, the issue goes way beyond cladding and way beyond the current criteria. Most of the identified problems are not even covered by the fund, which is exclusively for certain types of cladding. Balconies, firebreaks, insulation and blocks under 18 metres are not covered, even if applications could be made by the very short deadline. We also need to get rid of the ludicrous “first come, first served” approach.
The building safety crisis goes well beyond funding. Without sorting out the underlying issues, just throwing money at the problem will not resolve it. The whole system, from mortgage lending to regulation, governance and risk assessment, is broken. Take the Green Quarter, which is just outside my constituency. Leaseholders and the developers were too early for the fund, so have footed the bill to remove dangerous cladding themselves. Works have now been completed, and they recently had a new risk assessment, but instead of getting the A rating that they expected for mortgages and insurers, it came back as B2, meaning that they are still trapped with further bills to pay having done all the right things.
That is why we need a national taskforce to develop a holistic approach to building safety and risk assessment, putting confidence back into the system with all the players around the table and proper regulation and guidance, driven by the Government. As has happened in Australia, the Government must also carry out a full audit of dangerous buildings, prioritise them according to risk and make it absolutely clear who pays and, crucially, who does not. Government Ministers, including the Secretary of State, have promised leaseholders that they will not be forced to pay. Yet despite the cross-party pressure, including from the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), amendments to the Fire Safety Act 2021 to enshrine that in law were rejected by the Government.
In its current form, the draft Building Safety Bill would shift responsibility for all costs on to innocent leaseholders. I will take the Secretary of State at his word, and I expect that clauses 88 and 89 will not be included when the Bill is finally published. If he wants to give that reassurance to leaseholders watching, I will happily give way to him. If he does not want to do that, MPs will have a chance tonight to vote on our amendment to do just that. The Government say that this is a Queen’s Speech for home ownership, yet that rings very hollow for those homeowners living in tower blocks across our towns and cities.
This Queen’s Speech is a clear sign of a Government running out of steam, with low or no ambition for this country. Where we needed big, bold action and a mission of housing first, we have tinkering around the edges and a piecemeal approach that does not rise to the challenge. The Government could have given more people security of ownership, not overheated the market. They could have implemented a planning regime that creates places and builds communities, not a developers’ charter. They could have driven forward their long-delayed reforms of the private rented sector, abolishing section 21 and giving people security of tenure—a commitment that Labour reaffirms today. On the 100th anniversary of Becontree, the first and largest council estate in the UK, they could have invested in a new generation of council housing for the 21st century. They could have made homes fit for the future, with net zero standards and large-scale retrofitting creating tens of thousands of jobs. They could have kept the spirit of Everyone In and committed to ending homelessness. They could have reformed wholesale our feudal leasehold system, whereby millions of families face extortionate fees, poor service and poor contract terms, with little or no recourse. While the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill is welcome, it has to be the first step of wider reform and that cannot come soon enough. They could have done all this and more, but tellingly, they chose not to.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Lady talked a number of times about home ownership but then implied that the Government are doing nothing about it but are reducing levels of home ownership. However, does she accept that home ownership peaked in 2003 and has declined since? It is now being reversed, including through some of the policies that the Government have brought forward, such as First homes, which gives first-time buyers on lower incomes a 30% discount on market price. Will she welcome that kind of intervention?
Lucy Powell
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Home ownership, especially for younger people, is now falling as well, so he should check his figures on that. This Queen’s Speech will do nothing for home ownership. It is a developers’ charter when it comes to planning; that is not what is wrong with our planning system at all. For those who cannot afford to buy their own homes, there is absolutely nothing in this Queen’s Speech.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her Front-Bench position and I am very pleased to see her there. Just to come back to the First homes arrangement, there is no argument about encouraging young people, particularly first-time buyers, to buy their own homes. Is not the problem with First homes that it is going to take the first top slice of any funding through section 106 agreements and therefore displace an element of social and other affordable housing for rent? That is the challenge with First homes: it displaces homes for rent.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Indeed, this is not just a failure of home ownership. There has been over a decade of Tory failures on housing. We have seen home ownership decrease. We have seen rough sleeping and homelessness increase. We have seen council house waiting lists increase. We have seen the failure to deal with the Grenfell tragedy, and, in the wake of that tragedy, the failure to ensure that all homes are safe, so does my hon. Friend agree that there is a litany of failures, not just on home ownership?
Lucy Powell
I very much agree, and when I made some of those points earlier, it was met with silence from Government Members.
In conclusion, the dream of having a secure, safe and affordable home is a powerful one, and rightly so. Housing is much more than an investment or a commodity. Homes are the places we grow up in, the places we grow old in. How safe and secure they are shapes who we are—the opportunities we can take, the freedoms we have, the successes and happiness we share—but for too many in this country after 11 years of a Conservative Government that has become a pipe dream. The Government’s market-driven ethos just will not create the homes we need, and for people trapped in buildings with dangerous cladding that dream has become twisted and has become a waking nightmare. Today we can start to fix that at least, and I hope Members from all parts of the House will join me in supporting our amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that while their contributions should address the terms of the amendment, it is in order to refer also to other matters relevant to the Gracious Speech. To begin with there will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, but I suspect that may be shortened later.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As the Prime Minister has made clear, the future beyond the pandemic is not about restoring the status quo; we can and must do better, and last week’s Queen’s Speech set out our ambitious and comprehensive plan to do just that. For my Department, this means building back fairer and building back safer.
I welcome the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to the shadow Front Bench, the third shadow Housing Secretary I have debated with across the Dispatch Box since I became Secretary of State. Shortly after becoming shadow Housing Secretary, her predecessor got off to a bad start by admitting to a journalist that the Labour party had no housing policies, so I would like to congratulate the hon. Lady on a noticeable change of approach. I say that cautiously, as in her first TV interview she implied that it is now Labour party policy to oppose the building of more homes, a position that she herself has advocated for many years even in her central Manchester constituency, with all its brilliant opportunities for growth and regeneration.
We are told that the Labour party is under new management—well, at least for now—and it seems that its maxim is “Tough on homes, tough on the causes of homes”, but we are going to take a different approach. It seems from the hon. Lady’s opening remarks today that the Opposition accept there is a major problem, which is welcome: they accept that there is a generational problem that we need to come together to tackle, but it does not seem that they are yet willing to support any of the policies that will actually change and improve the status quo. We cannot wish more houses to be built; we have to make it happen, and we have to accept some of the difficult choices that are required. Despite the hon. Lady’s rhetoric today, we consider this to be an issue beyond party politics; we do want to work together, as I said when we spoke the other day, and I do welcome her appointment.
No reasonable person in this House, or indeed across the country, can credibly make the case that we should not be building more homes, because all of us in this House aspire to be or are already homeowners, and we aspire for our own children and grandchildren to be homeowners as well. The property-owning democracy is one of the foundations of this country—the belief that home ownership should be achievable for all who dream of it, and that young people, irrespective of where they are born, should be able to own the keys to their own home. For too many, this uniquely British dream has proved to be out of reach, and we face a generational divide between those who own property and those who do not. By the age of 30, those born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1965. Too many young people are being locked out of the benefits of capitalism. As we work hard to level up the country and to bridge this home ownership divide, we must do everything we can to make home ownership accessible to even more people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The scheme the Secretary of State has on the mainland here is called shared ownership. We have a similar scheme in Northern Ireland in which, with £80,000, people can go on to co-ownership. It is a really good scheme; my son is in that scheme. But the Secretary of State will be aware that house prices are going through the roof. In my constituency, in the last month alone prices have been going up by 16.7%, so what extra help can be given to first-time buyers who just want to get on the housing ladder?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and many of the policies we are pursuing are UK-wide. They include, for example, the mortgage guarantee that is enabling young people to get on the housing ladder with 95% mortgages, which will benefit his constituents as much as it will benefit mine. Through these schemes—such as the 95% mortgages, our reformed and more consumer-friendly model of shared ownership, and the Help to Buy equity loan—we are helping more people on to the ladder. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the First homes scheme will ensure that there are 30% discounts for first-time buyers, those on low incomes and key workers such as our NHS and social care workers, veterans and young police officers to get the keys to their own property.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
We all want to see more affordable homes, and we badly need them on the Isle of Wight. Why are we not doing more to free up the 1 million homes—planning applications for properties—that have been landbanked by developers? This is a massively quick win. What can we do about it?
Robert Jenrick
I will come to that point in a moment, if I may, because the good news is that the planning reform Bill does that as well. We are not divided on this issue; we are united. We want a better planning system, and we want planning applications that are granted to be built out as quickly as possible. The Bill will achieve both of those objectives.
But again, just as no reasonable person could contest the fact that we need to build more homes, no reasonable person could argue that we are going to achieve those aspirations through the demand-side interventions that this Government have been pursuing alone. However significant those are—even though we have now given the keys to the 300,000th property purchased under Help to Buy—and however beneficial those schemes are to people across the country, we also need to tackle the supply side of this challenge, and we are doing that.
Last year alone, more homes were delivered—244,000—than in any year in my lifetime. Were it not for the pandemic, more would have been delivered than at any time since Harold Macmillan stood at this Dispatch Box as Housing Secretary. To put these numbers into perspective, under the last Labour Government, in one year work began on just 95,000 homes—the lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. Behind these numbers and targets, the millions of ordinary working people trying to achieve their dream of getting on the property ladder are being frustrated.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State cites some interesting statistics, and I will cite one back at him. In the last 12 months, 80% of house sales in Cumbria have been to the second home market—for people who already have a house and are therefore depriving, in numbers, the communities they bought a home in of a full-time resident population. Does he understand the damage that does to communities such as the lakes and the dales, and what will he do to make sure the houses he builds actually end up in the hands of people who will live in them?
Robert Jenrick
I would say two things to the hon Gentleman, who makes an important point. First, my right hon Friend the Chancellor and his predecessors have brought forward tax changes so that there are further costs involved in purchasing second homes or for international buyers to enter the market. That money of course helps to fund our affordable homes programme. Secondly, I hope he will become an enthusiastic advocate of First homes, because not merely does it provide homes for first-time buyers and key workers, but it does so for people in their local area. So his constituents will be able to benefit from those homes, and then they will be locked for perpetuity to first-time buyers and key workers from his area. If he wishes to work with me on that, I would be delighted to ensure that some are brought forward as quickly as possible in his constituency.
Mr Betts
The Secretary of State mentioned Harold Macmillan. As someone who was brought up in a Macmillan home back in the 1950s—I am old enough, in case Members have not noticed—I think we then built 300,000 homes for four years. A very substantial number of those were built by the public sector. The Select Committee recently recommended that to get to 300,000 homes today we would need to build at least 90,000 in the public sector through housing associations and councils. That would cost about £10 billion a year of Government grant. We have not had a response from the Government, have we, to that proposal?
Robert Jenrick
There has been a response and I will come on to that in a moment.
We have brought forward the biggest affordable homes programme for at least 10 years—£12 billion, a very substantial sum. At the moment, there is no sign that the market is even capable of building more homes than that. If it can, I will be the first person to be knocking on the door of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor asking for more money so that we can build more affordable homes of all types. Our ambition is to build 1 million new homes over the course of this Parliament and, yes, to get to that target of 300,000 homes a year that was set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Prime Minister. She was right: we do need to build more homes.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Robert Jenrick
I will come to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Since 2010, we have delivered over half a million new affordable homes, including 365,000 affordable homes for rent, many of which—148,000—are going to social rent. The new affordable homes programme we have just brought forward has the largest contingent of social rented properties of any of its kind in recent years. Over 700,000 households, many first-time buyers, have now been able to take advantage of these schemes. We are committed to affordable homes of all tenures. That, of course, includes those that will be delivered through the £12 billion affordable homes programme, which, as well as building homes in its own right, is unlocking £38 billion- worth of private sector investment to drive affordable and market rent housing. That is the highest single funding commitment to affordable housing for at least a decade.
The truth, however, is that even those bold steps and record investment will only get us so far. To build the homes that I think we are agreed in this House we need and to level up truly, we have to face up to our generational duty and responsibility to increase the supply of homes at pace and at the volume that is required. That means taking decisive action to remove the barriers that for too long have held us back. My Department has a unique opportunity to achieve transformational change that will improve the lives of millions of people. We will be working on the most substantive reform of leasehold, property rights, building safety, renters’ rights and planning in a generation.
Kevin Hollinrake
On planning reform, as the Secretary of State knows, 30 years ago small and medium-sized enterprises built two thirds of new homes and today that figure is only 23%. The costs of planning have a disproportionate effect on small and medium-sized housebuilders. Does he believe that his reforms to the planning system will change that and improve the life of SMEs?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend touches on the litmus test for our reforms. Each and every one of our reforms must help small and medium-sized builders to prosper, so that small builders in every one of our constituencies, local entrepreneurs and the people who depend on them, from plumbers to brickies, benefit from the reforms, creating a more diverse and competitive industry. Everyone can be assured that it is in their interests that we are working day and night in my Department, not for the big volume housebuilders. They have the money to navigate the current system; they hire the best QCs and consultants; they love the current planning system. It is the little guy whose side we are on and that is why we are committed to reforming the system.
Bob Seely
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. We all agree on the principles. My worry is that by saying we have to scrap the current system, we simply create a whole host of new problems. By reforming the system and improving it, which does need to be done, we have a much better chance of the Government achieving their goals, rather than a big bang with all the unforeseen consequences.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has not seen the Bill yet. When he does, I hope he will be reassured and converted into an enthusiastic supporter of it. He and I are going to meet in the coming days, and I hope I will be able to reassure him that this is not about casting aside the good, but about reforming and building on it so that we can have the planning system we all deserve.
The principles behind our planning reform are simple. This will be good news for smaller developers, and everything that we do is designed to assist them. It will move the last paper-based system into the digital age, with interactive maps at our fingertips. It will get more local people—more than the 3% who currently engage with plan making—actively engaged and interested in what a local plan is. It will return planning to the social and moral mission that it began as, inspiring plans for the future of a local area, not simply paper-pushing and development management.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is entirely right that we support small and medium-sized builders to get houses delivered, but at one end we will need more system building—houses that are prepared in a manufacturing plant and then assembled—to get to the 300,000. What support is the Secretary of State providing for that sector, and what innovation can he tell us about?
Robert Jenrick
That is an extremely important point. Through our home building fund, we are investing in a number of ways in the emerging modern methods of construction industry, which I know my hon. Friend has championed for some time. We have been supporting new entrants into that market, including from overseas so that we internationalise the market; for example, Sekisui, the leading Japanese manufacturer, has now come to the UK. Our affordable homes programme makes a commitment that, in time, a quarter of all affordable homes in this country will be built to modern methods of construction, which helps to create the pipeline for investors to come into that sector.
The other thing that the Bill will do is empower local people to set standards for beauty and design in their area through design codes that developers will have to abide by, putting beauty at the heart of our planning system for the first time, and embedding the work of the late Sir Roger Scruton and everyone who was involved in the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission in the planning system as a matter of law. There will also be a greater emphasis on better outcomes, rather than simply on process, to protect and enhance the environment. We will ensure that biodiversity net gain is met, we will ensure that all streets are lined with trees, and we will deliver on net zero homes as a matter of national priority.
This is also, remember, the Bill that delivers the planning changes that we need to build the 48 hospitals and the schools that we need, and to ensure that we protect heritage and statues from those who would seek to tear them down. It provides the planning framework for our eight new freeports, and it ensures new powers and opportunities for the regeneration of high streets, town centres and brownfield land, which of course has never been needed more.
Robert Jenrick
Appropriately, I will come to my hon. Friend at this point.
Jo Gideon
As my right hon. Friend will know, Stoke-on-Trent City Council is rightly proud of its record; we build 97% of all new homes on brownfield sites. The latest data shows that the house building sector has bounced back after being temporarily shut down last year. Does he agree that the measures announced in the Queen’s Speech will continue to prioritise building on brownfield land so that we can protect our green fields?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Stoke-on-Trent is exactly the sort of place that is building the homes that the local community needs. It is meeting—indeed, exceeding—its national targets, and it is managing to do so sustainably and responsibly, in line with the preference of local people to build on brownfield land first. We have brought forward a £100 million fund to support that, which I think Stoke-on-Trent is already benefiting from—or I expect that it will in the future. That is exactly the kind of investment in sites that are less than viable, or where viability is challenged, that I expect to be able to announce later in the year.
These are once-in-a-generation reforms that will help us to build back fairer, increasing supply, improving affordability and unlocking opportunity for millions of young people. So too will essential reforms championing both homeowners and renters. As announced in the Queen’s Speech, the leasehold ground rent reform Bill will put an end to ground rent for new leasehold properties as part of the most significant change to property law in a generation. For too many, the dream of home ownership has been soured by leases imposing crippling ground rents, additional fees and onerous conditions.
That Bill is the first of two leasehold-reforming pieces of legislation that will put that right, making home ownership fairer and simpler, saving millions of leaseholders thousands if not tens of thousands of pounds, and reforming a system that we inherited from our distant forebears—an essentially feudal system that no longer meets the expectations and preferences of homeowners in the 21st century. Today, I will also be launching the Commonhold Council, which will pave the way for home- owners to take greater control of their home through a collective form of home ownership unusual in this country but ubiquitous in others around the world—another vital step towards people enjoying their homes as homeowners in the truest sense of the word.
We are also backing a fairer deal for the millions of renters. To that end, we will publish our consultation response on proposals to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions and improve security for tenants in the private rented sector, while strengthening possession grounds for landlords when they need that for valid reasons.
Robert Jenrick
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will keep going, because I appreciate that other Members wish to speak.
We will set out our proposals for a new lifetime deposit model, to make it easier for tenants moving from one tenancy to the next. We are also committed to raising standards, for example by ensuring that all tenants have a right to redress, and that well-targeted, effective enforcement drives out poor and criminal landlords. I am pleased that these plans have been welcomed by many across the sector, including Shelter, which has said that they breathe fresh hope for Britain’s renters. We will be working with Shelter and many others as we approach the publication of our White Paper in the autumn.
As we build back fairer, it is right that we also ensure that we build back safer. It feels especially poignant to be introducing the Building Safety Bill so close to the fourth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. I am acutely conscious of its significance to the bereaved and to survivors, who, more than anything, never want any community to go through what they have suffered. That is what our landmark Bill aims to deliver, through the biggest improvements to building safety regulation for a generation.
Building on the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Bill will embed the new Building Safety Regulator as part of a wide-ranging, rigorous approach to regulating the built environment in this country. By implementing the recommendations made in Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review, the Bill will strengthen accountability and responsibility across the sector, with clear duties and responsibilities for building owners and managers. It will ensure that products used in the construction of buildings are bound by rigorous safety standards, which I am afraid are being found wanting day by day at the Grenfell inquiry. Crucially, it will give residents a stronger voice in the system, making it easier for them to seek redress and raise concerns.
The Building Safety Bill also supports the removal of unsafe cladding, with a new levy on developers seeking permission to develop certain high-rise buildings. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to raise at least £2 billion from a new tax on the residential property development sector to support this work, ensuring that the industry pays a fair share towards the cost of the situation it contributed to. As Members are aware, leaseholders in high-rise, high-risk building over 18 metres will pay nothing, with their costs being paid either by developers, insurers or warranty providers, or by the taxpayer through our £5 billion Government fund—the largest ever Government investment in building safety, and five times the size of the building safety fund set out in the Labour party’s 2019 manifesto.
We have heard nothing today from the Labour party on its plans, other than the fact that it would set up a new committee. I will of course take up the suggestion from the hon. Member for Manchester Central to work with her, as I have done already. Working together on these issues is in the national interest, so we should be doing everything we can to unite as a House.
Despite the challenges of the past year, the Government’s ambition and determination to answer this call for change are clear. We will ensure that we level up across the country. We will ensure that we take advantage of the historic opportunity to build back better. As one of my predecessors, Harold Macmillan, said when he began his task of building the homes the country needed in the 1950s, this is the start of an “inspiring adventure.” We are seizing it with both hands. We are building more homes than at any time for 30 years. We are helping more people on to the housing ladder. We are delivering fairness for renters. We are reforming property rights and leasehold as no Government have done since that of Margaret Thatcher. We are ensuring that no one needs to sleep rough on our streets, as we build on the phenomenal international success of our “Everyone In” programme.
With the promise of more to come, through once-in-a-generation reforms to planning and building safety, and record investment in all forms of affordable housing, these measures promise to extend opportunity and security for millions, to bridge the generational divide, and to recreate an ownership society—a society in which everyone has a stake and everyone can open their front door with pride and say, “Welcome to my home.” This is what the Queen’s Speech seeks to deliver. This is what my Department will work day and night to ensure in the weeks and months to come. I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in today’s session of the Queen’s Speech debate on the theme of safe and affordable housing for all, which I will come to in just a moment.
It has to be said that the Government’s plan outlined last week was a bit of a damp squib. In terms of the challenges faced by our constituents, it was pretty much a non-event; indeed, it contained proposals that caused some alarm. There was nothing about using the levers that this Parliament has, which devolved Governments do not have, to tackle issues such as child poverty or even commit to the modest ask to retain the £20 per week universal credit uplift. In contrast, the Scottish Government are using their limited powers to double the Scottish child payment to tackle child poverty. Plans for social care seem to have come to naught, while the Scottish Government seek to establish a national care service for Scotland.
Despite all the hand-wringing from this Government, there was no action on fire and rehire, as set out in the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). While the UK Government continue to throw their hands in the air over this very serious issue, the Scottish Government will review the Fair Work First criteria for contracts and Government support grants to include specific references to fire and rehire tactics, and we will continue to press for employment law to be devolved to Scotland’s Parliament, where it rightfully belongs.
Moreover, the absence of an employment Bill is very disappointing, not least because it means that the Government have decided to do nothing about exploitative unpaid work trials, just as they refused to back the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). In addition, I and others in this place had some hope for the inclusion of statutory paid bereavement leave for all—an idea whose time has come as we work towards a post-pandemic world, reminding us of all the crushing loss that grief can inflict on us, which, as a society, we would do well to give better recognition to. We had hoped that that could be put on a legislative basis.
All those hopes to improve the lives of hard-working people across the UK have been dashed in this rather empty programme for government—and all of this is before we come to the fact that the Government’s programme is set to deregulate and privatise wherever it can. The procurement Bill, which will seek to privatise Scotland’s NHS not by the back door but increasingly by the front door, is an act of legislative aggression against the express wishes of the people of Scotland, all taking place in the teeth of amendments to the Trade Bill put forward by the SNP to protect Scotland’s NHS. We continue to see the narrative of the democratic outrage committed against Scotland that was started by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
Then we come to the so-called electoral integrity Bill for compulsory ID by 2023, which will suppress voter participation, and I fear that that may be the intention. Indeed, without my parliamentary pass, I, too, would be excluded from participating in voting for elections, alongside 3.5 million other citizens. It seems that maintaining electoral integrity demands that a huge number of voters be excluded from voting.
I suppose it is easier to speak of integrity by crushing the suffrage of those who do not have photo ID and, coincidentally, may be less likely to vote Tory than it is to do anything meaningful to tackle the murky world of political lobbying, as set out in a Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). If there is a desire to protect the integrity of our politics, would that not be a better place to start? Nor are there any measures to deal with dark money, which is yet another very real danger to electoral integrity. Folk will no doubt wish to speculate as to why nothing is being done to properly tackle those issues. It would be laughable if it were not so very serious and dangerous to our democratic system.
I wish to turn to the theme of safe and affordable housing for all. Housing and local government are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government require buildings to be constructed in ways that better withstand fires and actively prevent their spread. That explains why Scotland has only a handful of buildings with Grenfell-type cladding, whereas that is a much more widespread problem across England. We, in Scotland, can look forward to a single building assessment programme. It is soon to be launched and will be carrying out safety assessments on all properties with external cladding, so that the scale of the funding needed for the necessary remedial work can be identified. There will be no “first come, first served” approach to building safety in Scotland. Funding needs to begin with an understanding of need.
Although the Building Safety Bill applies only to England, part 5 contains applications to Scotland where a new homes ombudsman is to be created for the whole UK, and paragraph 8 of schedule 1 amends the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Therefore, this Bill must not be pushed through unless and until the necessary legislative consent is secured from the Scottish Government. A very important principle of devolution is at stake. The people of Scotland elect MSPs to govern in devolved areas. This UK Government have no business or remit to encroach on those areas, so they must engage in dialogue—constructive dialogue—with those elected to represent the people of Scotland in devolved matters if they wish to secure legislative consent. It is understood that the regulation of construction products is a reserved matter, but it is essential that Scottish Ministers are consulted about such regulations before decisions are made, as they will have an impact on Scottish developers, builders and homeowners, and could also interfere with the Scottish Parliament’s freedom to legislate on devolved matters. So a legislative consent motion should be sought in that case, too. By the same token, appointments to the Health and Safety Executive amending the 1974 Act should not just require Scottish Ministers to be consulted; their agreement should be required for such appointments.
As well as being safe, homes must be affordable. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Scottish Government have provided about 100,000 new affordable homes since 2007, but we clearly need to go further. The Scottish Government are planning for another 100,000 new affordable homes. In order to help first-time buyers to get on the property ladder, the Scottish National party’s Scottish home fund helps to boost the finances of those seeking to purchase a property. This shared equity pilot scheme provides first-time buyers with up to £25,000 to help them buy a property that meets their needs, located in an area where they want to live. So far, the investment has been £240 million in this fund and it expected to support more than 11,000 households to buy their first home. So far, so good, but it is deeply disappointing that the total Scottish Government financial transaction budget in 2021-22 was cut by almost two thirds as a result of the UK Government’s spending review in November.
As for the planning Bill in England, such a Bill will not of itself magically build homes, as the Secretary of State knows. We know—and we have heard it mentioned by somebody else in the Chamber—that 1 million homes in England have approval but have not yet been built. Government investment and political will is also necessary to deliver affordable homes, which are so desperately needed. The Secretary of State may wish to look closely, as he will find it instructive, at the Scottish Government work done in this area, which has already delivered 100,000 new affordable homes—the other 100,000 are to be delivered by 2032. The fact is that despite the claims made by the Secretary of State today, the UK Government are playing catch-up on house building—I do not think there is any dispute about that. I remind him why I have made that comment about playing catch-up. He will recall that in 2015 the incoming Tory Government promised to build 200,000 new starter homes. Not a single one has been delivered. That is a terrible record, almost as bad as—actually, a little bit worse than—that of the Labour-Lib Dem Government in Scotland between 2003 and 2007, who built merely six houses. The broken promise of the UK incoming Government of 2015 makes those six houses look like a titanic effort—not an easy thing to do.
In the course of the new Parliament, the Scottish Government will put £1.6 billion into decarbonising how buildings are heated. Ambitiously, that equates to one third of all homes by 2030—a very important step in tackling climate change, since heating homes is a significant contributor to our emissions. Sadly, the UK Government are investing only one third of what has been invested in Scotland to decarbonise homes, which means that they are unlikely to meet their own targets to decarbonise homes by 2050.
I am sure that the Secretary of State understands the importance of increasing the supply of affordable housing. We have seen how urgent it is, and we know that it will improve the lives of the people across England who his Government represent in housing, who have suffered cramped, overcrowded conditions—conditions in which I myself grew up. Overcrowding fractures family relationships and has a hugely damaging impact on children as their development, schoolwork and self-esteem suffers. As we emerge from this pandemic, we know that so many people suffer these intolerable conditions under the strained relationships that lockdown has foisted on many of us.
What of supporting people to stay in their homes? We have seen from this Government repeated missed opportunities to cover the average cost of rents and ensure that people are supported to stay in their homes not just during the covid crisis, but beyond. The decision to maintain local housing rates in cash terms in 2021-22 represents a return to a freeze for renters. According to the Resolution Foundation, that means that 450,000 households have fallen into rent arrears since last January because of the covid pandemic. How will freeze local housing allowance rates help those families? It will not. It will disproportionately hurt them and further exacerbate the already deep financial difficulties that they face. The Secretary of State may wish to reflect on that.
We know that restoring local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile has a positive impact on homelessness and poverty, as well as wider economic and social benefits, but the Scottish Government are finding that UK budget decisions have an adverse impact on their work to support those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, since they are priced out of private sector tenancies. We also know that the temporary restoration of housing allowance rates facilitated moves out of temporary accommodation, which is something that we should all want to see. Does the Secretary of State believe that the positive benefits of restoring local housing allowance rates, with all the positive impacts that that can have on homelessness, are worth saving—or are those at risk of homelessness worth sacrificing? If so, why? What price social cohesion?
All this is before we even mention the ongoing, the continuing, the dreaded, the hated Tory bedroom tax. Of course, the tax has been fully mitigated in Scotland, with the Scottish Government spending £71 million in 2021-22 to do so because we do not have the powers to abolish it, although we are often told that we have a powerhouse Parliament. This cruel and punishing policy, imposed on Scotland by a Government rejected by the people of Scotland, has meant that the discretionary housing payment spend in Scotland is estimated at approximately £82 million. We are safeguarding tenancies and working hard to prevent homelessness, doing all we can with the limited powers that we have to mop up the damage wreaked on Scotland by this Government. While they impose this cruel and damaging policy on the people of Scotland, the mopping up is increasingly difficult, with 85% of welfare powers still reserved to this Parliament. We have a job on our hands as we continue to try to help struggling families to meet the cost imposed on them.
Keeping people in their homes—sustaining tenancies—matters because the best way to tackle homelessness is to prevent homelessness in the first place. The Secretary of State may wish to reflect on that and on the fact that cutting local housing allowance rates and the bedroom tax, and preventing homelessness through the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, becomes much more difficult alongside these policies. Short-sighted welfare policies force people into unmanageable financial hardship and can lead to a spiral of difficulties, leading them to lose their home.
The Government’s programme lacks ambition and substance; vitally, it does not command the support of the people of Scotland, who have repeatedly rejected this Government at the ballot box. Indeed, last week they could only muster a feeble 21% on the constituency vote. The people of Scotland favour progressive politics and progressive policies that put people first, seek to be inclusive, and offer support to those who need it when they need it in order to build a fairer and more compassionate country. Governing our own affairs, we could do so much more for the people of Scotland, and increasingly the people of Scotland are persuaded of that argument.
Self-government, of course, is not controversial. It is only controversial, uniquely, when we talk about Scotland. No country can be better governed than by the people who live and work there. That is why, when we have our opportunity to put Scotland’s future back in the hands of the people of Scotland—as we will as we emerge from the pandemic—the answer will be a resounding rejection of the values of this Tory Government and of the values of this Parliament, so that Scotland’s future is back in the hands of the people of Scotland and the democratically elected Scottish Parliament. We will then no longer need to tolerate Tory attempts at voter suppression, failure to deal with cronyism, dark money and lobbying shenanigans. We reject those things in the name of the people of Scotland.
I wish I could say something more positive about the programme for government presented today, last week and the rest of this week, but, sadly, I fear that there is nothing to say.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As we are moving to the five-minute time limit, I remind everybody contributing from a remote location that they should have a visible timer at the bottom right of their device. If they do not, I ask them please to get a timer because there is a lot of pressure on time today. We do not intend to be rude, but Members will be cut off if they go beyond whatever the time limit happens to be.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Unlike the bizarre and perverse world view expressed by the SNP in the previous speech, I very much welcome as a tonic the enthusiasm, innovation and creativity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to his brief and exhibited today.
Of course, the success of housing policy is dependent on balancing two elements. The first is encouraging home ownership in order to provide stability and security in the way that many of us have been able to enjoy, but which too many young people are not yet able to. That needs to be balanced against the interests of existing communities where houses are built, so that we do not have overstretch of infrastructure such as healthcare and education. We need to ensure that visual amenity and quality of life are not unduly damaged, and that we are able to create more jobs where housing is being built so that we do not continue to have commuter towns with all the disbenefits that they have seen in recent decades.
As part of my view of Conservatism, I have always had an indispensable view about the value of the green belt. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is placing great emphasis on the maintenance of green-belt land. It is there for a purpose: to stop urban sprawl and the concreting over of our countryside. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. It is therefore our duty to protect it for future generations, rather than giving in to short-term interests in one way or another.
This matter is tied up with the concept that the housing targets set by the Government are not instructions to build, but targets; and they are targets that need to be netted off against other interests that the Government may have set out, for example: the green belt, not wanting to build on floodplains, and not damaging our areas of outstanding natural beauty. They are difficult balances to get and they are always controversial in any one area.
As the Secretary of State knows, we have many of these difficulties in North Somerset—a part of the country that is well away from the nimby part of the spectrum. In fact, as the new Boundary Commission is likely to show, many of my constituents, because of the rise in our population, will be represented in constituencies outside North Somerset. It is very important to point out to district councils that the setting of the Government’s targets is not an excuse for them to try to build on green-belt land, because that is, I am afraid, what some of them are attempting to do.
The Government’s plans on the housing numbers have to be seen alongside some of the other elements of policy and the levelling-up agenda. The regeneration of some of our great cities, particularly in the northern part of England, will stop the drift of people to the south of England, which adds to the pressure on housing. The ability to get greater regeneration in terms of jobs in that part of the country will enable people to stay and to have the sorts of careers that they have otherwise only been able to get by moving closer to London. We must stop being a London-centric country when it comes to our planning system. I very much welcome that, as I do the opening up of competition in the house-building sector. Far too much power lies in the hands of the oligopoly in this country, and we need to see far more smaller companies coming into that sector if we are to see the sort of improvements that many of us want to see.
We still have to deal with the issue of cladding. The £5.1 billion set aside by the Government is a very large amount of money, particularly in the current fiscal circumstances. I caution my colleagues against thinking that they will be able to get substantially more money from the Treasury. We have to ensure that we get the end of forfeiture, which is why I welcome the leasehold reform. We need to ensure that the cost falls in the appropriate place, not on leaseholders, and that we do not absolve developers and builders of their responsibility to put right the mistakes that they created. We must ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent only where it is absolutely necessary and that taxpayers are not ripped off by putting right things through public money that should be put right through the private money of the developers.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to look at Portishead in my constituency as an example of many of these issues. I look forward to welcoming him or his officials—as many of them as would like to come down. I end with a word of warning at the risk of presenting myself as an unreconstructed fiscal Conservative: money will be very tight. The effect of quantitative easing, as set out by the OBR, means that we, as a country, are vulnerable to rises in interest rates, and we must therefore limit the way in which we seem to be splashing money in every single direction. We need to return to sound money and fiscal Conservatism, because we need to conserve the opportunities for the future by not landing the next generation in undue debt.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First, the Building Safety Bill has already been considered by the Select Committee as part of prelegislative scrutiny, and we have welcomed it, as it implements Dame Judith’s recommendations. I say gently to the Secretary of State that we conducted our review to a strict timetable. We published our recommendations last December, but we are still waiting for a Government response. We look forward to it. Generally, we welcomed the Bill and made quite a few suggestions about how we thought it could be improved.
However, I say to the Secretary of State that this is a building safety Bill, not a cladding removal Bill, and there is a danger that we see building safety simply in terms of removing dangerous cladding. It is absolutely important that that is done, particularly the aluminium composite material cladding, but also the other forms of cladding as well. We know that there are a multitude of defects in buildings that can cause fire problems: faulty balconies; faulty fire doors; missing fire breaks; faulty installations and so on, all of which make buildings unsafe. We could get a situation where the Government pay for the cladding to come off, but it still leaves the buildings unsafe, and leaseholders cannot afford the rest of the costs.
I have just been talking today to Jenny and Laura. The interview was organised by Yorkshire Calendar. Leaseholders were explaining to me that their buildings have other defects and that they and other leaseholders are worried sick that they are living in buildings that are unsafe, but that they do not have the financial ability to pay for the defects to be dealt with. That is a terrible situation. Hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are facing that problem in this country today.
We still have not had an explanation from the Government of their loan scheme and how it will operate. There are also people living in lower rise blocks worried about the future. Most renters will be expected to pay for all fire safety defects to be dealt with through their rent, which is unfair on them when the leaseholder next door may get assistance. We, as a Committee, have therefore recommended a comprehensive building safety fund to cover all fire safety defects. It should be paid for initially by the Government, with a major contribution from industry, including the providers of construction products. Of course, developers should be held to account wherever possible, but in the end, there needs to be certainty for homeowners who simply cannot afford to pay that the Government will get the problem resolved for them. That is the requirement that we have asked for.
On the Planning Bill, back in the early days of the coalition the then Chancellor, George Osborne, called planning an “obstacle to growth”. That is untrue. Planning is a means to achieve growth, but it has to be a means to achieve the right sort of growth in the right places. That is the challenge of the planning system. I think the Secretary of State will recognise that, in the White Paper, there is a major emphasis on local plans. I am sure that the Committee will support that, because we recommended some years ago that local plans should be made statutory and be simplified. The Government did not agree with us at the time, but I am pleased that they have come round to that point of view.
There are, however, major challenges around how we convert a situation where the public have a right to be consulted and express views about every single planning application to one where that consultation takes place at the local plan stage. That will be a major challenge under the new system that the Government are proposing. How we get to a situation where a local plan can contain all the relevant issues in relation to the multitude of different sites in the renewal category is a major challenge. We look forward to seeing how it will be resolved in the Bill.
In the end, the real challenge on planning reform is in the technicalities and details, so I make an offer to the Secretary of State. The Bill might be an awful lot better were it produced in draft form and he once again asked the Committee to have a look at it. I do not think that there will be a lot of disagreement on some of the issues, but the Government might have a think about getting the technicalities right so that the main beneficiaries down the line are not planning lawyers. On the housing needs assessments, it is slightly perverse that the latest iterations say that the number of homes to be built in the north and the midlands, in areas outside the major cities, will be lower than the number currently being built. That seems a bit like building fewer, rather than building better.
On renters’ reform, I am a bit disappointed that we are now having a White Paper rather than a Bill. Again, if it is about technicalities, why not at least produce a draft Bill for us to have a look at in this Session of Parliament? Finally, social care reform is an issue for other Select Committees on one level, but it is important to get it right to ensure that the finances of local councils are put on a stable basis for the future.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for pointing out at the beginning of today’s debate, that there is no restriction on the subjects that can be raised on any day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Before I move to address other subjects, I would like to say how pleasing it was to see the Secretary of State nodding in response to the Chair of the Select Committee’s invitation to work on a cross-party basis on the grave concern about the plight of leaseholders following the cladding scandal. I am sure that the Secretary of State is as concerned as Members on both sides of the House by reports of leaseholders facing bankruptcy and lease forfeiture right now, which must be prevented at all costs.
Barely a day goes by without some fresh horror story emerging from our universities. Teenage totalitarians are shutting down free speech, egged on by activist academics and compliant administrators who could not win an election if their lives depended on it. The latest case is of a mature law student on the eve of her finals threatened with the loss of her degree for defining a “woman” in terms with which more than nine out of 10 people would agree. The Education Secretary’s proposals to put an end to such abusive indoctrination cannot come too soon.
No day was selected by the Opposition to focus on defence, foreign affairs or security. If time permitted today, I would return to such issues as I have raised in the past, including that of the 250-plus war widows who are still waiting for the return of their war widows’ pensions, forfeited when they remarried or cohabited. That loss will not happen to war widows in the future, but it has not been put right for war widows in the past.
I would refer to the possible misdiagnosis of veterans, who in reality have mild traumatic brain injury resulting from blast injuries in Afghanistan or Iraq but are being misdiagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
I would refer in particular to the urgent necessity to permit to resettle in the UK, before they become trapped, locally employed Afghan civilians, including interpreters, who helped our troops. That could lead to a wider debate about what we and our NATO allies can do to deter or counteract a total Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and the slaughter of those we supported and encouraged for so many years. For example, will we maintain in the region a strategic base from which action can be taken if necessary?
Finally, I will refer to this, as opposed to just mentioning it in passing. According to a rather impressive scoop by Larisa Brown in The Times a few days ago, some very good news about the plight of Northern Ireland veterans is coming at last. It appears that troubles-related cases, up to the signing of the Belfast agreement, will have a line drawn under them, and that will be coupled with a truth recovery mechanism on the model of what was done in South Africa on the inspiration of Nelson Mandela.
The proposals, if true, are closely aligned with the recommendations of the Defence Committee’s seventh report of 2016-17, published in April 2017. That report drew heavily on the expert testimony of four eminent law professors that was given on 7 March 2017 and is well worth studying today. Their testimony made it clear that anything done to resolve the question of vexatious reinvestigations and prosecutions must apply across the board. It later became clear that, as a result of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, no more questions should be raised about putting terrorists and security forces on the same level. Everyone is on the same level before the law, and the 1998 Act said that even the most heinous murders would result in nothing longer than a two-year prison sentence.
How much better will it be to take a leaf from the book of what was done so successfully in South Africa by substituting for investigation and prosecution, with little chance of success, a truth recovery mechanism to bring closure to the bereaved?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
On the cladding crisis, I regret that there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to protect leaseholders from having to pay to fix faults that are not of their making. When the Building Safety Bill comes before us, Ministers will find that amendments are tabled to provide that protection to leaseholders. We are not giving up and there are a growing number of Members of this House, including on the Government Benches, who are determined to do right by our constituents, because they have run out of patience and are running out of time. As their lives remain on hold, their flats remain worthless, they face monthly bills for waking watches and insurance premiums, and the demands are starting to arrive for sums of money that they simply do not have.
As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), rightly pointed out, offering to solve half the problem will not work, because there are other fire safety defects. As the recent fire at New Providence Wharf reminded us, living in an unsafe building is not a theoretical risk; it is an actual risk. I know it is difficult for Ministers, but believe you me it is nothing like the difficulty that our leaseholders are living with. The only solution is to make loan funding available to the blocks to fix all the problems and then to pay back the cost of that loan over the long term by levying the house builders and developers.
My second concern in the context of this debate is for all those in rent arrears because of covid. As the moratorium on evictions comes to an end, what is the Government’s plan to stop lots of people being made homeless? I am not aware that there is one. At the beginning of the crisis, the Secretary of State said, as we heard earlier, that
“no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home”,
yet when the Government recently announced that the bailiff-enforced eviction ban would be extended to 31 May, their own press notice said:
“This will ensure residents in both the private and social sector can stay in their homes and have enough time to find alternative accommodation”.
Those two statements do not square. Either my constituents will be able to stay in their own homes or they will have to find alternative accommodation because they have been evicted. Which is it? And by the way, where is the alternative accommodation that they can afford?
This brings me finally to the planning Bill, which I think will have a rough ride. I do not think it will fix the problem that it is trying to address. Ministers have announced many changes to the planning system in the last decade or so, and all of them have tried in one way or another to remove power from local communities, because it is argued that they are the main obstacle to house building. I think that analysis is wrong. A growing number of people contact me as an MP because they live in unsatisfactory and overcrowded accommodation. They bid with hundreds of others for a council property, they cannot afford to buy and they cannot afford to rent privately. There simply are not enough council houses, so local authorities need the means and the funding to build them.
We are never going to have enough homes if we just rely on the volume house builders, because they will build only the number of properties they think they can sell at the price they want to get for them. That is why we have planning permissions unbuilt, which is hardly a sign of a planning system that is working. I read that Ministers are contemplating a “use it or lose it” levy, and I think that is a very sensible idea. Indeed, we proposed it six years ago. Even where local communities come forward to designate sites, they do not have the power to ensure that that is where the new homes are built. Community after community can tell the story of sites being identified locally, whereupon the house builders come along and say, “I’m really sorry, that doesn’t work for us, but what about that greenfield site over there?” And even if their planning application is refused, they are pretty confident that they will win on appeal.
I cannot think of a system less likely to encourage local communities to take responsibility than one in which the final decision is removed from their hands. That is why local communities should have the power to determine exactly where the new homes are built, what kind of homes are constructed and who gets them. It is not surprising that we see resistance to new homes if the community knows that no one on its waiting list and no one living locally who is hoping to buy their first home can have any chance of affording them. How many more planning Bills will it take before we come to the realisation that in the end local communities have in every sense to take responsibility? I believe that if we give them all the tools, they will do the job.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Thank you very much for calling me in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Over the past few days we have been debating the Gracious Speech of our monarch, who has been nobly carrying out this duty for longer than anyone else has been sitting in either House. Over that time, she has been the only constant. Her words and policies have changed with the will of the people who have chosen her scriptwriters through election. It is an extraordinary recognition of the reality of power and duty. Her subjects have the power to force her to read the words, and she dutifully does so, giving us an illusion of constancy in a changing world. That illusion is no trick; it is a vital part of the stability of our nation. It allows continuous innovation without fear, and novelty without revolution. As democrats have always known, the alternative to constant change is not stasis but sudden violence. The earthquake is no alternative to the bicycle. Her Majesty has been providing the constancy that has enabled that change and avoided violence, and we have been blessed to live in a newer, more peaceful Elizabethan age.
Our civic Union, which has grown out of the union of the high kings of Ireland, the tribes of Wales, the clans of Scotland and the kingdoms of England, is another constant. It has provided certainty for 300 years, and those who threaten it should think about the difference between expedient interest and long-term strategy. To lose our nation would be not just a question of currency or governance but a moment of profound disorientation for many, as so many would be left with the question of what is home. That is why I have chosen to speak today on the importance of home.
Across our nation today, almost 100,000 people are living in temporary housing. They are families like ours who are living with the uncertainty that temporary housing ensures. They have narrower windows for decisions, timelines moved from months and years to days and weeks, and injections of transience, not just in geography but in aspiration. This corrodes the ties that bind communities and undermines the ability to invest in the future. Children find it harder to study and make friends, and their results suffer. Adults cannot invest in their own futures, turn jobs into careers or accommodation into homes. At every level, this costs us all. How many Einsteins could not finish their schooling? How many Flemings did not start their education? How many Dysons did not have the time to set aside to innovate?
That is why this emphasis on housing matters, but it is much more than an emphasis on housing; it is an emphasis on community. It is a reversal of the policies that have sadly endured for too long and have slowed down the ability of owners and occupiers to be one and the same. That has stolen energy out of our economy and stability out of our nation. As Jack Airey argued in a Policy Exchange report in 2019, “Building Beautiful Places”, which built on the work of so many others, including of course Sir Roger Scruton, we need to feel at home not just in our home but in our community, our town and our country. How we build what we build builds us up or drags us down. It is profoundly important to remember why we build, not just where.
There are huge examples of successful construction and opportunities where we have seen shared space inspire co-operation and inspire changing, caring atmospheres. We can deepen community and we can intensify co-operation, but it demands that we build on the nature of our community and respect those who are there. When we rebuilt this place, we did not just enrich Pugin but enriched Britain, because the fire that started with the tally sticks destroyed not just an old Parliament but an old world. It brought about a new innovation in currency and a change in our economic future. It removed the restrictions that for many had held back our economy.
This is a time when we need to talk again about those changes, because the Queen’s Speech does not cover the changing nature of currency, the changing nature of the economy, and the innovations that we are seeing online through various forms of cryptocurrencies. I will not, in the few moments I have left, go into why I am going to be bullish on Ether and not Bitcoin, or the nature of the change in the Treasury that is needed to enable innovation that sees the sharing of prosperity on a global basis rather than a local one.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that we need to ensure that we have local engagement in a digital way in our planning concerns as we go forward?
Tom Tugendhat
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. As she has kindly spoken about digital, I will continue for a moment on why I think the Treasury needs to create a safe space for cryptocurrency development.
Setting the standard for this new economy will shape a new electronic age—a new digital world. Just as our laws—the laws passed in this place and in the old Parliament—created the trading economy that enabled so many to prosper, and created the concepts of individual ownership, corporate responsibility and indeed private responsibility, we now need to see those values injected into new changes. If we do not get this right, these standards will be set by authoritarian Governments with no interest in innovation, or in wild places where there is no regulation and no accountability.
As we come to the end of the Queen’s Speech debate tomorrow, I hope that the Government, and the Treasury in particular, will reflect very hard on the nature of crypto exchanges, because they will fundamentally be the underpinning of a new trading world, and the standards that are set for them will either see us all prosper or see us cut up.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On the planning Bill, the Secretary of State, and the Government, could have listened to those concerned about high land values. He could have tackled the Land Compensation Act 1961 to bring down unrealistically high land values and to make more land available for developing more affordable homes. He could have listened to those who had called for councils to be given the power to do what Macmillan did in the 1950s and to build directly within communities with the support of communities. He could have listened to those observing the situation with the already parlous state of the construction workforce, noting that the Government’s immigration changes have now reduced that workforce by a further 9%.
The Secretary of State could have listened to all those sensible voices. Instead he listened to the voices of a few people saying that all we need to build more homes is to have permissive planning legislation. That is bogus because, as we have heard from other hon. and right hon. Members, nine out of 10 planning permission applications are granted and over 1 million planning permissions were given over the past 10 years and not delivered.
Jim Shannon
When it comes to the issue of land that has been banked for development, some 1 million homes are set aside for that purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be a timescale on when that land can be dealt with? Does he also feel that, within the land banked development plan, there should be provision for social housing for people who cannot afford housing by going for a mortgage?
Tim Farron
I agree with all those points. It is vitally important that land that can be used for housing is made available for affordable housing—for homes for local people that they can afford.
It is worth bearing in mind that there are other problems in the planning system. In my part of the world, south Cumbria, we have three planning authorities—the district council, the Yorkshire Dales national park and the Lake District national park. One problem there is not the overweening power of the planners, but the overweening power of developers to be able to run rings around the community. The viability assessment, for example, allows a developer to get planning permission for developing, let us say, 30 or 40 houses and then, having agreed to build a dozen or so affordable homes, to tell the planners, and indeed the local community, “We’ve changed our mind; we’ve found a few rocks, so we won’t go ahead as we had promised.” The planners’ lack of power to ensure developers do what the community wants them to do undermines local democracy and undermines the ability to deliver affordable homes to local communities.
One hugely worrying aspect of the Government’s proposals is that developers will be able to build up to 50 homes without any affordable homes among them whatsoever, which will be massively ruinous to a community such as mine where the majority of developments are smaller than 50 houses and where the average wage is less than a 12th of the average house price. I heard the Secretary of State’s offer earlier about first homes and I will take him up on his offer. In the South Lakes we will offer to be a pilot for first homes, on the understanding that it is not a replacement for the existing provision for affordable homes through the planning system. I am all ears because we need to do everything we can to ensure there are local homes for local people.
I mentioned in an intervention a desperately worrying thing. People talk about an increased number of homes being available, but in the past 12 months we have seen a reduction in the number of homes available for local people in south Cumbria, and other parts of the country as well, as second home ownership has rocketed, in part fuelled by the Government failing to think through the impact of the stamp duty holiday. Eighty per cent. of homes purchased in Cumbria in the last 12 months have gone into the second home market. They are not lived in. What does that mean for the local community? It means we are robbing that community of a permanent population.
People can talk about levelling up, but it does not look like levelling up to me when we see a school closing because there are not enough permanent homes locally to send children to that school. Levelling up does not mean very much to us in Cumbria if there is no demand for the bus service, so the old person who wants to attend a GP appointment 10 miles away cannot physically get there; and the post office shuts down because there are not enough homes in the village to sustain the post office all year round. That does not look like levelling up; that looks like the Government deciding to ignore the plight of rural Britain, including my part of Cumbria.
Therefore, I urge the Secretary of State to look at my early-day motion, which has the backing of the Lake District national park and the Yorkshire Dales national park, calling for councils in England to be given the same powers they have in Wales to increase council tax on second homes, but also to intervene to change planning law to protect first homes in communities such as mine, so those places do not become ghost towns. It is deeply troubling that there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech that allows us to tackle the explosion of second home ownership, which is undermining community in places such as mine.
I want to say a few words about the Building Safety Bill. That is an opportunity for those of us who care about those who are the victims of the staggering unfairness of the cladding scandal to seek to address it, but it would be even better if the Government were to do a U-turn now and decide not to lay at the door of those people who are blameless the price incurred by those who are guilty of recklessness and lethal decisions in both the development side and the Government regulation side of the development of properties over years. It is outrageous that we are apparently about to penalise the innocent for the failures of the guilty.
We must protect our environment, create a planning system that listens to local people and protects our landscape, and make sure that we have homes that are available and affordable for local people, so that our communities in the likes of the lakes and the dales remain sustainable. My great fear is that the Secretary of State’s plans are all about listening to the people with the power and ignoring communities such as ours, which are in desperate need of support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to four minutes if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in. I remind Members that, if they take interventions, they should take them within the time limit. I know it is difficult, because we have a lot of speakers, but if those who did not put in to speak intervene, it prevents those who did put in to speak from making their speeches. I am sorry about this, but I will reduce the limit to four minutes, and if people take interventions, please try to stay within the limits that we have set.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I hope to make three quick points—or perhaps only two, but we will see. I strongly support the levelling-up agenda as set out in the Queen’s Speech—not only levelling up between north and south and London and the regions, but—perhaps the most important aspect—helping generation rent to become homeowners. During my 29 years as a parliamentarian under Governments of both colours, roughly 85% of people have aspired to home ownership—that figure has remained constant—but sadly the percentage of people who own their own property has fallen to roughly 65% now.
In 1979, my first home in Plymouth cost £13,250. I was 24 and at that time it was quite common to buy one’s first home in one’s early or mid-20s. In Devon now, the average age of first-time buyers is mid-30s. My starting salary as an assistant solicitor was £4,800. That same house is today worth £190,000—fifteen times more—and the starting salary is six times what it was. That is the problem: the affordability gap, which cannot be bridged without specific and consistent intervention. We simply have not built enough homes in the last 30 years. We need to ensure a better balance of supply and demand by building more. I support the focus on the first homes policy. A 30% discount is very attractive. Let us wish the Government every success in rolling out that important new policy.
I also recognise that a significant minority of people do not want or are not able to purchase a property, so the rented sector in both the private and the social housing sectors must also be vibrant. We have a real problem in the private rented sector in the south-west right now: it has virtually disappeared. Intervention may be needed at some stage if the market does not respond as we hope it will. I wish the Government well with their first homes policy, but I am sure the Minister who winds up the debate will confirm that it is about not just first homes or social renting, but a range of innovative housing products and solutions that will sit alongside those important policies.
My second point is to support the proposal to amend permitted development rights to enable more rapid conversion of office and retail stock into residential stock. That is significant, because as traditional retail declines under pressure from internet shopping and more people work from home, we have a new opportunity carefully to identify new strategic brownfield sites and to turn them into residential areas. Planners have been talking about brownfield sites for decades, but many towns and cities throughout England do not have large pockets of old industrial land sitting there, waiting to be developed. Many places in our country do not have derelict factories left over from the industrial revolution, but they do now have empty shops and under-occupied offices. We have to capture this moment.
Plymouth is a prime example. Virtually nobody lives in our city centre, and now it has far more retail stock than is required, so rapid conversion into homes for local people would be a very desirable move—a win, win, win. Not only would it create more much-needed homes, but it would help to bring our city centre back to life and it would protect the precious rolling hills of the south downs that surround our city. In developing this policy as they intend, the Government are pushing with the grain of social change and bringing additional benefits with it. It is an important policy and I strongly support it.
I support the Government in building back better. This Queen’s Speech will help us to do so.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I want to address whether the Government’s proposals help many of the leaseholders in Garston and Halewood in any meaningful way. Liverpool City Council is currently monitoring 149 high-rise residential blocks across the city because of fire safety issues relating to cladding, and the Liverpool Cladiators, among others, are campaigning to have the horrendously costly fire risk remediation done to their homes without the blameless leaseholders having to pay. That is one problem.
In addition, many ordinary families in my constituency who bought new build leasehold houses on estates in good faith are being financially exploited by unscrupulous freeholders who see them only as cash cows. All those people—most of them young families—are trying to get on in life in aspiring to own their own homes. That is an admirable thing that we should be encouraging, but instead, they have found themselves in a living nightmare of escalating costs and financial exploitation that they knew nothing about when they signed up to home ownership. Indeed, some of them were actively misled.
In spite of the warm words, the legislation announced by the Government leaves many of these people in the same trap, with no guarantee of relief, and in some cases only very partial relief. The Building Safety Bill does nothing to help those who live in buildings under seven storeys. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) set out, it does not pay the costs of non-cladding remediation needed to ensure fire safety. It does nothing to stop freeholders passing on the ruinous costs to their leaseholders or to ameliorate the soaring insurance costs passed on in service charges. In Liverpool, insurance costs increased this year by between 300% and 1,400%—costs that will be passed on. Before this legislation, leaseholders were facing unpayable, ruinous costs in the tens of thousands of pounds each, literally trapped in fire-trap buildings, in homes that are unmortgageable and unsellable, with no way out. After this Bill is enacted, with its regulator, its new homes ombudsman and its new framework to provide national oversight of construction products, they will still be in exactly the same position.
What about the many hundreds of my constituents who have bought new build leasehold houses and find themselves being financially exploited? They are having to pay escalating service charges, ground rent and fees because the freeholds have been sold on as an income-producing financial asset, thus ensuring that agents squeeze every last penny out of them, while providing as little as possible—usually nothing—in return. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill does nothing at all to help existing leaseholders, and the Government appear content to allow these people, who bought their homes in good faith, to be left with no redress under its provisions. My constituents in existing leases will have all the same expensive problems after the enactment of this legislation that they had before it and no way of improving things. Even if they purchase the freehold, exploitative covenants are placed in the contract for sale. Wholesale leasehold reform is needed, but this Bill does nothing about that.
Despite two Bills in the Queen’s Speech that promise solutions to these intractable problems faced by leaseholders, leaseholders will not be given the legislative help that they need and that their predicaments demand. They will still face the prospect of having to pay thousands of pounds and put up with very large, exploitative costs into the far future. They will be left with unmortgageable and unsellable homes, massive, unaffordable bills and no real help from this Government. Rhetoric won’t cut it, Minister—you have to help these people properly.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Housing is a central area of policy that must be a priority for the Government. On adult social care, I share the disappointment of many across the House and country that there is no detail about the future of adult social care in the Queen’s Speech. I still believe that the solution is the one that has been effectively argued for many times by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), which involves an insurance component and has long been in use in countries such as Germany. What is obvious to me and to others who have been involved for many years is that a—very much in quotes—“solution” for adult care that is in fact simply an addition to general or indeed even hypothecated taxation and a power grab into local government by the NHS is no solution at all. It would disempower not only local government, with its ability to tailor offers to those in need of care to local needs and circumstances, but local charity and private sector partners. Those partners include Anchor Hanover, which I met last week, with its innovative work in housing for the elderly, including an extraordinary number of centenarians, and with stepped-up levels of care according to need—a model very much like the one Derbyshire County Council was working on under my leadership and has been again more recently.
Housing is central to good adult care solutions in the future, but housing is not, to put it mildly, an NHS specialism. An example of this needed innovation is buyer shared ownership, a mechanism often regarded as being for young people, but something with a valuable application for older people too, in their being able to trade down, retain equity and fund their care in both the housing and nursing sense. I look forward to the Government bringing forward their vision of the future sustainability framework for adult social care in this country, and I hope the MHCLG stays involved.
One of the main themes of this Government is levelling up the country, but I do have some concerns about the introduction of a levelling-up Bill rather than, instead of as well as, a devolution Bill. Local government needs to be just that—not just local administration for central diktats or a vehicle for the bidding-in culture for Whitehall funding pots. As a board member of Northampton Forward, I see how much time, effort and resources go into bid proposals from central Government funding pots, with plans changed to fit the criteria for each. Of course, as MPs we welcome the award of funding for our areas from these bidding rounds—I certainly do for mine—but it does not stop us simultaneously suggesting that there may be an even better way.
As a Conservative, I have always believed that increased home ownership is something that should be within the reach of an ever larger number of British people. It is one of the reasons I founded and chair the all-party parliamentary group on SME house builders. As a result, I know at first hand the willingness to build more houses that sits at the core of the SME sector, so I am encouraged to see the planning Bill brought forward in the Queen’s Speech and the emphasis on SMEs within it.
Time prevents my discussing the need for more details on a renters reform Bill, particularly for a housing court, and concerns about the affordability of the environmental measures, such as ending gas boilers, especially for the elderly, not to say my welcome for the Bacon review—another time—but I do hope that the Government will listen to those with expertise in these areas as the details of their plans are worked on.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out, on jobs, that while the Gracious Speech may sound good, it is severely lacking in substance. It is not just on jobs that the Government are providing little more than rhetoric, but on housing, skills, employment rights and financial inclusion too.
The need for a deadline to make all homes safe was powerfully outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and I congratulate her on her new role. I will be backing Labour’s amendment today. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill must make leasehold more transparent and as fair a system as for homeowners, but while the building safety Bill looks at the safety of future buildings, it does nothing to help those trapped in unsafe buildings, including many in Feltham and Heston. Indeed, it seems to be reinstating regulations removed by previous Tory Governments. The £50 a month supposedly maximum bill for leaseholders in buildings of under 18 metres still means a bill of £600 a year, with no clarity on how many years they will be paying it or any leverage over what landlords seek to charge them. Since 2017, Tory Ministers have promised at least 15 times that leaseholders will not have to pay unfair costs, yet that is what this Government voted for last month, rather than ensuring that those responsible must pay. Living safely is not a privilege; it is a right.
Let me turn to the economy. There was no announced employment Bill, which the Tories promised in 2019. TUC polling shows that 84% of working people want all workers to have the same basic rights. The Prime Minister promised that he would enhance workers’ rights after our departure from the EU, so what happened? Did he lose the memo? Did it get lost in his refurbishment? The time is now to finally introduce a long-awaited employment Bill that would include measures to create a single enforcement body to enforce employment law, improve rights to flexible working, and end the deeply immoral practice of fire and rehire. This has been a hugely unequal pandemic. The number of people on zero-hours contracts is at almost 1 million. Women, ethnic minorities, young people and the lowest paid have paid the worst economic price. Poor employment rights and low pay cause the in-work poverty that is a modern-day scandal.
Vital for employment is reskilling and upskilling. A decade of Tory Government has meant spending on further education has halved and 200,000 apprenticeships have disappeared since 2016. The Government’s proposed lifelong learning entitlement is, bewilderingly, set to start in four years’ time. If improving our skills system is so crucial, why is action being left until after the next general election and after the next spending review? Why are we only focusing on certain sectors?
On financial inclusion for businesses and consumers, the Government’s plans must also include the 5.9 million small businesses and sole traders who are at the heart of our local economies. Bringing small businesses into public procurement processes is well overdue and a vital first step, but there must be a focus on small business finance.
On the poverty premium highlighted by Fair by Design, people on low incomes are forced to pay more than better off consumers on a range of products such as energy bills and high-cost credit, and they pay more in insurance because they are more likely to live in areas considered high risk. This costs the average low-income household an extra £490 per year. In 2017, the House of Lords Select Committee on Financial Exclusion recommended the Government expand the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority to include a statutory duty to promote financial inclusion. That must be on the Government’s radar.
In conclusion, the Queen’s Speech should be the road map to getting our economy and society back on a path to a fairer future for all. Its gaps are glaring.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
We must fix our broken housing market not just because it is the right thing to do—we need to build more houses in the right places, at the right price, to the right quality standards, at the right speed, and to the right environmental standards—but because we must keep our promises to future generations and keep our promise to level up. We cannot achieve levelling up without fixing the housing market.
The White Paper and the measures announced in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech will not in and of themselves fix that entire problem, but I am very heartened. Reading the introduction to the White Paper or speaking to one of our wonderful Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Front Benchers, one gets the impression that we are on the right track but we will not solve the problem all at once. It is that kind of realism, dosed with the enthusiasm that this Government have for levelling up and for fixing tricky problems, that gives me the confidence that we are heading in the right direction.
The housing market is incredibly broken. We have suffered decades of tinkering. Well-meaning policy interventions from Governments of every type over decades and decades have nicked away at what used to be a market but now operates as some kind of amorphous blob with an incentive coming in one way and an unintended consequence coming out the other.
There are lots of things to like in this Queen’s Speech. I am keen to address the speed at which we can get through the planning process. Seven years to put a local plan together! How can communities stay the same for seven years, when what we want them to do is grow, progress and become better? If we plan on the basis of what we were looking at seven years ago, we will never build the right houses in the right place at the right time.
The digital agenda is close to my heart. We need to make planning smarter, more digital, more accessible. We need to break the stranglehold of big business. Anybody who has ever been through a planning situation knows that the system seems to be set up so that nobody wins—apart from perhaps the developers with the deepest pockets and the longest time to wait. We need to make sure that we break up that monopoly of big players in planning and housing development.
Freeports are part of the infrastructure revolution that we have planned, and a key part of delivering on our promises to level up to stimulate the economy. It is the ambition and the appetite, with that realism, that will take us through, but we need a lot more shooting for the moon. To what we already have, I would add an ambition to reform how we tax property. The stamp duty land tax holiday was a fantastic and very welcome measure to support the market through the pandemic, but we now need to take the opportunity to look in the whole not just at stamp duty, but at business rates and locally raised revenue. Add that to our freeport ideas, and put freeports on steroids—stimulus and tax breaks for inward investment like the special economic zones in some of the highest- growth areas of the world—and we will be cooking.
We need to build the right houses in the right places at the right time, at the right speed and to the right environmental standards, to keep our promises.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Queen’s Speech claims:
“Measures will be brought forward to ensure that children have the best start in life, prioritising their early years.”
Let me measure that against the situation in Rochdale. The awful fact is that in some wards in Rochdale, one in five children live in a home below the poverty line. In fact, those are the most advantaged wards, because as many as half the children in some wards live in homes below the poverty line, which is a scandal in modern Britain. It is heartbreaking for those families and those children because we know that poverty leads to ill health, less adequate education and all the things that are consequent on them. It is not simply lack of money, but lack of hope and ambition. There is nothing in this Queen’s Speech that remedies that, and nothing that says that schools in areas such as mine will have extra funding to cope with that disadvantage.
We are in an almost bizarre situation. Most of those homes will be dependent on universal credit. The £20 cut in universal credit is a bitter blow to those families—it is unreasonable and unfair. It will take about £12 million out of the Rochdale local economy every year. That is not levelling up; it is the levelling down that we have seen over the past 10 years-plus, as Rochdale Borough Council has had to cut £185 million from its budget. The lack of adequate funding has an impact on social care: there is not enough of it and not enough guarantee of its quality. We waited for this Queen’s Speech to tell us what would happen to social care, and we heard nothing at all.
Social care is just one of many areas that are missing from the Queen’s Speech, such as fire and rehire. Ministers made promises and said it was a disgrace, but we have seen large national companies such as British Airways and British Gas using fire and rehire tactics. Locally in the north-west, the bus company Go North West is threatening to fire and rehire its employees; fortunately, because they had the protection of a big union, Unite the union, they were able to fight off that challenge through industrial action, but many employees do not have that opportunity. That kind of bullying in our workforce is shameful to Britain and shameful to a Government who say that it is wrong but do nothing about it.
As in many other aspects of life, there are things that are missing, but the biggest challenge that we face in the long run, of course, is climate change. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s speech on housing. Of the 30 million houses in Britain today, most will still be around by 2050 when we have to be carbon neutral, but I did not hear any plan from him to fund the retrofitting of existing homes. In towns such as Rochdale, probably half the houses are pre-first world war terraced houses in need of retrofitting. Many of the post-first world war houses will be the same. There was nothing in the Gracious Speech or in the Secretary of State’s comments saying where the money will come from to make that kind of retrofitting difference. This is now a crisis.
I say to the Secretary of State of state that it is time for the Government to go beyond words. I have read the housing White Paper that says what can be done. We know what can be done. What we want to know now is what will be done. Do the Government have the policies? Do they have the insistence that we will make that change?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before we approach reform of the planning system in this country, it is vital that we actually get the homes built for which planning applications are still outstanding. The reality is that more than a million homes have planning permission but remain unbuilt. My suggestion to the Secretary of State—I think he knows this—is that after all planning conditions are discharged, developers should be given 18 months to start on site. If they do not, they should lose their planning permission. If they have not built the homes after three years, they should be charged full council tax on every single one of the dwellings that they have failed to build.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the planning Bill a work in progress and allow Members across the House to have some input so that we can get it right once and for all. In particular, if he enabled the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to undertake prelegislative scrutiny, I think that would improve the Bill no end.
I have no objection to planning permission not being needed where a local authority sets out a planning brief for a site and invites developers to come in and build exactly as it has determined, but every other planning application and proposal to build should be subject to local democratic control.
On social housing, we need to be more ambitious. We need to be building between 90,000 and 100,000 units a year. That would mean that there were rents that people could afford, rather than rents being subsidised through housing benefits. We should also transform the position by giving tenants, when they move in, a guaranteed price at which they can exercise the right to buy when their circumstances allow, and then all the receipts should be invested in new social housing. That is an area that we can all improve on.
The Government have been brilliant on Everyone In, and we now need to roll out Housing First right across the country. I hope that we can ensure that we provide the homes that people need so that they are not forced to sleep rough on the streets because of their circumstances.
The Building Safety Bill is clearly welcome. As the Chairman of the Select Committee stated, we did the prelegislative scrutiny and we are still waiting for the Government to respond to that. If they accept all the recommendations made by the Select Committee, that will smooth the process of the Bill, and we will have a Bill that people will be proud of.
The reality is that we need to protect leaseholders from the unscrupulous behaviour of developers. The leasehold reform Bill will take things forward from now on, but we have to combat companies such as Bellway, which sell freeholds from under the noses of leaseholders, without even informing them, to finance companies that then exploit them to no end.
I was disappointed that we did not hear in the Gracious Speech about the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. I reiterate my view that we need to ensure that people who are homeless are assisted but not arrested.
Equally, on health, it is time that we had a tobacco manufacturers 2030 fund, with a levy on producers of tobacco, so that we can invest in encouraging people to give up smoking for the good of their own health. Unfortunately, that was not mentioned. I hope that we will hear a commitment from the Health Secretary tomorrow.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Members of Parliament right across this House—certainly my colleagues representing constituencies in London—will know that most of the casework we receive relates to housing. A secure and safe home is the most basic need that is denied to far too many. The Government repeatedly talk about levelling up, but, knowing this need, they continue to fail on all fronts those who are most in need.
The proposed leasehold reforms mean that new leaseholders will not be subject to high and escalating ground rents, but what about the 4.5 million existing leaseholders? Just look at safety and security. The Government have promised to protect leaseholders from cladding costs no less than, I believe, 17 times, but we are now four years on from Grenfell and up to 11 million people are still living in homes with unsafe or unsuitable cladding. Leaseholders continue to be hit by profiteering at every single stage of this scandal. As well as having to pay to remove dangerous cladding at their own expense and all the other safety issues that have now arisen, this Government continue to fail them as they are hit with sky-high insurance premiums and extortionate waking watch costs.
This issue affects an estimated 12,000 people across Lambeth alone, where my constituency is. It is very clear that the Government must provide upfront funding to make these homes safe, and be clear that neither interim nor remediation costs will fall on leaseholders. But again and again, this Government fail to deliver. That is why I am so pleased that Labour has tabled an amendment to set binding targets to remove all cladding by June 2020 and to protect leaseholders from these costs. If the Government want to actually keep a promise for once, they might consider walking through the Lobby with us today.
We certainly need more housing and the capacity to build it. We need so much more right across the country, but at what cost? Handing more power to developers, reducing the amount of real affordable housing—not what we currently call affordable—and taking power away from local government does not make much sense to me. Social housing providers have already expressed concerns that these changes to planning will actually reduce housing affordability. I do not understand how that is levelling up.
The Local Government Information Unit says that the changes would
“leave local government with the political liability on planning whilst depriving them…of the powers to manage it effectively.”
From planning to leasehold reform, I just cannot see how this Government can reconcile what they call building safe and affordable housing with these measures, which leave many with a guarantee of neither.
As we come out of this pandemic, the Government will have missed a major opportunity: their own target to decarbonise by 2050. Even doing this by 2050 is not good enough, so why are there no specific measures in the Queen’s Speech about driving forward all our plans on protecting the environment? We have so little time and we should be doing so much more as a country.
I was extremely disappointed to find that the Queen’s Speech did not specifically provide more funding for homelessness. I would like to see the Everyone In scheme turned into long-term policy. We saw how much we were able to deliver during the pandemic for those who are homeless. Ultimately, we should be removing the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises the homeless, and doing all that we can to support them. Under this Government, buying a home has become the preserve of the rich, and nothing in the Queen’s Speech is doing anything to change that.
Overall, the legislative proposals in the Queen’s Speech and the laws that have already been put forward, including the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the spy cops Act—the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021—all point towards a new type of authoritarian Government. I certainly did not expect this Government to be a champion of civil rights, but all this put together is something else. From the Bill that will disenfranchise millions of voters by barring those—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s time is up.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The purpose of life is a life of purpose”,
according to the American author Robert Byrne; and so it goes with Governments. Governments are edified and enlivened by their driving purpose, which brings the practicalities of a defined philosophy to life. As ever, priorities are pressing, but I have no doubt that, with the support of experienced Back Benchers and the sage advice of former Ministers, my friends in Government will succeed.
Home-making matters, for home is where the heart is. Attachment to somewhere, security for oneself and one’s family, and a sense of pride in place, are essential links in the great chain of being. Personal places are at a premium, and the Secretary of State is right that more Britons deserve the chance to fulfil their dream of home ownership. However, for the public to support house building, what is built must be better. With at least 750,000 empty homes, and countless sites with planning permission undeveloped while the highest grade agricultural land is concreted over, it is clear that the current planning system is not working, so reform is welcome.
Such reform should certainly involve a streamlined system, but with much more demanding standards. As we build, we must build beautifully. I was proud to give advice to the Scruton commission and the work that is being done following it. We should only ever make places that our generation can be proud of, and that those who come later will revere.
In essence, the focus on housing policy has for too long been on quantity and housing targets at the expense of quality. How very sad that the horrors brought by volume house builders have left communities filled with fear at the mere rumour of a planning application. A home is not “a machine for living” as Le Corbusier believed it was. Rather homes are a reflection of our humanity. Beautiful buildings have extraordinary power to excite and enthral, both on their own and as components of lovely places.
The work of craftsmen shaping buildings as an ode to what is already known and loved rathe—than as monuments to garish, modish vanity—is what most people say that they admire, yet seemingly we have become incapable of building much of worth. It is time that that changed. Yes, the Bill will make land designated under “growth” or “renewal” easier to build on, at least in theory, but with communities dr”iving and defining the system, improvement is within reach. Developers must be told that if what they intend is more hideous identikit volume housing, it simply will not get planning permission.
Once areas have been identified for development, there must be a master plan for the locality, and every component and space must be designed to excite and inspire. People are not opposed to development that enhances their community, but developers must raise their game, and local planning authorities have the right to expect the Government—and their agent the Planning Inspectorate—to give them the confidence to say no to poor design, no to endless out-of-town commercial developments, and no to the consumption of greenfield land when brownfield sites go unused.
No more good-grade agricultural land should be lost, there should be no building on the floodplain, and no more ugly housing estates bolted on to small towns. Developers must be allowed to build, but only when they adhere to rigorous standards.
With the revitalised sense of pride in place born of community involvement in the evolution of settlements, a Government-led planning renaissance could give birth to something truly wonderful, leaving a legacy not of obnoxious building imposed on unwilling residents but of happy childhood memories of special places, communal fraternity, and villages, towns and cities full of character, particularity and charm. Such should be the scale of ambition for this Government and this House—a future for Britain even more glorious than the best of what has been.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is always pleasure to follow my friend the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I agreed with a lot of what he said. I also very much agreed with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). As a fellow London MP, in my case east London, housing makes up the largest single section of my case load. That did not use to be the case. It has grown enormously over the past decade. Immigration used to be the single largest section of my case load. Now it is housing, and it is growing and growing.
My constituency covers two east London boroughs: Redbridge and Waltham Forest. Today, I will talk largely about the problems in Waltham Forest, which is one of the biggest London boroughs. Demand is very clearly outstripping supply in every section of housing, and has been for a great number of years. The number of households on the general waiting list in Waltham Forest is now 9,025—nearly 10,000 families. When I say the general waiting list, I mean the housing association registered social landlord waiting list and the council waiting list. That figure has been rising since I was elected 10 years ago, when it was a great deal lower than it is now.
Only 600 to 700 vacancies arise each year. That suggests that the average wait is 14 years for accommodation. The reality is that, because of the way that allocations and demand work, many of those applicants will never be housed. It will not be 14 years, or even 20 years; they will never be properly housed. Purely in Waltham Forest, 1,275 households are homeless and living in temporary accommodation. Of those families, 626 are housed in temporary accommodation within the borough, 584 are outside it but in London, and 65, sadly, are outside London, largely in Essex and other home counties, the furthest place being Colchester. That is an improvement on the situation a couple of years ago, when I was regularly dealing with cases of people who would contact me to say that they had been offered accommodation in the west midlands or even further afield. That has been addressed not because of Government investment and an increase in supply, but because of the work of the registered social landlords, the housing associations and council staff and councillors, and their dedication in trying to find, by whatever means, places that people can call a home.
Moving to the supply, the number of new builds has dropped like a stone. In the year just gone, 2020-21, there were only 64 new builds in the whole of Waltham Forest, one of the biggest London boroughs. Ten years ago, that figure was nearer 500. The Secretary of State talks about building and it will be miraculous if he gets anywhere near his aims, because in my case load I am seeing the exact opposite of what he talked about. The severe lack of social rented housing also means that I spend an awful lot of time dealing with people who live in very substandard and overpriced private rented housing, where cowboy landlords are taking advantage of people, largely those who are poor and vulnerable, and very often those with little command of English, who therefore do not know the system. The supply of social housing across London is inadequate, and my constituents are the people who are paying the price.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome the Gracious Speech: setting out how this Government will boost jobs, drive growth and innovation, and increase opportunity for everyone, with the significant objective of levelling up our country such that young people will not need to move in order to improve their life chances. Today’s focus is on housing and it is relevant to consider what is happening in my constituency, which has a strong record of delivery, with a total net increase in the number of homes between 2012 and 2020 of 4,464. That is 25% higher than the figure for the country as a whole. If the rest of the country had delivered new homes at the same rate as Rugby, we would be much closer to achieving the objective of 300,000 new homes a year.
‘ That has been achieved through Rugby Borough Council, as the planning authority, having been a long-term proponent of plan making as a method of development control for many years. It was a shock to me, as a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government between 2010 and 2015, to learn that not all planning authorities have an emphasis on plan making. Even today, only half of all areas have an up-to-date local plan, and I welcome the Government’s proposals to change that.
Rugby has identified zones of development on predominantly brownfield land and has delivered a good mix of housing. An exemplar of new housing at pace is at Houlton, where the council, working closely with Urban & Civic as the master developer, has delivered a great example of how a detailed plan makes better development. It is a template for identifying a parcel of land, as suggested by the Bill, and taking it through to a development site, with associated infrastructure. We have had the early delivery of a link road and of our schools—the primary is already open and the secondary is due to open in September—and plans for community assets are at the plan making stage. That should be looked at by others.
I welcome the White Paper on planning reform. The system is outdated and ineffective. It goes back to the 1940s and is largely unchanged from what I studied at university in the 1970s. I support the proposals for growth and renewal, and protection zones, and I want to empower local authorities to be able to lead on developments. I want plan making to be focused on, exactly as Rugby has done, but there needs to be substantial democratic involvement and we need to consider the role of the planning committee in making certain that we get good-quality development. Good, effective engagement will be the key to success.
On speeding up housing delivery, I hear with concern proposals to levy council tax on approved but unbuilt houses. I fully agree that there need to be proposals to deter land banking. Presumably, any such proposal would apply only to new consents and not the 1 million homes approved but not yet built. It would be a fundamental change to the basis on which applications would be granted. It might provide an incentive to build out before applying for further consents, but housing markets operate in peaks and troughs, and circumstances change. Market conditions two years after an approval might be very different from those at the time an application was made.
I believe that proposal would encourage developers simply to delay putting in their applications until they are absolutely ready to build. It would almost certainly reduce the number of outstanding consents, but it would put huge pressure on council planning departments, with applications coming in en masse in good times and little activity at lower times. There is already no incentive for a developer to sit on a planning approval, because it has already cost him a great deal of money to get where he is today. We do need to change our planning system and get homes suitable for all our residents.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I start by acknowledging the important work of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in scrutinising the Government’s plans for safe housing for all. I also put on the record my membership, as co-vice-chair, of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue.
The UK Government announced in the Queen’s Speech that they plan to introduce Bills that will modernise the planning system: the planning Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill and the Building Safety Bill. Although their plans for leasehold reform are welcome, concerns remain that they have no intention of addressing a persistent and key problem with many tower blocks across England: the issue of remediation costs for faulty cladding.
At present, leaseholders face—and under current plans they will continue to face—remediation costs passed on to them by the owners and developers of buildings with unsafe external wall cladding. This indefensible situation is affecting the mental health and wellbeing of thousands, and it is putting them at real risk of financial ruin, despite being in no way responsible for the use of these dangerous materials. Many of those affected are on medication, due to stress over the worry of finding these funds and anxiety over the potential of fire while living in an unsafe home. They cannot sell their homes either, as lenders will not offer mortgages until the dangerous cladding is removed.
This is a national disgrace, and the UK Government must take immediate action to rectify it. They had an opportunity to address the issue in the debates on the Fire Safety Act 2021, but they did not do so, despite multiple amendments proposed by Members of this House, including the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and in the other House. Those amendments aspired to introduce a real prohibition on the passing on of remedial costs to leaseholders.
In this new Session, the UK Government must follow the example of the Scottish Government, who have taken a holistic approach, with the priority for remediating faulty construction on public funds and developers. In Scotland, a programme of single-building assessments will be carried out, undertaken on a whole building, rather than individual flats. That will allow buyers and sellers in affected buildings to access mortgages without being forced to pay for an external wall system report on individual properties.
As elaborated in the Select Committee’s report, the UK Government have the option to create a comprehensive building safety fund to fund all fire safety remediation projects and high-risk buildings of any height. That should be fully funded by the UK Government and industry, with clear principles for delineating how the costs should be split between the two. That should also be followed by a re-examination of the principles under which funds are allocated to remediation projects. Instead of the current height-based approach, the Government should prioritise allocating money to residents living under the greatest safety risk. They must also at last address the worries that many have felt since the tragic Grenfell disaster and put in place a legally enforceable deadline for the removal of all historical building safety defects, as part of a Government-led, UK-wide effort to make homes safe, at no cost to leaseholders or tenants.
The UK Government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to individuals and families being forced to pay for safety defects that they did not cause. The dream of many is to own their own home, but if they find themselves trapped in a home that they can neither be safe in nor sell, that dream can quickly become a nightmare. Until any planned leasehold reform recognises that problem and commits to fighting it, the UK Government are complicit in perpetuating that nightmare.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) [V]
I wish to convey to the House a tragedy that occurred in my constituency in the early hours of Sunday morning—at 2.36 am to be precise. As it happened, I was wide awake. I heard a loud explosion from my community, a quarter of a mile from where I live, and my windows shook. Watching the scene from where I live—I live on the top of a hill and can see all around the district—I could see blue lights coming from all directions. About an hour later, I found out that a house had exploded in Mallowdale Avenue in Heysham, not a quarter of a mile from where I live. A little boy, George Arthur Hinds, who was only two years and eight months old, lost his life. His parents were severely injured, as were the people next door. Three houses in all were affected; we think two were completely obliterated.
The next day I was invited by the local council to look at the site. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was heartbreaking. I was not prepared for what I saw. Belongings and toys were strewn all over the streets. Debris was everywhere. The whole community were out and they were all in shock, but they rallied together. Some are related to the families concerned.
We had phone calls from the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and good wishes from the Prime Minister conveyed through his Parliamentary Private Secretary. That made my community feel very valued indeed. I thank the emergency services for being there so quickly; it was just unbelievable. I cannot imagine what they had to contend with, but we are so lucky to have them. My whole community in the wider area have clubbed together to make sure that anyone who was affected was looked after. I am so proud to represent them.
What it brought home to me is that the Government’s proposals, which I welcome, should ensure that we all have a safe home in which to live and that any measures to be learned from the still ongoing investigation into this tragedy in my community should be heeded by the Government. I thank the Government for everything that they have done not just at Westminster, but all the way down to local government and on to the emergency services.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). My deepest condolences go out to all those affected by the tragic events in Heysham.
There is a real sense that the current planning system and the Government’s new proposals do not have people at their heart. Newcastle Great Park in my constituency, which already has 2,000 homes, will see more than 4,500 homes once it is complete. Some of those estates have stood for more than a decade now without the kind of amenities that most people take for granted, such as GPs, dentists, public transport links, schools or even local shops. The current system is clearly flawed, with residents feeling that their rights come a firm second to those of developers who seem to increase the size of developments and miss targets for delivery of services and infrastructure with few consequences, and residents pay the price.
The Government’s new proposals will only make the situation worse, reducing local input and giving developers even more of a free hand. I am deeply concerned about the long-term failure to deliver on infrastructure and local facilities, which has been so problematic in Newcastle Great Park; it could be replicated across swathes of Newcastle’s Outer West where many thousands of homes are already being built and thousands more are in the pipeline.
The scale and pace of housing development across the Outer West of Newcastle feel overwhelming for constituents who are contacting me. The Government’s decision to impose a 35% increase on the housing supply in our city is, understandably, causing considerable alarm. I therefore urge the Government not to go down the path of further deregulation, but to look at ways of incentivising more genuinely affordable homes and supporting the installation of infrastructure and community facilities at an early stage of development. New developments must be more than a collection of houses: they must build communities.
Speaking of communities, one of the Government’s ambitions in the Gracious Speech is for us to emerge from the pandemic a healthier, more resilient country, but the reality is that our gyms and leisure centres are under threat of closure after taking heavy losses over the past 14 months. In Newcastle, we are concerned about the future of West Denton pool, which closed when the first national lockdown began and has yet to reopen. There is no lifeline for such facilities in the Government’s legislative programme. The communities that the pool serves already suffer from health inequalities and I worry that we are seeing an emerging perverse pattern, whereby sports and leisure facilities in the areas with the biggest existing health inequalities are the ones at greatest risk of closure. We have seen this pattern emerge up and down the country. The nation’s health is far too important to be left to a postcode lottery. If we want to emerge from this crisis a healthier country, the Government need to invest now in health and fitness for all communities.
So much is missing from the Government’s agenda. There is no meaningful progress on social care reform, despite the Prime Minister’s clear promises. There is a failure to grasp the educational inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic and a real lack of urgency in addressing them. There is nothing in the leasehold reform Bill to support existing leaseholders who have been misled about the property that they bought. The promised employment Bill to extend and protect workers’ rights is absent. This is a Government who neglect social care, education recovery and employment rights, yet they have no problem finding space in their legislative programme for laws that make it harder for low-income and minority groups to vote. That tells us everything we need to know about the values and priorities of this Government.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).
On principle, we need a planning agenda that is community-led, levelling up-led, flexible, thoughtful and environmental. If the planning Bill is about those values, I will support it; those values are good Conservative aims and I recommend them to Ministers and their special advisers. However, I have a couple of caveats. I do not believe that Ministers have made the case for why we need to scrap the current system rather than reform it. We are better off improving what we have. To seek revolutionary change rather than evolutionary change is un-Conservative and more likely to result in failed policy, unforeseen outcomes and, frankly, disenfranchised and irritated constituents.
Specifically, when it comes to the plan to strip away local democracy in individual planning applications, there is going to be considerable disquiet. The plan threatens to give our opponents throughout England a rallying cry of “Save local democracy from the Tories”. That is a very bad position for us to be in. The system is already weighted far too much in favour of developers.
Let me give an unfortunate example from the Island. AEW, a multibillion-pound property firm, bought a site, Ryde ice rink, a few years ago. The firm fell out with the community group that was using it, kicked them out and finished skating on the Island, meaning all the kids have had to go to the mainland. AEW’s tactics have been to sweat our council to allow a change of use—it has gamed the system to make more money by achieving a change of use. Its behaviour has been utterly wretched—the firm is little more than white-collar bully boys who care little about Ryde, my community and the Island more generally. When asked to do something about it, the firm boasts about its exceptionally expensive lawyers—it is part boast, part legal intimidation of Isle of Wight Council and, presumably, me. Under the current system, as imperfect and in need of reform as it is, we can fight these dreadful, arrogant people, in the hope that they will eventually give up, get fed up when they do not get change of use and, frankly, go forth and multiply. I am genuinely worried that under the new system communities like Ryde will not have a voice in what is happening to the property—especially significant property—in their patch, and it is ethically questionable companies like AEW that will profit.
Many Government Members and, I am sure, Opposition Members have a lot of ideas, and I strongly advise the Government and Ministers to engage with us, because we are only too keen to come up with workable ideas that get the planning Bill through and deliver for our communities. In the one minute I have remaining, I will rattle through some of those ideas.
As the excellent Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, we must introduce a “use it or lose it” system for land-banking, because 1 million land-banked properties is a scandal. Secondly, for future development, there must be a meaningful start-by date or the developer loses permission to build. They must start paying council tax on a given date in the future, and if they have not built the properties, they must pay the council tax anyway.
Thirdly, if we are serious about our environmental agenda, we must lift VAT on brownfield sites and slap VAT on greenfield sites. We can then use the VAT from greenfield sites to equal out the equation, equal out the economics, equal out the true environmental and social costs and double down on brownfield sites. Fourthly, we must give councils more permission to make compulsory purchases. There are 600 long-term empty properties on the Isle of Wight alone; we could be using every single one of those. Fifthly, we must provide a legal requirement for brownfield sites.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s constituency is not an area that I know well, but could he tell me what realistic prospects there are for young people to buy their own home there?
Bob Seely
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am aware of what you just said about timing, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will go on for no more than another 30 seconds. There is not enough—we badly need affordable development, and that is what I want to see on the Island. What we do not need is speculative, low-density greenfield development that is not built for Islanders but is built for second home owners, is bad for our community and is dreadful for our visitor economy.
Seventhly, we must ban, except in exceptional circumstances, low-density greenfield development. Let us close speculative loopholes that allow people to game the system and introduce a character test that is applicable for planning applications. Out of respect to others, I will leave it there.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the idea of a renters’ reform Bill with lifetime tenancy deposits and the proposal to scrap section 21 no-fault evictions. It is a real move forward, because the pandemic has been especially hard on renters, who have had to battle poor conditions, illegal evictions and indifferent landlords without proper protections, although I am concerned about the resumption of bailiff action and evictions.
However, the Bill will not help with the money that many people owe. The fact is that the covid crisis has led to greater arrears and a build-up of household debt generally. The most recent figures from the Money and Pensions Service show that 9 million people have had to borrow to buy food and other necessities—for example, rent, utilities and council tax—in the last year, whether that is through credit cards, overdrafts or friends and families. There has been support from the Government, but it has never fully compensated people for their loss of income, and in many cases the debt has simply been deferred. Many in the debt advice world fear that there is a tsunami of debt around the corner, and perhaps now is the time to thoroughly review the debt solutions and bring forward a rationalised and coherent range of options, rather than the current piecemeal and outdated set.
Another thing that is missing from the Gracious Speech and could have helped is legislation to protect access to cash. Cash is one of the best ways to budget, especially for those on a low income. After all, you cannot spend more than you have in your pocket or your purse. The pandemic has seen a move away from cash, with shops refusing to take it and ATMs being shut down in their hundreds. I am really pleased that many retailers have adopted the Which? pledge to accept cash in future, but there may be a case for making cash mandatory for some businesses—for example, those providing essentials such as food and medicine. We need to look at a universal obligation, so that banks are required to ensure access across the whole country.
The shift to online shopping creates other problems. Online scams have proliferated during the pandemic. They are ever more sophisticated and have a devastating financial and emotional effect, and they should be included in the online harms Bill. The Government need to do the right thing by bringing online scams and fraudulent scams within its remit. It is the duty of a Government to protect the public from criminal activity, particularly in these strained and difficult times when more people are online, and it is remiss to do absolutely nothing.
Consumers need to feel that regulators are given proper enforcement powers by the Government, who are on their side. The Government must strengthen competition and consumer policy to make it work better for consumers and give regulators the powers they need to intervene when businesses fail to comply. Building back better means rebuilding all sectors of the economy, not just the housing sector. However, if the economy remains built on a foundation of unsustainable household debt and borrowing and low levels of saving, it is built on sand, and that will never end well.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
I want to start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), who seconded the Loyal Address last week. She gave an impassioned speech on the levelling-up agenda, on improving opportunities and life outcomes for people across the north of England and on more devolution. It was a speech that many of my constituents in Southport, her neighbouring constituency, would agree with, and it was a speech that should make us all redouble our efforts to support the Government in working for everyone irrespective of where they were born.
It is in that context that I welcome the important steps taken by this Parliament to begin levelling up this country while also tackling the covid pandemic, delivering on the will of the British people and leaving the European Union, increasing the size of our police force, tackling inequality, introducing tougher sentences for those desecrating our war memorials and statues, and establishing a £4 billion levelling-up fund and of course the fantastic town deal programme, from which my constituents greatly appreciate having been given £38.5 million to improve our town.
I want to make just three points on safe and affordable homes. First, the planning system is archaic and chaotic and has not really been touched since 1947. It requires reform and that can be achieved through this Queen’s Speech’s legislative programme. If we are serious about levelling up we must reform the planning system. We need to continue to focus on delivering for local people, facilitating a culture of fairness, decency and affordability that will apply equally to renters and homeowners. The Prime Minister and this Government have already started to put our planning system on a much better path, with plans to move to a digital service and for cutting red tape, changing local plans and establishing new frameworks for funding infrastructure, but there is still more work to do to allay Members’ fears that any reform could pave the way to allow controversial developments against the wishes of local people.
Secondly, any reform should welcome conversions above shops. That is happening in my town and I am immensely supportive of it, but if we are to revitalise towns and get this step more prominently on the agenda the Government must step in and ask local councils to develop plans for it. One big problem in my town is that many people would move into these converted homes but there is nowhere to park their car, so facilities should be made available through local councils so people who want to live in one of the flats in town where they would support all the local shops and businesses can park their cars near where they live, not miles away.
Thirdly, we must do more to encourage the right type of housing. Not for the first time, certainly from me and occasionally from the Prime Minister, Members will now hear a championing of Lord Street in my constituency as the basis of the Champs Élysées, but like many great high streets in our country it has seen better days. We want to encourage more people back into town centres, and not just living in flats but in houses as well, so we must empower local authorities to step in and change plans if needed, where they are not in keeping with their surroundings. My town is a grand Victorian town with Victorian houses. That is the type of housing people want in our town centres, and, again, the people moving back into town centres would help to support the local economy, which they would also be passionate about because it is right on their doorstep.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech as a first step in levelling up our country; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister began last week to point the way down that path, and I look forward to working with him and colleagues on the Conservative Benches in delivering for my constituents and the British people.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
A year on from the global pandemic and we have lost so many of our fellow citizens; in Tower Hamlets, in my constituency and across the borough, we have lost more than 518 of our fellow citizens. This pandemic has shown and exacerbated the deep inequalities in our society, with those who face severe levels of overcrowding and who suffer from inequality and poverty being disproportionately affected. That is why it was so important in this Queen’s Speech for the Government to ensure an ambitious programme to protect our citizens, bounce back and recover from what has been the most unprecedented crisis since the second war and the most unprecedented economic hit on our country for hundreds of years—and why it is so deeply disappointing that the Government have not gone far enough to address the crisis in social and affordable housing in our communities.
In Tower Hamlets, we have more than 20,000 people on the housing waiting list. When the pandemic hit, the first thing that I said to the Chancellor when he came before the Treasury Committee was that in areas like mine, where the risk factors are higher because of high levels of health inequality, they are made even greater by the high levels of severe overcrowding, because if infection comes within a household, it is impossible to self-isolate. We have seen that over the past year not only in my constituency but across our city, and across communities where families live with severe overcrowding. That is why it is so important for the Government to introduce proper funding and support and empower local authorities with backing and finance to work with social housing organisations to build.
We need a building programme for genuinely affordable housing and for social housing, but we have not seen that, and the planning reforms will not help the process. We have a Government who are much happier in the pockets of developers, as we saw in the scandal last year about property deals and planning permission, as well as in more recent scandals that we have seen in the papers. We need a Government on the side of the public to build homes that are safe.
That point takes me on to the cladding crisis. At the forefront of any Government’s responsibilities should be the duty to protect their citizens from the likes of the Grenfell fire disaster. It was an absolute catastrophe for those who lived in that block. More recently, in Tower Hamlets, there was a fire in a block in New Providence Wharf, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). The Sunday Times reported that it
“was ‘minutes’ away from being another Grenfell Tower.”
Yet tens of thousands of people, not only in my borough but across the country, have still not had their cladding removed or their homes made safe by this Government.
Once again, I call on this Government to get their act together. Four years have passed since the Grenfell disaster, yet we still have fires, we still have the risk and we nearly had another Grenfell disaster in Tower Hamlets. I call on the Government to set an urgent timeline and timetable to get rid of flammable cladding and other risks to people’s homes, and to support Labour’s amendment today.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
One of the things that I am most proud to have achieved in the past 13 years is the introduction of neighbourhood planning, which has been an enormous success for communities. I hope that the planning Bill will resolve the position of neighbourhood plans. I urge the Minister to do that; I know that he has been following the issue. Neighbourhood plans involve the whole community and allow people to participate in the development of their community for the future. They do not produce nimby charters; they produce plans that take a look at what is involved as a stake in the future and produce affordable housing. They produce more housing than the district councils had allocated to those communities. In every way, they achieve a win-win.
I am aware of the enormous time that it takes to produce neighbourhood plans. I have tried over the years to simplify the process, but in many cases it is district councils that make them more complex than they need to be. Many district councils simply do not want to give up power, but in my experience—my constituency has more neighbourhood plans that people might imagine—people have interest and experience that can be of great value in the production of a neighbourhood plan. One district council told me that it simply did not believe in them, and that it gave little encouragement to communities to produce them. Another said, “Well, if we produce another local plan, then all neighbourhood plans are null and void.” That is completely the opposite of what is the case, as neighbourhood plans need to agree only with the strategic aims of the district council plan. Also, neighbourhood plans must be upheld by the Planning Inspectorate; otherwise, there is no point in doing them and no point in putting in all the work involved. It is quite right, and very good, that the Government are strengthening the idea that they should focus on design. That is important, but they should also give back the allocation of sites, because that is crucial.
In another area that is linked to this, we must ensure that the planning system is speeded up, that the cost is driven down and that people have access to it. The way to do that—this could be a useful hint for something to give credibility to the planning Bill—is by recommending the use of mediation as a technique to use. I declare an interest as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I am grateful for the discussion that I have already had with the Planning Inspectorate in which we have looked at some of these issues, and the issue of trying to find independent mediators to do this work has been solved. This is something for the future, where anyone can be involved in accessing this to get a good result for their community.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It really is disappointing that we did not see more ambition from the Government in this Queen’s Speech, when the need for Government action has never been greater. The past year has revealed the cracks in our creaking social care system and also highlighted the immense contribution made by those who work in it. In this National Dementia Week, I hoped that I would be standing here talking about the fact that the Government had finally revealed the plan for social care that they have supposedly been working on for the past two years. I appreciate that this is a difficult task. There are no easy answers, but leadership is about taking those difficult decisions and finally acting on something that we all know requires action, so why are the Government still dragging their feet? They have also failed to deliver an employment Bill to ban inexcusable fire and rehire tactics and to address record youth unemployment.
Turning to the subject of today’s debate, the housing crisis, the proposals to overhaul the planning system risk sidelining communities and eroding protection for green spaces, while offering no guarantees that the housing bill will be genuinely affordable. In Bristol there is a pressing need for new affordable housing. This stems from the fact that it is such a great place to live, not just for the people who have grown up in the city but for the many people wanting to move there. This presents challenges. Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees recently announced that Brislington Meadows, an ecologically important site in my constituency, would be protected from development after being lined up for new housing by the previous administration. As I have said, we absolutely recognise the massive need for new housing in the city, but Labour is also committed to implementing its ecological emergency strategy, which it is developing under its one city plan, and very much with the sustainable development goals in mind. Bristol is really leading the way as a city using the sustainable development goals as a model and a blueprint for future action. It is disappointing that we do not see the Government doing that at national level.
There will be difficult decisions to be made about planning and housing, and about the transport infrastructure that goes with that, but those decisions should be made by local people and by those who have been elected to represent them, not by developers or by their mates in central Government. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) saying that he believed the system was already far too weighted in favour of developers. I think that many people on his side of the House will agree with that.
I am glad to see that the Environment Bill is back, but it does seem to have been making its way through Parliament forever, leaving us without an effective environmental regulator, which was meant to be in place before the end of the Brexit transition period. It is disappointing that the Government have refused to accept amendments to that Bill—for example, to adopt World Health Organisation air quality targets, or to address our overseas carbon footprint and the rampant deforestation linked to supply chains. I hope that during the second part of Report stage next week, the Government will look again at that. I have high hopes that our friends in the other place will significantly strengthen the Bill, but it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity to revise it of their own accord.
The animal sentience legislation was meant to be in place before we left the EU—another Government promise they have not kept. Although I am glad to see that such a Bill made it into the Queen’s Speech, I hope it can be amended before it becomes law to recognise crustaceans as sentient beings. I will probably be the only person who mentions lobsters in today’s debate—it is very on-brand for me, but I do think we have to get the lobsters in there somewhere.
Finally, the Government have shown their true colours with their shockingly undemocratic voter ID proposals. They show the Government’s real priorities—not building back better or greening the economy, but rigging the system in their own favour.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
They say an Englishman’s home is his castle—or a person’s home is their castle, if they prefer—and in this country we have led the way in home ownership for many, many years. What we must now focus on is making that dream a reality for today’s young people and their families.
I remember my father telling me about his own upbringing in the impoverished Meadows area of Nottingham, and the stories of tin baths in the yard and a large family crammed into very small accommodation. In the 1950s, the family moved to newly built Clifton estate—then the largest council estate in Europe. It had well built homes, indoor bathroom facilities and bedrooms suitable for families. Many of the families who moved to the estate are still there today, and I am proud to hail from that community. It was the right to buy and the vision of Margaret Thatcher that encouraged many of those people later to pursue the dream of home ownership, and today the area stands as a testament to the success of that scheme.
Compared with those families who moved in the 1950s, we live in a very different age. As we have heard, the people born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1975. I was born in the 1980s, but I am not quite sure where I fit in there—I probably just missed it. Home ownership does not just give us a stake in society; it provides us with security and gives us something to hand down to our children, to give them a better life. Although some decry the sale of council houses, it should be recognised that if they had not been sold, people would still be living in them anyway, so it does not affect general problems with supply. The fact is that we need greater supply of housing, and that means building more homes, not just for the future but for today’s families.
People in Bassetlaw want to be able to buy a house at an affordable price and have access to the funds needed to finance that. The emphasis nowadays must be on helping people on to the housing ladder. That is why schemes such as shared ownership, Help to Buy and the new 95% mortgages will make such a great difference and help people to realise that dream.
Gone are the days of cheap and nasty buildings, whacked up to meet targets with no regard for infrastructure, building design and quality, or community cohesion. We must learn from the mistakes of the 1960s and ’70s. We must ensure that we build the right sort of housing in the right areas and that developments are not over-intensive, like some we have seen in Worksop, Retford and Harworth. That is why having a good neighbourhood plan that properly takes into account what the community wants enables councils and communities to turn down applications without endless appeals from developers.
We need good-quality family homes. The houses need to be affordable for the right reasons and not because corners have been cut, as they were in the past. Affordable must not mean low standard. The new planning reforms will help to ensure that, as well as help people on to that very British ladder of home ownership.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
We see each other again, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There cannot be a more positive note on which to start my remarks than to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) to her place in the Chamber. She fought a hard campaign and I know she will make her mark in the House on behalf of her constituents.
In trying to stay positive for as long as possible on the issue of the Gracious Speech, let me first acknowledge the work the Government are doing to prepare for COP26, which comes to the city of Glasgow later this year. There is a good positive working relationship between the Governments and the authorities in the city to get the event ready as we welcome the world to the finest city on these islands. All of us want to see it succeed, because the challenge we face is the biggest of our time.
That, I am afraid, is where the consensus ends. The speech, gracious though it was in its delivery, is deeply egregious in its content—not just what is in it, but what is not in it. Let me start with the Government’s proposals to require voters to have some form of photographic identification to vote, chasing a phantom fraud that all of us, including Government Members, know does not exist. A levelling-up agenda that seeks to disenfranchise people who will probably not vote for the governing party is a fraud in and of itself, and should be fought tooth and nail by every Member of this House. Indeed, Conservative Members will note that the right hon. Ruth Davidson, who will be joining the other place, has also called out the Government’s proposals for what they are.
Let me deal with two issues that are not directly related to housing, but which, if the Government do not get them right, will result in their housing policy lying in pieces: work and good, sustainable work. Members will know that I brought forward a Bill in the 2017-19 Parliament to outlaw unpaid work trials. Unfortunately, it was talked out by the Government, but the practice still continues. People are still being abused by loopholes and the Government’s action to clamp down on them has so far been so weak that it has all the performative muscle of a new-born kitten. That is why we are seeing young people in particular being exploited in the way that they are, and it is costing the Treasury up to £3 billion each and every single year. How can Conservative Members of Parliament not see that it is in our collective interests to clamp down on that kind of egregious practice? If people are not getting paid for work, they ain’t paying their mortgage or their rent.
That leads me to a case I want to quickly draw to the attention of the Minister—I know it is not his portfolio, but I know him to be a versatile type—relating to workers in Glasgow who work for Blue Dog and AdLib. Next month marks a year from when they still have not received any full furlough payments from their employer. HMRC confirmed to me recently that those furlough payments have been paid out, but they are still not in the bank accounts of staff members. They are people whose rent, mortgages and bills have not been getting paid. My appeal to the Minister—the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) is aware of the case—is to please take up this case and come back to me in some form in future.
We will have many fights over the course of the Government’s programme in the days to come.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
I note that we, Madam Deputy Speaker, have just entered our 25th year of service in the House. In all that time, I have been clear that there is no more important issue to the residents of the constituency of Reigate than planning. Crucially, the protection of our environment hangs on the fact that we are London’s green belt.
I just want to pose a couple of warnings for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. They might have noticed that in the last set of local elections only the Borough of Reigate and Banstead remains a district or borough council in Conservative control. These cases almost always turn on people feeling disenfranchised and remote from the planning process. Unless things change, it is only going to get worse. There is also the issue—despite our right hon. Friend the Paymaster General’s machine-gunning at the Dispatch Box of the deputy Leader of the Opposition—of the noise around the developer connection with the Conservative party. The delivery of a developer-led system of house provision will haunt us in future if we do not address it.
I want to point my hon. Friend the Minister to the comments made by our hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about enabling a plan-led system. If the local authority is coming forward with its own plans, of course it should not need planning permission. The local authority will have produced a plan, which developers would then bid to build.
Within that, however, we need a more important national debate about where housing is to go and about how we are to deliver levelling up so that we can get good houses, good jobs and good infrastructure in those parts of the country where people have drifted away—provincial towns in the midlands and the north—to seek employment elsewhere. I draw my hon. Friend the Minister’s attention to the excellent article in The Times today by our former leader, our noble Friend Lord Hague. We need to address the levelling-up agenda, and we can do it within the planning system, but if we do not, we will be in the deepest trouble, because we will not be able to deliver our principal political objectives.
I want to make two other points. First, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department to the concern about the building safety fund and how it affects the leaseholders of Nobel House. I have written to the Secretary of State urgently, and I have now had two letters from his colleague, the noble Lord Greenhalgh. Unhappily, the last letter, which arrived today, was in response to my letter to the Secretary of State of 17 December 2020—I did have a previous response to a letter I sent a month later—but this is now absolutely urgent. These leaseholders are in the deepest trouble because of the failure of Avon Estates properly to register a claim for the building safety fund and, indeed, for the waking watch fund.
Finally, on another element of the Queen’s Speech, the welcome ban on conversion therapy lacks any detail on how it will work. The accompanying notes imply that people who are inflicting it at the moment might get protected. We need assurance on that very shortly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Nominations closed at 5 o’clock this afternoon for candidates for the post of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. One nomination has been received, and a ballot will therefore not be held. I congratulate Ian Mearns on his re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Sadly, the Queen’s Speech demonstrated a failure to act on acute social housing shortages, while thousands languish on housing waiting lists. It failed adequately to protect renters as the evictions ban and furlough schemes come to an end, and it failed to act urgently on fire safety and to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of a crisis they did not cause.
On social housing, the reality is that, over the last five years, less than 10% of the amount needed has been built, but the Government had absolutely nothing to say. They should have adopted calls from organisations such as Shelter, which has suggested an investment of at least £12.8 billion a year over 10 years, which would have delivered 90,000 social rented homes a year.
On private renters, of course the Government reaffirmed commitments to end section 21 no fault evictions, but we have been waiting for over two years for that. If the Government honour their promise, that still leaves a glaring lack of protection for all those tenants in pandemic arrears who can still legitimately be evicted. The Government should have set out a package of support for them.
Finally, on cladding and fire safety, we saw nothing: no support for the victims and no remediation deadlines, just the promise of a building safety regulator. Members across this House have repeatedly called on Government to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of a crisis they did not cause. Absurdly, the Government told us that amendments that defined responsibility for the cost of remediating fire safety defects were too complex an issue to go in a Bill whose purpose was to deal with the responsibility for fire safety defects, and it seems they were also too complex to go in the Queen’s Speech. The Government know that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They know that there is no support available at all for interim measures such as increased insurance premiums and waking watches. They know that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay is simply unjust. The Government must honour their moral duty to these victims. They must provide up-front funding to remediate all residential buildings urgently and finally legislate to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of the crisis they are not responsible for. It is not a complex issue; it is a moral issue, and the Government need to sort it out.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is with some irony that I follow the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and look over the border from Wales. In Wales we look enviously at the Queen’s Speech and many of the reforms that are being made to the housing market, because the housing market in Wales has stalled. At the moment, according to the Welsh Government’s own figures for 2018-19, the housing market is at 35.5% less than when devolution started. For anyone who is in any doubt about the responsibility for that shocking revelation, I remind them that the Welsh Labour party has been in control of this policy area since the start of devolution—for 22 years.
The border in Montgomeryshire is incredibly porous and we do not want the continuing brain drain. We do not want a generation continually moving over the border to England. We need an enrichment of our own communities in Montgomeryshire, and for that we need the kind of reform that we find in this Queen’s Speech. I commend those on the Treasury Bench for much of it.
One thing that I will pull out is renters’ reform. The reaction that we have heard from other Members and from Shelter and Generation Rent rightly highlights that this reform is not just needed but is hugely long overdue. I welcome what is going to happen in England and, again, look very enviously from the Welsh side of the border. In Montgomeryshire many young people are unable to buy their own home. For that to change, we need to build, and at a rate that has not been seen since the beginning of devolution.
I have to confess that Lord Hague, whom we heard referenced earlier, is a constituent of mine. Sadly he cannot vote because he is in the other place, but I very much welcome the fact that he resides in Montgomeryshire. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who, in his op-ed, really encapsulated why Government Members need to support this Queen’s Speech. There is a generation who have not had access to capital. If we are to defend the notion of capitalism and all the ideas of the good and the great that we represent, we need to build. We need to enable renters to turn into buyers and generations to have a real renaissance in their housing community. I commend those on the Treasury Bench and ask that we see these measures in Wales soon.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Much has been made of this Queen’s Speech but it does not meet the challenges of post-pandemic Britain and continues to illustrate the weak foundations of public services after more than a decade of austerity, which impacts on my constituency. My constituents are frankly sick and tired of this Government failing to address historical inequalities after 10 years of austerity that impact on education, jobs, health and social care, housing and economic recovery in my constituency in a post-covid world.
Speaking of the world, the Queen’s Speech also fails to address the international challenge and our having a foreign policy that rises to the challenge we are seeing played out on our screens today. We sit here in the mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons, living under the rule of law, upholding fundamental freedoms for all who live in our green and pleasant land without any fear and without having our rightful connection to it denied. Palestinians do not live in the same security; rather, they live in constant fear of being forcibly dispossessed from their ancestral homes by the Israeli army. They have been abandoned by the international community, and they have been abandoned by us.
This weekend was the 73rd anniversary of what the Palestinians call the Nakba—the catastrophe; the day that marked the beginning of their dispossession in 1948. That dispossession continues—by bombs, by mob lynching, by expulsions, all against innocent Palestinian civilians. These crimes are the root cause of the tragic violence we are seeing across the Holy Land today. When this Government urge the restoration of calm in Palestine, they must remember that Palestinians have been robbed of their calm for 73 years, with the occupation’s checkpoints, the siege in Gaza and the various types of discrimination against Palestinians across the Holy Land.
Israeli human rights groups such as B’Tselem, international groups such as Human Rights Watch, and others have concluded from painstaking analysis that the Israeli Government stand guilty of the internationally defined crime of apartheid. I ask: how should that affect our relationship with Israel? This is not a conflict with two equal opposing sides; rather, one people dominates the other through illegal occupation, siege, dispossession and discrimination.
If we claim that there are two equal sides, why is it that we recognise only one while we have yet to recognise Palestine? Israel is the occupier of the Palestinian Territories, not the other way round. Israel has placed Gaza under siege, not the other way round. Israel is dispossessing Palestinians with illegal settlements, not the other way round. Israel applies policies of apartheid, not the other way round.
The just and peaceful solution we all seek will not be possible until the UK and its allies recognise this imbalance and take effective action to address it. The violence will not end until impunity does. The Government’s support for a ceasefire in Gaza is welcome and vital to preventing further needless loss of life, but there will be no sustainable and just peace in Palestine and Israel until all are equal and accountable before the law.
The Government must therefore urgently support the following actions: an independent investigation by the International Criminal Court into the situation in Palestine; a special session of the Human Rights Council looking into potential war crimes and accountability based on human rights; a review, in line with our own laws, of all licences issued for arms and equipment used by the Israeli security forces that may be used, directly or indirectly, to commit acts of internal repression, external aggression, including de facto annexation, or violations of international humanitarian law; and an end the empty words of a two-state solution while recognising only one state; and, finally, recognition of the state of Palestine.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Back to housing, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech last week and remain very enthused by what lies ahead in the Planning Bill. There is no question but that the UK needs to build more affordable homes. In my humble opinion, we should all aspire to a much higher rate of home ownership so that everyone can take an equity share in their future. Having a place to live that we call home is surely one of the most fundamental rights that we have.
The Government are really investing in this. We have a new £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, a new mortgage guarantee scheme, discounts for first-time buyers, the abolition of section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 on no-fault evictions, the extra £140 million in discretionary housing payments, plus much more. It is a good news story.
However, the thrust of my argument today is that while there is a clear need for new housing, it needs to be in areas that have the capacity to absorb it. To put it bluntly, it cannot be at the expense of the quality of life that our constituents enjoy, notably in the south-east, and it must not include building on the green belt, eroding what is left of our open spaces or ripping the heart out of our rural communities. I therefore urge the Government to take note of what my constituents in Bracknell and Wokingham are telling me.
In Bracknell Forest, a total of 1,688 new houses were built last year, a 123% increase over the previous year. Of those, 404—23% of the overall target—are affordable homes, with 125 for affordable home ownership and 279 for affordable rent, as well as 107 new houses for the elderly. So we are doing it, but it is wrong that councils should be forced to build on whatever scraps of land are left over. It is a similar picture in Wokingham, where the council was almost powerless to stop the activities of speculative developers.
I therefore urge the Government please to consider the following. The ripping up of the Lichfield table was a welcome step, but I would now propose a new formula that focuses on residual land availability as a percentage of the total area. If there is nothing left in a constituency except for residual farmland, golf courses or school playgrounds, do not build on it. We must also build on urban and brownfield sites, and we should build up, not out. Areas such as the midlands, the north-west and the north-east are full of such potential development sites and investment is needed there.
I am led to believe that up to 1 million homes across the UK are currently unoccupied. Councils must make the best use of them. Permissions for a further 1 million homes have already been granted too, so let us do this with a time limit. We also need extra protections for farmland, so let us please impose punitive and progressive taxes on those who seek to build on what is left of it in our constituencies. To be frank, the net zero argument is daft. If we concrete over trees, fields and hedgerows and then plant a few daisies, do not be surprised if the oxygen stops flowing.
We must allow our councils to honour existing local plans and not have extra targets forced upon them. We need to allow them the autonomy to say no and give our communities a proper voice. Democratic consent must therefore be implicit in any new Bill, and it must not become a weapon for the big state. Finally, there is no moral justification for concreting over our green and pleasant land with yet more dark satanic mills. Not only will we continue to haemorrhage loyal voters who have simply had enough, as we saw last week in the council elections, but we will never get that land back, so let us please ensure that the Planning Bill becomes what we would wish it to be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to accommodate all speakers who have applied, after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. According to Shelter, a quarter of a million people were homeless and stuck living in temporary accommodation at the start of the pandemic, and more than two thirds of all homeless people living in temporary accommodation are in London. That equates to one in every 52 people living in the capital. In Lewisham, there are currently 10,000 people on the housing register, 7,739 people are living in temporary accommodation, and we have waiting times of up to 10 years for a two-bedroom property and 22 years for one with four bedrooms.
One of my constituents, a health worker in the NHS, was placed in temporary accommodation with her three children, aged between three and seven, nearly a year ago. She said:
“We have a single room with a door, a kitchen and a toilet. My 2 girls share a single bed and I share the other with my 3-year-old son. I work with covid patients and living in a single room with my kids does not allow me to isolate if and when I need to”.
Another constituent, who has been on the housing register for five years, lives in a two-room hostel with shared facilities with her four children. During their time at the hostel, a shotgun was let off by a neighbour and they have endured other antisocial behaviour. They have also dealt with disrepair such as broken windows and cockroach infestations. The family are at breaking point. Another constituent, living in the private rented sector with her 12-year-old and 22-year-old with mental health conditions, is facing a section 21 eviction after eight years, having raised numerous complaints of disrepair.
The daily anxieties that my constituents are facing are unconscionable. Far too many lack even the basic security of knowing that there will be a roof over their head and a safe place to sleep. Since 2010, there has been a 78% increase in the number of children living in temporary accommodation. Lockdown and home schooling has been hard enough for most of us, but when someone lives in poor conditions with no space to learn or play it becomes unbearable. This Queen’s Speech could have been an opportunity to offer hope to my constituents that many of those problems would be fixed.
The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto promised to ban section 21 evictions, yet in the Queen’s Speech this commitment has been watered down from a renters’ reform Bill to publishing a consultation on a White Paper. It looks like this commitment has been pushed into the long grass, but my constituents cannot wait any longer. Equally, the Queen’s Speech did not include a Bill to improve regulation of social housing, despite a Government White Paper on the subject last year. The paper put forward a new charter for social housing residents to ensure that they are safe, live in good quality homes and have access to redress when things go wrong, yet it is now nowhere to be seen.
Finally, we will never really tackle the problem without commitment to investment in a new generation of social rented homes that are genuinely affordable for families on low and average incomes. My constituents desperately need this, and until it happens thousands of families will continue to go to sleep at night not knowing whether they will ever have anywhere that they can truly call home.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The crisis of unaffordable housing is shredding our social contract. What are we actually offering some of our young people today—£50,000-worth of student debt and a room in a shared house, if they are lucky? In the new town of Charlton Hayes in my south-west constituency of Filton and Bradley Stoke, a new build three-bedroom terraced house now costs more than £330,000. In 1995, the average house price in my constituency was £53,000, which was approximately 2.75 times the average annual salary. Now the average house price is about £293,000, which is more than nine times the average salary. Of course I welcome the Government’s commitment to build 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s, but it does not go far enough; we need to be bolder and more ambitious.
Shelter has said that we will need 2 million more social homes in 10 years to match the growing need. I welcome the £12 billion of investment in affordable housing over the next five years, and the unlocking of £38 billion of public and private affordable housing investment. Moves to speed up the planning process will also help, but the manifesto on which my party fought and won the 1951 general election stated:
“Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health and education are all undermined by overcrowded homes. Therefore a Conservative and Unionist Government will give housing a priority second only to national defence.”
I could not agree more.
At the launch of our 2015 manifesto, David Cameron said that
“Conservatives have committed to building a property-owning democracy for generations”.
However, analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that in the decade following 2010, the fewest new houses were built in England since the second world war. The same could have been said for the 2000s, the 1990s and probably every decade before that for the past half-century. The inability of Governments of all political persuasions in the past few decades to address the housing crisis means that the simple laws of supply and demand push house prices even further.
I have to say that too many colleagues across the House have made a virtue of opposing much needed housing development anywhere in their own areas. How many hon. Members churn out leaflet after leaflet making pronouncements that we need affordable local homes for local people, but then oppose just about every single planning application in their constituencies, using excuses like, “They’re the wrong type of houses” or “They’re in the wrong place”?
In the post-war era, Britain faced a similar housing crisis and a Conservative Government solved it. Harold Macmillan oversaw a programme that built 2.8 million homes in the 1950s and 3.6 million in the 1960s. That is the sort of ambition that we should have today.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
“Build back better” is not just a simple catchy headline. Quite rightly, the Prime Minister and the Government have created the expectation that we will build back better, and in time the great British public will judge whether they believe we have achieved that aim.
Today’s subject for debate is “Affordable and Safe Housing for All”. A significant measure of our commitment to build back better will be how well we have driven down the harmful emissions of the built environment. It was a Conservative Government who set in law the commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and only recently this Conservative Government strengthened that commitment with a pledge to reach a 78% reduction by 2035—just 14 years from now.
Housing accounts for 14% of total UK emissions, so I am glad to make the case in this debate for stepping up our efforts to drive harmful emissions from our homes. We must start by including in the planning White Paper tangible and ambitious measures to deliver environmentally friendly protections and climate change mitigation. They must be part of a legislative framework that determines the quality and efficiency of new homes. We need to strengthen energy efficiency standards and we certainly need to review how energy performance certificates are organised—if you have ever tried to get one, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that it is an absolute nightmare.
We need strong assessment of the environmental impacts of the built environment. We need to bolster the national planning policy framework and drive up the requirements for net-gain biodiversity. Basically, in my view, the build back better White Paper must in effect become the green Bill. The Government and the Queen’s Speech have set out a commitment to support growth through significant investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation, and to pursue growth that levels up every part of the UK to enable the transition to net zero. The Committee on Climate Change has already made its message clear, saying that
“the 2020s must be the decisive decade of progress and action on climate change”
including by taking on the significant task of
“renovating and decarbonising the UK’s…homes.”
We must turn to fixing the problem rather than keep building on it. There is no better way to do that than by transforming the house building sector to ensure it has a highly skilled, highly motivated workforce that leads the world in developing and building homes that are great to live in, cheap to run and carbon neutral. To achieve this, a concerted cross-departmental effort must be made to ensure that planning rules accept only the greenest homes; that construction colleges shift towards teaching the latest methods and technologies, harnessing young people’s interest in the environment; and that building companies large and small have every reason to take on and train apprentices to build the homes in which we can be proud to live.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I want to talk about my constituency, which has been in the news recently, and the problems it faces. There are many intergenerational households in my constituency, and they are often overcrowded, not out of choice but because people cannot afford housing in the private sector and there are long waiting lists for social housing. Many of them are on the minimum wage, on zero-hours contracts and in insecure work, and most are unable to work from home. They are the factory workers, kitchen workers and hospital workers. Many do not have cars and have to use public transport.
It is not uncommon for many people to occupy one house—perhaps six people living in a two-bedroom house. If one person gets infected, how are they supposed to self-isolate in that house? For those and many other reasons, it has been quite hard for many people to self-isolate. The Government say they have provided money and support, but that is not correct—certainly not in Bolton, because the rules are so vague and unclear and access to money and support has been an extreme nightmare for my constituents. In fact, it was recently reported that Tory-controlled Bolton Council was found to have the lowest rate of uptake, as the council had made it exceptionally hard for people to access support.
I have raised this issue for many months, but to date nothing has been done. Instead, we hear Ministers talk about the issue of vaccine hesitancy, trying to blame my constituents for the issues we have. Let me explain: the vaccine roll-out in parts of Bolton that are in my constituency was done differently from how it was done in other places. We started with one vaccination centre in the town centre, with around five vaccinators. That was supposed to cover six sevenths of my constituency—a massive area. Some people have to take three buses to get to the town centre.
I raised this issue with the powers that be and the people involved in the vaccine roll-out—I mentioned the locality, the issue of accessibility and the fact that vaccination rates were low because of that. I asked for two additional fixed vaccination centres in my constituency, but that has not yet happened. Over the weekend, we had a temporary vaccination site which was able to vaccinate around 5,000 people. That shows that there is no vaccine hesitancy; the problem lay in the original roll-out.
I am not trying to criticise or blame anyone. Everyone has been working really hard in the NHS, and I pay tribute to all the volunteers who have been acting as marshals, the St John Ambulance brigade and everyone else who has been involved in rolling out the programme. But we have to remind Ministers that their words carry consequences and have effects. I have already had emails from constituents saying, “Well, many of us British people did not go abroad, and therefore your people are causing the infections.” These kinds of comments must be made very carefully.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in response to the Queen’s Speech, which laid out an ambitious and exciting programme of legislation. It is a Queen’s Speech to build back better from the pandemic, and it is the literal sense of building that is an intrinsic part of the theme of today’s debate.
A property-owning democracy is at the core of what we as Conservatives believe, and I wholeheartedly share the Prime Minister’s desire to move from generation rent to generation buy. I well remember the day I bought my first flat. It was the realisation of an ambition and the culmination of working hard and saving harder, but for too many young people today, this dream is beyond reach. In my constituency, house prices are now more than 10 times earnings. Despite many thousands of new homes being built already, in the past five years, Aylesbury has seen prices rise by 27%. The market therefore clearly calls for a greater supply of housing, but it is important that local development always reflects local circumstances and listens to local voices. I am grateful that Ministers did indeed hear the concerns of local people over the previously proposed algorithm, and I am confident that they will do so again as they move forward with the planning Bill.
The consultation that has already taken place contains some bold and praiseworthy ideas. I will certainly welcome proposals that could be used sensitively to redevelop and renew town centres such as Aylesbury, becoming places where people really do want to live, work, visit and invest. Carefully thought through densification and regeneration can undoubtedly help to reinvigorate towns and at the same time preserve our precious green belt. I am particularly pleased that the planning Bill will ensure that infrastructure is delivered at the same time as new houses, not years after. Anyone trying to drive through Aylesbury will agree that that is a long overdue change.
I have one small suggestion for my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department, which is to consider the issue of empty commercial buildings that are all but abandoned by absentee owners—often overseas companies sitting on the land for its potential capital growth over decades but with no interest in a sense of place or community now. Aylesbury, unfortunately, has a few of those structures. They spoil the streetscape and are an impediment to ambitious and imaginative plans for development. Those sites could be much better used. The buildings could be repurposed for hospitality, retail or housing, or they could be demolished to create further brownfield sites. I hope that the ministerial team will look into ways of enabling that to happen.
The people of Aylesbury are far from nimbys. We already expect some 16,000 houses to be built in the next 30 years, but those developments must be right for residents, both new and old. Aylesbury garden town can help to fulfil that as a project, because it is not about bricks and mortar; it is about creating communities.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) [V]
Housing has become an increasingly expensive commodity, consuming an ever larger proportion of a family’s disposable income. Many people in this country no longer have the prospect of being able to buy their own home, and private sector rental costs have grown out of all proportion to incomes, especially in our large cities, and most of all in the capital, London.
Five years ago, I co-authored a report with my friend Simon Jose entitled “Building Homes for Britain”. In that report, we proposed that local authorities could work regionally to build huge numbers of new homes based on the German passive house model. These houses are built in factories not too far away from the sites in which they will finally be based. Their most important element is the energy they save, which can help to reduce consumption by up to 90%.
Simon and I proposed using a national housing investment bank to help fund these new housing developments. The bank would be set up by statute, and the taxpayers’ money needed to fund the building projects would be match-funded by some of the UK’s largest pension funds—organisations that we spoke to and that were very sympathetic to the idea. Let us imagine for a moment a future where mass house building, managed responsibly and ably by vastly experienced local authorities, not only delivers the affordable homes that this country so desperately requires, but saves its tenants a huge sum of money every month in reduced energy bills and much lower rental costs. Suddenly, some of the UK’s most hard-pressed families, particularly those who have been hit hardest financially by the pandemic, would have considerably more disposable income available, and the construction work itself would ensure increased economic activity and employment.
Our report showed that for every £1 of taxpayers’ money invested in housing construction, the economic output equals £2.84 in local activity, and that would have a multiplier effect across the whole of the UK economy. More apprenticeships and construction jobs would be needed, thus helping to create work in relatively well-paid sectors and encourage more young people into training and education within the construction industries.
In total, our report forms the basis of a blueprint for housing regeneration. It is not about construction for profit, but about construction of homes based on need. If we truly want a more stable, more prosperous society, which will give every citizen the opportunity to live in a decent, affordable home, it seems to me that the Government, even this current Conservative Government, should adopt our ideas and get on with building the homes that Britain really needs.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I warmly welcome last week’s Queen’s Speech, which helps to meet the challenges of recovering from this pandemic while also delivering on our 2019 manifesto commitments. More importantly, it aims to improve people’s lives on a day-to-day basis. Whether it is backing our NHS, supporting our police to protect our communities, or improving our infrastructure, this Queen’s Speech and this Government show that they are committed to delivering the people’s priorities.
Our challenge in Bolsover is to try to change our local economy so that we have skilled jobs and a skilled workforce to meet those jobs. There are huge elements of the Queen’s Speech that help us move in the right direction—whether it is the skills and the lifetime skills guarantee; whether it is the freeport, which is bringing £1 billion of investment just down the M1 to the east midlands; whether it is on infrastructure and connectivity; or, indeed, whether it is on affordable housing. Bolsover has been a location for many houses that are worth £400,000 or £500,000, but that is astronomical for people who are on the average wage in my constituency. Unfortunately, we cannot improve an area in a sustainable way without having jobs, housing and education side by side.
There are too many young people in my constituency who cannot get on the housing ladder. As we increasingly move towards an ageing population, it will be incredibly important that these communities are sustainable, that young people are able to live near their parents, and that they are able to send their own children to good schools locally. I really welcome the fact that we are making affordable housing a central part of what we are doing as a Government, because without that, communities such as South Normanton, Clowne, Shirebrook and Bolsover will not be sustainable over the coming years. We already have fantastic communities in my constituency, but our challenge is to build a better Bolsover where every young person can fulfil their potential to get a good job locally and buy their own home. This is not about Westminster giving us free gifts or giving us anything; it is often about working locally and it is good to know that this Government have our backs when it comes to our local endeavours.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last Monday, a mere 80 hours after polling stations had closed, a leaflet fell on our doormat. Even though consent is already in place for 4,000 homes, which is more than necessary, it was the start of a consultation, a new local plan for Warwick and Leamington and the wider area. So many constituents in Bishop’s Tachbrook, Barford, Budbrooke, Hampton Magna and Hatton in my constituency will be rightly alarmed by what is being proposed, because it will be underpinned by the new planning Bill, which is nothing short of a developers’ charter.
Let us be honest: the Queen’s Speech did not present a realistic plan to fix the housing crisis. After all, we have seen an absolute reduction of 200,000 social rent homes since 2010. Where were the proposals to build more council housing and the 150,000 social rent homes that are needed and have been called for by Shelter and by Opposition Members? Since 2010, Warwick District Council in my constituency has built only 21 council homes. Where was the security for private renters? The Government promised better protection, but the renters reform Bill has been kicked into the long grass. Where was the ambition to invest in existing council housing stock or to address some of the considerable inequalities that have been exposed in the past year?
What pains me so greatly is that in this year of COP26, the Government lack ambition to build zero-carbon homes. We are five years on from 2016, the date by which the last Labour Government promised to introduce them. Five lost years, 1 million zero-carbon homes that would have been delivered by a Labour Government—just imagine.
I will leave for another day topics such as higher education, but in the few seconds that remain, let me highlight a few other major issues in the Queen’s Speech—a Queen’s Speech with barely a full sentence on social care, perhaps the greatest challenge of our times along with climate change, which received little more. That point brings me to the need for a network of 2 million electric vehicle charging points, as highlighted by the National Infrastructure Commission and Sir John Armitt. Today, we have just 23,000 public EV charging points.
The Queen’s Speech failed to recognise that commuting has changed forever. Instead, it favours iron rails over fibre-optic cables. It promises freeports, the emperor’s new clothes. It promises, or claims, a jobs miracle, but it is a jobs mirage—low-paid, insecure work, zero-hours contracts, a gig economy. Finally, there is voter ID and the suppression of public protests. No wonder Her Majesty looked so ill at ease delivering her Gracious Speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will just caution the hon. Gentleman that in this Chamber we do not mention Her Majesty’s opinions on any political matter at all. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was being careful in the way he said that remark, so I will not reprimand him any further, but just for the advice of new Members who might not have listened to a Queen’s Speech debate before, nobody has any idea whether Her Majesty likes any policy or not.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I must say that the Government side of the House absolutely agrees with what you have just said, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was almost a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) until that point in his speech, but I venture to suggest that the environmental achievements of this Government dwarf anything attempted by any Labour Government.
This Gracious Address was a Queen’s Speech for the next generation. The draft Online Safety Bill will protect our children online and make sure that what is illegal offline is also illegal online. The Environment Bill will protect our children’s environmental heritage. There was a commitment to recover our public finances so that we do not leave the next generation in unnecessary debt. The planning Bill has the heavy responsibility of balancing a commitment to build the homes that the next generation absolutely need with protection of the green spaces that are absolutely our children’s inheritance, too.
The importance of green space has been well rehearsed from a health and mental wellbeing perspective, but green spaces will also be very important in achieving our environmental targets; they capture carbon, are important for air quality and provide space to prevent flooding. Protecting the green belt will be vital in meeting our very ambitious and important environmental targets.
The White Paper that the Government produced last year was a clear step in the right direction in striking that delicate balance. Local plans will be at the heart of trying to strike the right note, protecting the green spaces that local people love while developing the homes that we need. I am glad that they will be streamlined so that we can stop the ridiculous situation in which we found ourselves in Sevenoaks: our local plan, which was supported by local people and would have delivered hundreds of homes, was thrown out by the planning inspector on the basis of a tiny technicality. That was absolutely absurd, so I strongly support the Government in what they are trying to do to streamline the process.
I also support the traffic light system being put in place, which will offer protection to the green belt. We must ensure that this is reflected in the housing targets given to local areas, because although we absolutely must and should build, we need to show flexibility so that we can protect our green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are as much our children’s inheritance as are decent homes to live in.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Housing is pivotal in any society at any time, but it is critical in one devastated by covid. As a coronavirus recession beckons and climate change threatens, it is more pivotal than ever. Housing is a devolved matter, but factors and levers remain reserved to Westminster and are therefore critical for the ability of the Scottish Government and Scottish local government to respond.
There are three clear reasons why housing is critical. First, homelessness, couch-surfing and overcrowding are all increasing. Secondly, construction and economic stimulus are essential to create jobs and boost business. Thirdly, with the increasing challenge of climate change threatening, we require to act; and not just prepare for COP26 as a conference, but prepare to act as a society.
Some progress has been made by the Scottish Government. Ending the sale at a discount of council housing was long overdue. That has driven a change from social rent to welfare housing when renting should be a matter of choice, not something forced on people as a result of financial necessity. The Scottish Government have made a commitment to building 10,000 new homes for social rent per annum over the next 10 years. Frankly, that is underwhelming. We require to be building tens of thousands per annum, not 10,000.
Much more requires to be done, and that takes money. That is what this Queen’s Speech is missing, because the Scottish Government will require the funding and borrowing powers, all of which they are denied. The election has taken place in Scotland, and we can argue over the outcome of the mandate, but what is clear is that the status quo of the United Kingdom was yet again rejected by the people of Scotland. Therefore, they should have the right, through their Parliament, to take steps to provide the housing they require for their communities, and they should be able to have their Government access the funds that are necessary and that are there.
That is not just about addressing the housing crisis that exists, even in my own constituency, which has seen an increase in population and a decrease in available stock; it is about creating, as President Obama said, shovel- ready projects so that we can keep people in work. We require to create jobs. We require to boost business. As COP26 beckons, we have to recognise that the purpose of building new houses is also to retrofit old ones at the same time. It is not just a matter of addressing fuel poverty, which remains a significant problem in Scotland, even as we are coming into better weather; it is also about ensuring that our properties are fit for purpose for achieving net zero, so that we can meet the challenge of climate change.
It is for those reasons that we require to build homes, and in order to build homes the Scottish Government need the power to borrow money so that they have the cash to spend.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate on the Queen’s Speech, and what better matter for me to speak about than housing, considering that the second office of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently in the process of moving to Wolverhampton? That news has been met with great delight across the city. I recently had a meeting with the local DWP, which is already recruiting for setting up the new MHCLG office. It is a credit to James Attwood and his team at the DWP, who are passionate about making sure that we get more people in Wolverhampton into jobs.
Why is that so important? Wolverhampton is looking to be at the forefront of brownfield-first development. We now have the National Brownfield Institute in Wolverhampton, and we want to pioneer new technologies, through modern methods of construction, to help protect our green belt but also ensure that we get affordable housing. We have just over 10% of green space in Wolverhampton, and we want to make sure that we keep it. We have prominent campaigns, such as Save the Seven Cornfields, the Lower Penn group and the Wolverhampton Environment Centre, which are trying to protect beautiful areas in and around Wolverhampton. They are a lifeline for so many people in our city to enjoy nature, but we also need houses. The argument always come back, “We don’t have enough brownfield”, but that is categorically not true in Wolverhampton, where we have a lot of brownfield sites, empty retail space and a large city centre that can be filled with a lot of residential accommodation. We are delighted by the towns fund, the future high streets fund and investment into our city, but more needs to be done to see a transformational shift of private investment into the city to help build those houses.
To summarise, this is very simple: we need more housing, especially affordable housing; we have an abundance of brownfield sites or underutilised buildings within our city; and we need to protect the small amount of green belt that we have. So I will fully support these planning reforms, because they provide all of that for Wolverhampton, to ensure that our city goes from strength to strength, keeps the green belt that we love so much and also provides the affordable housing that we need in our city.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Queen’s Speech has failed to meet the everyday challenges facing my constituents in Edmonton, who want safe, affordable homes, well-paid jobs, and funding for the public services they rely on. Though many across the House like to paint London as the hub for middle-class metropolitan elites, nothing could be further from the truth: the unemployment rate in Edmonton is almost 12%, compared with the national average of 6.3%; 39% of my constituents are paid below the real living wage; in the Edmonton Green and Lower Edmonton wards, almost half of the children grow up in relative poverty; and Edmonton has one of the highest rates of unaffordable housing in the country. If the Government truly want to level up, they must act now to reduce inequality across the entire country.
The Government claim to be the party of aspiration, so I looking forward to hearing what they are going to do to close the gap in racial wealth disparities in home ownership, especially in London. I therefore put to the Minister three priorities from my constituents. First, what are the Government going to for my constituents living in Methven Court, Prowse Court, Brickland Court, Geary Court and Golden Lion Court, who remain trapped in unsafe buildings? If the recent fire at New Providence Wharf showed us anything, it was that we need a comprehensive building safety fund, fully funded by the Government and industry, that applies to all high- rise buildings, irrespective of height or tenure and which covers all fire safety defects and associated costs.
Secondly, half of my constituents rent privately, and there was nothing in this Queen’s Speech for them. They face a rent debt crisis, with arrears that built up during the pandemic but with no offer from the Government for rent relief. The Government must therefore act now to provide rent relief, scrap no-fault evictions and give the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the necessary powers to introduce rent controls in the capital. Finally, the Queen’s Speech said nothing about the huge shortfalls in funding that face local authorities. Since 2010, this Government have cut Enfield Council’s budget by an estimated £178 million, and the council expects to see income drop further, by £68 million, as a result of the pandemic. The Government need to reverse those cuts and reinvest in our public services.
In conclusion, we are emerging from the worst recession for 300 years and the worst public health crisis in a generation. The Government should have seized this moment to deliver the safe and affordable housing my constituents need, and not make it harder for them to vote.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Let me set the scene. The Friday before Christmas, I was stood in the road with rain and hail lashing down. It was pitch black, at half five in the evening. A gentleman was stood in front of me with a hi-vis jacket, a pair of Wellingtons and an umbrella. He handed me a pair of keys, because I had just purchased my first house, in my early 30s. We were moving in, and despite the weather and the very stressful day, which I would never like to share with anybody, I would like that experience to be felt by so many people across my constituency, especially those of my generation. It is very important, and the measures in this Queen’s Speech, particularly the proposed housing legislation, will enable a set of circumstances where more people can get on to the property ladder and experience the benefits of a property-owning democracy.
I appreciate that some people become very anxious about planning applications for housing. That is primarily for two reasons: first, because of the protection of green open spaces; and secondly, because of the strain it can put on local resources. That is why it is shameful that Labour-run Birmingham City Council has had a commitment to building on 8 hectares of green open space and parkland every year; it has been allowing housing estates to sit empty for years across the constituency, in particular in Gildas Avenue in Kings Norton, while building on green open spaces. That is why, along with local campaigners and councillors, I have been doing what I can to make sure we get brownfield sites back into use as quickly as possible to give young people like me the opportunity to own their own home.
I was grateful that the Government’s White Paper mentioned Bournville because I am very lucky, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), to represent part of Bournville. It is a beautiful suburb, and if we can replicate around the country what the Cadbury family did in that area of Birmingham the Government will be doing very well in their ambition to build good-quality decent homes.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of procurement, which is addressed in the Queen’s Speech. For many years the boiler in the Hollymoor centre in Frankley Great Park was broken. Councillor Simon Morrall, working with the community group, got some quotes from private sector contractors. Their contractors said it would cost between £60,000 and £90,000 to fix the boiler, but unfortunately the city council had to go through its approved contractor system and costs then spiralled to £450,000. That shows why I am so passionate about this issue: taxpayers across the country have been ripped off for so long with many contracts that go out for procurement. We need to sort this problem out so that taxpayers get value for money.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), and I too remember buying my first home; it was quite a few years ago, but I am sure we have all had that experience of getting the keys for the first time and knowing what it is like to be on the property ladder and faced with a 25-year mortgage.
I want to start by welcoming the intention to update the country’s planning system to deliver the high-quality, sustainable, affordable homes that communities really do need. Getting on to the housing ladder is difficult, and many of the initiatives introduced by this Government —changes to stamp duty, first home schemes, Help to Buy—are designed to make it more accessible, but the reality is that the average house costs almost eight times the average salary. In Warrington, the average price of a home has gone from £140,000 a decade ago to £210,000 today. So we must consider affordability in what we are doing. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we all aspire to see our children and grand- children owning their own home, so I am very supportive of the Government’s mission to reverse the fall in home ownership and to give young people an opportunity to benefit from getting on to the property ladder.
The time limit is short, but I want to briefly talk about a couple of issues. First, on getting the 1 million approved homes built in developments that have been agreed but have been land-banked by developers, we need construction to start, particularly as many of these schemes are in areas where there is a significant shortage of new homes. That has to be a priority for Government, and if developers do not move forward within a time limit, they should not expect future permissions to be granted.
Secondly, I have looked carefully at the way councils base their housing needs, and it really is important that the Government are as certain as they can be on economic needs assessments. I am sorry to be technical here, but are we using the right data to project into the future? Covid has shown how behavioural needs and habits change in a very short space of time, and some of the projections will be based on population forecasts from 2014. Given that local plans will count for a further 20 years, anything we can do to update population forecasts should be considered; we should be using the latest census data from 2021.
During the local plan-making process, we also need a clear focus on prioritising brownfield and regeneration sites. In Warrington, our town centre is in a perilous state. Rethinking planning gives us the opportunity to redefine this space close to jobs and transport links, but where the local council has an opportunity to redesignate green belt—we know that this is something developers will push for—we need to ensure, in the plan-making process, that developers are challenged by planning inspectors to ensure that regeneration and brownfield sites are a priority.
Finally, I really want us to look very carefully at the way that we reform leasehold. There are so many in the leasehold sector who have been affected by long-term leasehold decisions, and this is something that the Government can do much more on.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to contribute this afternoon. I want to address two areas; the first is my deep concerns about the Government’s planning Bill in the Queen’s Speech. I would like to reiterate the points made by our Front-Bench team and, in particular, to highlight some local issues in Reading and Berkshire, which one of the other Berkshire MPs here has hinted at.
I am afraid that the planning Bill, as it is set out at the moment, looks as though it will sweep away 70 years of relatively sensible town planning, which started with the post-war Government’s Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That is a system that has given local people and local councils, as other Members have mentioned, the right to have a say. I personally would like to see councils and local residents’ groups having more of a say and big developers having less of a say. However, sadly, the Government’s approach to the problem seems to be, rather than to listen to local people and, indeed, local authorities or other valid stakeholders, such as some of the countryside or planning groups, to listen to large developers and to redesign a system that has been quite accurately described, in my view, as a developers’ charter.
I want to run through three specific problems that have a very direct effect on Reading and the neighbouring area of Berkshire, in other towns such as Woodley, and further afield. First, the pressure on out-of-town land—the development of green sites—in our area is enormous. We currently face a number of proposals on the outskirts of Reading that are completely unsuitable, will lead to large amounts of extra car traffic, pollution and congestion on already crowded roads, and will not necessarily solve our housing problems.
Secondly, we have the issue of unwanted development by irresponsible landlords in and around the town centre, with houses in multiple occupation over developed sites, residents overlooked, and people’s back gardens taken for unnecessary development. As far as I can see, the Bill does not address these issues. In fact, it makes it easier for unwanted developments to take place because it grants developers carte blanche.
Thirdly, as other Members have mentioned, including the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), there is the issue of brownfield. I am lucky to represent a town that has an ample supply of brownfield—enough in its local plan to provide all the housing that is needed in the borough of Reading until 2036. At present, we have difficulties getting that developed because of delays with developers and other issues such as contaminated land. I cannot see how the proposal from the Government to give developers yet more power and more influence on the planning process will actually address the very serious problem of developing brownfield, which is so important if we are to regenerate cities and towns in a constructive way, as other Members mentioned. So I urge the Government—the Minister is, I hope, taking notes—to rethink this proposal completely.
Secondly, I would like to raise some deep concerns about fire safety and mention correspondence that I have had with one resident that illustrates the scale of the problem. While the Government have made progress on Grenfell-style cladding—I do acknowledge that—a huge number of other related problems have not been addressed. I will give an example of just one typical block in Reading town centre: £150,000 of work is needed on fire safety doors, compartmentalisation and fire extinguishers. Please can we have some urgent action on this?
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
At the heart of the Queen’s Speech was a commitment to our nation’s recovery and to building back better, greener and stronger. Planning reform is fundamental to achieving that, and I welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that reform will focus on ensuring that homes and infrastructure can be delivered more quickly and, crucially, that local plans will now be able to provide more certainty on the type, scale and design of development permitted on different categories of land. Beautiful villages such as Wymeswold, with its concentric circles of development over centuries and little nooks and crannies of growth over time, need to be able to maintain their character while some growth takes place.
Since becoming an MP, I have advocated more power being transferred from developers and officials such as the Planning Inspectorate and put into the hands of local communities, and local plans becoming, in effect, the tender document of local residents, instructing the market on what local people want and what will work for their community. Grown-up conversations need to take place at local level, recognising that we need housing development but equally recognising the needs of local people and the communities in which they live. For too long, developments have been imposed on communities by the lack of a five-year land supply, or by taking surplus housing numbers from adjoining places—from Labour-run Leicester City Council, for example—into Sileby, Barrow and Shepshed. That needs to change. Linked with a 30-month timeframe to produce a local plan, that will transform the current set-up of delay, repetition of action and the inevitable outcome of piecemeal development, which often carries with it local criticism, to the unwarranted detriment of local planners, whose expertise is not currently recognised.
The average house price in Loughborough is nearly £199,000, but median earnings are £31,000—a house price to earnings ratio of 6.4. That is not an easy target for young and first-time buyers and those on low incomes. We need local people to be able to afford to stay in the area where they grew up, so I was delighted that, alongside planning reform, the Government last week reaffirmed their commitment to helping more people own their own home through the affordable homes programme, the new mortgage guarantee scheme and first homes programme. Furthermore, if the focus is put on turning empty floors above shops into affordable homes, we can also help to create a strong customer base for our high streets and town centres and so aid recovery while protecting our essential green spaces and areas of separation between settlements.
On the subject of rental reform, we have a thriving lettings market in my constituency, thanks in part to our large student population. While the vast majority of landlords provide safe accommodation and treat their tenants well, from time to time I hear of tenants who are in distress because they are living in unacceptable conditions, or their tenancy is cut short. I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans on housing and planning in greater detail over the coming months.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Gracious Speech.
Ensuring affordable housing for all really is a case of a tale of two Governments. It is not a competition—I wish the Minister and the UK Government well in tackling the housing crisis in England—but the Scottish Government can be judged on our actions and successes, and I suggest that there are some examples to take on in tackling common endeavours.
Since 2007, we have put housing and homelessness at the heart of policy. There is much to do, but much has been achieved. On buying, our first home fund has helped 11,000 homes to be sold and our open market shared equity scheme and our new supply shared equity scheme have helped thousands more to buy their first home. Since 2007, we have delivered 96,750 affordable homes, and we have just been re-elected on a manifesto to build 100,000 more by 2032.
During covid, we have proven to the citizens we all serve that homelessness need not exist. It is a question of political priorities and funding them properly. Since August 2018, the Housing First initiative in Scotland has helped 832 people to access permanent housing. It is a wonderful scheme, which I commend to the House.
But it is poverty that drives homelessness, and the Gracious Speech makes it clear that the UK Government are more interested in fighting culture wars than in fighting poverty. Poverty drives homelessness. Poverty drives precarious employment. Poverty blights the lives of millions across these islands, and this Government also can be judged by their actions. Freezing local housing allowance and continuing the bedroom tax will hurt the poorest hardest. The Resolution Foundation has found that 450,000 households are in rent arrears because of covid. This Gracious Speech offers them nothing in their continuing plight.
The Scottish Government can do much and have done much, but they can only do so much when 85% of welfare expenditure is controlled by this place. We want those powers and we want those budgets. We want all the powers of independence, not for the flags and the anthems, the old songs and the old stories, but because of what we will do with those powers. My party has concluded that independence within the European Union offers our best future, and we have just been re-elected as the national Government of Scotland with 85% of the constituency first-past-the-post seats. The fact that we have a mandate for an independence referendum is undeniable. The people of Scotland will get to make their choice between two Unions, and I am confident about standing on the SNP’s record of achievement and our aspirations for the future.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, especially as it gives me the chance to extend a welcome to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which will set up its new headquarters in Wolverhampton later this year. Establishing a Ministry in Wolverhampton, along with a new Government taskforce into modern methods of construction, is a clear example of the Government’s commitment to level up opportunity across the UK. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) that it is already creating jobs in the city. It also brings a much bigger boost of anchoring the home-building industry in Wolverhampton. I assure any MHCLG staff considering a relocation to Wolverhampton, or indeed any businesses in the industry, that they will find a very warm Wulfrunian welcome.
The Government have set themselves a huge challenge to improve the planning system, and I commend their aims to ensure that we build beautiful neighbourhoods that add to people’s quality of life, protect our green spaces, and make the dream of home ownership a reality for many more people. Over the coming years, we need to be innovative and imaginative to meet our housing need. Modern methods of construction will play a key part, as will rethinking city centres. We also face the challenge of an ageing population and ensuring that housing for older people ensures independence and quality of life well into our later years.
As time is short, I will turn to brownfield policy. For Wolverhampton and the Black Country, it is critical that we get brownfield policy right. Our marvellous West Midlands Mayor Andy Street has been clear that it is key to meeting our housing need for the west midlands. Although I welcome the introduction of local plans with the opportunity for restricted land designations for green space, we have issues at the borders of the Black Country. My northern border in Wolverhampton North East is with South Staffordshire, and that beautiful green belt land is under threat to meet the additional housing numbers from the Birmingham and Black Country plan. We must ensure that the cart does not come before the horse. The worst outcome is that we build on the green belt to meet targets and then in a few years discover that those targets could have been met through other options, such as brownfield.
The brilliant work being done to make more and more brownfield land viable for housing is a game changer, and I ask that we review and make a new estimate of the number of homes that can be built on brownfield land in the west midlands over the next decades. As time is short, I finish by commending the Government on the aims set out in the Queen’s Speech. I also thank them for the investment in the National Brownfield Institute in Wolverhampton and for brownfield sites in the Black Country. That is absolutely the right way forward.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to her new position. She is already doing a great job. Today, I will speak about the housing crisis that affects far too many of my constituents. The crisis takes many forms: families living in cramped, overcrowded accommodation; renters struggling with sky-high rents in the private rented sector; leaseholders trapped in dangerous flats with the Government letting them down; and people priced out of their local areas and struggling to save enough money to buy. Too often my constituents are at the sharp end of the crisis. The Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to begin to solve those problems—to build more council homes and make safety a priority for all, to end the leaseholder scandal, and to properly regulate the private rental market.
Instead, the Government are choosing to introduce a Planning Bill that will take power away from local communities and hinder, not help, efforts to build more social housing. The Government’s failure to invest in social housing means that, according to Shelter, 10 times as many new social rented homes were delivered through section 106 obligations as through Government investment. The Planning Bill will greatly reduce the scope for local authorities to insert those obligations into planning applications, meaning less social housing despite the scale of the housing crisis that we face. Instead, the Government need to give councils the powers and money to build more social rented homes as soon as possible.
The absence of a social housing Bill is a huge gap in the Queen’s Speech. It is now nearly four years since the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower. In the aftermath of that appalling event, I was involved in community engagement on behalf of the Mayor of London. I heard at first hand from those in the community who had been repeatedly ignored as they raised concerns about the safety of their homes. I pay tribute once again to the dignity and courage of the bereaved and the survivors.
In the years that have followed, the Government have repeatedly promised to reform the social housing sector. In the document accompanying the Queen’s Speech, they say:
“We will also continue to develop reform of social housing regulations and look to legislate as soon as practicable.”
But we simply cannot wait any longer. We need action now. The failure to include safeguards for social housing tenants and leaseholders in this year’s Queen’s Speech is simply unacceptable. I do welcome the building safety Bill, but this is yet another missed opportunity to help hundreds of thousands of leaseholders, who are being forced to pay to correct a problem that is not their fault. I urge the Government to listen to the growing consensus from across the political divide.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
We need more homes, affordable and safe, but homes built in the right place, and it is vital that we take a brownfield-first approach. I want to focus on the hard work of shaping places. That way, colleagues who insist that their own constituencies would be wrong for new housing can instead support the necessary investments to address the viability constraints faced in many cities, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that are happy to build.
Just to put this into context, despite the viability challenges last year, Stoke-on-Trent built more than the average London borough, and 99% on brownfield sites. The decades of decline we saw under Labour have ended. Stoke-on-Trent is on the up, and according to projections from the World Population Review, it will hit a new post-war population peak towards the end of this decade. It is vital that we receive investment to help deliver new homes and overcome the current constraints of a relatively low-value market.
The Government’s levelling-up fund and brownfield fund are hugely welcome, and Stoke-on-Trent must receive its fair share. This support will enable us to overcome the remediation of the most challenging sites and convert empty town centre properties to new uses. This is particularly important for Longton to build on the work of the heritage action zone and the nearly £1 million PSICA—partnership schemes in conservation areas—scheme set up by the city council and Historic England. Further investment locally is likely to realise significant results and leverage private investment on top.
Although values remain relatively low, we are seeing strong growth, and Zoopla recently reported Stoke-on-Trent as being in the top five busiest housing markets. In some tenures, the Stoke-on-Trent market is relatively untested, but when new types of development do happen, developers have consistently been surprised by how high demand has been.
Affordability is less of an issue. It is certainly not a non-issue, just less of an issue in north Staffordshire. I do not in any way want to underplay this, however. In parts of my constituency, such as Newstead and Blurton South, the average property price is 7.9 times the average salary, as reported by the Stoke Sentinel, but this is more of an issue of low wages. Stoke-on-Trent has one of the lowest-paid workforces in the entire country. That is why it is also hugely welcome to see the proposals for the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, helping ensure our workforce have the skills they need to access better-paid work and get on to the housing ladder.
We also desperately need to mitigate past transport planning mistakes. Indeed, this was raised only last week at the launch of our city forum. It should be not just an afterthought to development. In particular, it is vital that the Government support our bids to reopen the Stoke-Leek line and to reopen the station at Meir. It will also be essential for north Staffordshire to receive bus funding.
There is a real opportunity to level up towns and cities so that they become increasingly the right place for affordable and safe new homes. With the right support from Government, cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, with multiple hectares of brownfield land, can be the key part of meeting the Government’s housing needs and building back better.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to speak in today’s debate.
“A home is where the heart is”
is a quote many of us know well. A home is supposed to be a special place. For some, this is true, but for others their everyday home experience is quite miserable. For instance, last month a constituent wrote to me in desperation about the fire safety Bill. Her building is under 18 metres in height, and it has been deemed to have flammable cladding. She has been unable to get an EWS1 form—a form she needs to satisfy mortgage lenders about any potential risks from the spread of fire or non-compliant materials within the external frontage. My constituent has been trying desperately to sell her flat for over a year and a half, and she has come to the disheartening conclusion that it is simply unsellable. She tells me:
“This hardship is having a huge impact on my mental health. I am unable to sleep and am suffering badly. I am struggling to work due to this stress.”
My constituent is an NHS worker. She has been playing her part during this pandemic and has been pivotal in saving lives. She, like so many others in her situation, needs help from this Government to keep her safe and to improve her quality of life. I am sure that people listening to this debate will agree with that.
Too many people and families in our country are faced with risky situations, living in risky homes and feeling at risk of harms such as dangerous cladding and no fire safety measures, energy plans that are overpriced and ineffective, and being stuck in overcrowded homes or unable to find shelter at all. Young people, women and men, can often find themselves homeless when leaving prison, or being placed in houses in multiple occupation. All these problems are avoidable. The local housing allowance remains woefully inadequate and it continues to be difficult for people to find affordable accommodation of good quality.
This year’s Queen’s Speech is just more evidence of the Government’s refusal to carry out their duty of care for the country. What we have seen from the Government is 11 years of poverty-inducing policies, with cuts to public services and cuts to the third sector. We have seen, and are seeing, a rise in food banks, and that was the situation pre-pandemic. Post-pandemic—we are still going through it—things are even worse. Young people and families earning a decent wage cannot afford to buy their first home. New, wonderful green homes are needed, along with support to get on to the market. The Government must prioritise safety. Fixing the problems in housing from the fire safety scandal to the rise in homelessness, improving the quality of life and responding to the climate crisis are all part of building back better. I support the Labour amendments.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s ambition to build homes, including affordable homes, to help first-time buyers and to enable extended families to live close to each other, strengthening our social fabric and allowing key workers to live near to their place of work. I welcome the commitment on locally decided design codes that builders will have to abide by, on tree-lined streets and on building net zero homes. Building back beautiful; building back greener.
However, it is important that I take this opportunity to put on record the concerns of my constituents over planning and infrastructure. We need to put in place either penalties or incentive schemes to ensure that developers build out their planning permissions. The penalty currently falls on the local authority if it cannot meet its five-year housing supply. In the Waverley part of my constituency, my villages of Alfold, Cranleigh and Ewhurst continue to be inundated with homes on pristine green fields miles away from decent transport links, with crumbling water infrastructure and on flood plains. This is not alleviating the concern but creating additional worry for my constituents, who want to know what protection Ministers can give them when neighbouring villages have greenbelt protection. They also want to know why they have to take the unmet need from neighbouring councils.
In the Guildford part of my constituency, the local plan is controversial. It has a brilliant regeneration site in the Weyside urban village, but the additional 14,000 homes cannot be provided as there will now be no increase in road capacity for the A3 through Guildford that was promised. I am pleased that, after a concerted effort by my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), Conservative councillors and me, the current administration have finally agreed to review the local plan. This is why I am calling for the A3 to be tunnelled under Guildford, taking traffic out of Guildford and improving air quality. Guildford will likely be zoned for growth, which should bring funding for big infrastructure projects such as my tunnel, but we are the party of localism who brought forward neighbourhood plans, and my constituents need to understand how the zoning system will strengthen local democracy and accountability and not erode it, as they fear. I thank my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister for their proactive engagement since I was elected, and I know that they will continue to engage in the months to come.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
What we needed to hear from the Government was a plan to build our way out of the pandemic. Instead, we have heard a litany of missed opportunities.
On housing, we have a mounting crisis. We need new sustainable homes that working people can afford. We need to tackle the scandal of homelessness and ensure that support services are available. In Slough, because of funding cuts, we had already lost our citizens advice bureau. Now we are losing our local Shelter headquarters, too—lifelines of support for so many. In the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, we urgently need to tackle unsafe cladding. We needed a plan for housing. Where is it?
On education, a generation of children have had their education disrupted. Children without computers, wi-fi or desks have been held back. University and college students have seen academic life torn to shreds, facing uncertainty about their futures. We needed a plan for education and young people. Where is it?
We needed a plan to rebuild the jobs market to make work pay, to make jobs secure and to recognise the seismic changes to the world of work brought about by technology and the pandemic. We needed to hear the Government’s plan to end fire and rehire. Where is it?
We needed action to support those on universal credit who face a real-terms cut to their income. They will be made destitute by the £20 a week reduction and they need a lifeline. Nothing from Ministers—another missed opportunity.
We needed a plan for the NHS to properly reward NHS workers, not punish them with a pay cut. In fact, health and social care workers missed out on a combined staggering £400 million by earning below the living wage. They deserve much better.
What about transport? We needed a plan for green transport. We need answers on the issues with Hitachi trains. Slough constituents want action on the western rail link to Heathrow, which again seems to have been kicked into the long grass. We must do more to support the aviation industry, which has long supported the livelihoods of so many in my Slough constituency.
And don’t even get me started on the mere nine words the Government could muster on social care! Where is the Prime Minister’s long-promised, oven-ready plan for social care?
In conclusion, the Queen’s Speech presented the perfect opportunity to transform our public services and rebuild our economy to create the jobs and build the homes we so desperately need. Instead, we have a Government Queen’s Speech which lets down the people of Slough and our nation.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to be called to speak in support of the Queen’s Speech. There is much to applaud in the Queen’s Speech and we have a very ambitious programme. Today I would like to concentrate my remarks on the particular aspects that will make a difference in my constituency of Great Grimsby.
I am very pleased that there will be a modern Planning Bill in this Session. It is so important that we can build and deliver new homes and infrastructure much more quickly.
I am also pleased that the levelling-up White Paper will soon be published. I often hear representatives from Opposition parties deriding levelling up. They say it is meaningless and just a gimmick. Well, I would like to explain to them what levelling up means.
Since the war and until I was elected in 2019, Great Grimsby was a Labour-voting constituency. Until May 2019, the council had been in Labour hands. What had been the result? The result was years of neglect and decline, and no focus on helping to improve residents’ skills and outcomes. Labour had no local vision and no effective leadership. All that is now changing. I am here to champion Great Grimsby: to support the people of Grimsby to achieve their potential, and to ensure that businesses know that my constituency is a great place to come and invest. That is what levelling up means: improved skills, more jobs, affordable homes and safer streets.
Let me refer to one area of my constituency in particular that I am working with: the East Marsh. The people of East Marsh voted to see change. They want increased home ownership. They want to acquire the skills to enable them to get better jobs in the area. We have a lot of hard work to do, and I am working with the residents of the East Marsh to help them level up their area. The community tell me that no Labour MP or Labour councillor has ever engaged with them. Well, now their Conservative MP and Conservative council are working with them, and together we will level up.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to address Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. This Gracious Speech was an opportunity for the Government to once and for all tackle the appalling housing crisis facing so many across the country and in my constituency. The planning regime is too often stacked in favour of housing developers and property speculators, rather than tackling the acute needs of many of my constituents, which could be met through real social and council housing. Coupled with the disastrous legacy of right to buy in east London, we have an untenable situation, with thousands of homes now in the hands of private owners exploiting their tenants, rather than those homes going to those who need them.
We have across our country one of the worst housing crises in living memory, with millions of homeowners and tenants suffering from dangerous and substandard properties coupled with skyrocketing rents, while young people looking to get on the property ladder face insurmountable obstacles to home ownership. Four years on from the Grenfell tragedy, far from addressing the cladding scandal, the Government have financially crippled tenants by forcing them to pay for protective housing materials that should be a fundamental human right. There is not a single Bill in the Queen’s Speech that either addresses the root causes of the housing crisis or tackles its worst excesses—for example, by preventing the looming wave of evictions and homelessness or reforming the private rented sector—or deals with the ruinous cost of remediation works on buildings with unsafe cladding.
This crisis has been deeply felt in my constituency of Ilford South and right across the Borough of Redbridge, where more than 13,000 households are on the council housing waiting list—the third highest figure in London. That is exacerbated by the fact that in 2019, just 306 affordable homes were built in the borough, despite families being forced to wait on the list for years. For example, those who need a three-bedroom house in Ilford will have to wait 12 years. Furthermore, significant numbers are forced to live in squalid and cramped conditions. It is little wonder that almost 20% of all cases raised with my office by my constituents since I was elected to this House relate to housing—it is by far the most of any issue.
Across our country, more than 11 million people live in properties that have unsafe cladding four years on from the Grenfell tragedy, and that is nothing short of a national scandal. In Ilford South alone, more than 100 constituents have written to me, mainly from Raphael House, Centreway Apartments and the Paragon building, who have had their life savings wiped out because their freeholders have them over a barrel for enforced remediation and waking watch costs.
That is why Labour tabled a motion earlier this year to force a vote to end the cladding scandal. Disgracefully, not only did the Government not bring forward such a measure in the Queen’s Speech, but Government Members voted against protecting homeowners from fire safety costs, which are estimated to run to £10 billion nationally. It is high time that this Government made good on their failed housing policies, stopped cosying up to Tory party donors who are housing developers and instead tackled the problems in the genuine and serious way that my constituents need.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to meet the profound challenges we face after the pain and turmoil of the last year, to address the deep-seated inequalities embedded in our communities throughout a decade of Conservative rule, and to create a plan to rebuild our country, secure the economy and create jobs for today and tomorrow across all parts of our country.
But this Government’s plan was a lost opportunity—a lost opportunity to take steps to invest in and create the secure, green, well-paid jobs of the future and the here and now; a lost opportunity to deliver for families and boost communities such as those in my constituency, from Pontprennau to Tongwynlais; and a lost opportunity to put a plan in place to enable young people across the country to thrive and build the skills they need. That is what my constituents in Cardiff North wanted to see. There was nothing on welfare security beyond this autumn, when business support and the uplift in universal credit will come to an end, and nothing for the excluded 3 million, who have been continuously let down by this Government.
The Government’s plan offers nothing to end scandalous fire and rehire tactics. The Prime Minister told me in November that these were, in his own words, “unacceptable” and that his Government would seek “redress”. That sums up this Prime Minister and his Government’s proposals for the country—always hoping, never delivering, and never addressing the many systemic issues raised in this House, from jobs to health, levelling up and climate action. Always heavy on the spin but light on action.
Rhetoric does not put food on the table for my constituents. It does not create secure jobs that allow people to raise a family without having to take on a second or third job. This Tory Government’s plan neither relieves nor frees people from indignity or inequality. It does not speak, either, to people’s hopes and aspirations to thrive and succeed on their own terms, or to the country and the conditions they want for themselves, their children and the future of their communities. What a wasted opportunity.
Instead, I look closer to home, back in Wales, at the fantastic job that the Welsh Labour Government are doing, with 150,000 jobs protected over the past year, 100,000 proper apprenticeships created, rail back in public ownership, and the public investment of Dŵr Cymru in customers, not profit. I look at a Welsh Labour Government who are delivering free school meals during the holidays, no questions asked; the abolition of prescription charges; the most generous childcare offer across the UK, and the promise of more. What we needed in this plan was real, transformative change that challenged the baked-in inequalities and provided a real way forward.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
We have enjoyed a very interesting debate, with good contributions on all sides, and I thank all my colleagues who have taken part.
The Government have trumpeted the proposed planning reform Bill as a flagship in their legislative programme, but it is a flagship that may yet be scuppered in the docks, because it is nearly as unpopular on the Government Back Benches as it is on our side. There are certainly real problems with the current planning system that need to be addressed. We are not building the level of genuinely affordable housing the country needs, the Government abandoned the Labour Government’s target for net zero housing emissions by 2016, and public trust in planning is declining because the current process is neither fair nor particularly democratic. Communities are frustrated because they feel powerless to influence planning decisions that affect their own neighbourhoods.
However, the Government’s planning reforms not only fail to address those concerns but actively make the situation worse. Changes they have already introduced to permitted development are deregulating the existing system, so councils and communities no longer have the power they need to develop town centres in ways that work for local people, deliver good homes or support the local economy. It is astonishing that the Government ignored the results of their own consultation on permitted development, which roundly condemned the proposals because they disproportionately benefit property interests over local communities and ignore the need for higher standards in housing development.
The planning reform Bill compounds all that with a renewed assault on local democratic control of planning and regeneration, as we have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber this afternoon. The Government are attempting to sell the Bill as the solution to a problem that does not really exist. Ministers say that the planning process is too slow, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others have already told us, the problem with getting homes built is not the planning process but developers who do not build the homes once they have got consent for them.
According to the Conservative-led Local Government Association, over 1.1 million homes that received consent in the past decade have not been built. That is over half of all homes that were approved by council planning departments. The Government have done nothing in an entire decade to incentivise developers to get on and build those desperately needed homes.
One of the problems—we have heard about it from Members on the Government’s own Benches today—is land banking. That is where a developer who gets approval for an application, an outcome that increases the value of the land, then sits on it and waits for land values to rise with a view to selling it on at some future point. It is a lucrative way to make money without the cost of actually building the homes. Instead of a planning Bill that will do nothing about that we need new measures that will incentivise developers to get shovel-ready new homes built far more quickly.
If the Government’s planning Bill is not really about building more homes faster, what is it for? Let us have a look at what they propose to do. Planning will be taken away from democratically elected local councils and handed over to development boards appointed by Ministers in Whitehall. It is very likely that these Conservative quangos will be stuffed full of developers greedily eyeing up local neighbourhoods.
The boards will zone areas for future development. As we have heard this afternoon from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and others, residents living in areas designated for growth or renewal will be astonished to find that they no longer have the right to object to individual planning applications on their own doorsteps. They will have no right to object to tower blocks at the end of the road, to the concreting over of precious green space or to oversized developments that will overburden local infrastructure such roads, GP surgeries or public transport.
The Bill will lead to more situations such as Westferry, in respect of which the Secretary of State admitted breaking the law to help a Conservative party donor to dodge £40 million in tax, as he pushed an application through in the teeth of opposition from the local community, the local council and officials in his own Department. If the Bill goes through, the safeguards that protect local communities will no longer be in the Secretary of State’s way. Residents will be gagged from speaking out while developers will have the right to bulldoze and concrete over local neighbourhoods pretty much at will. It is Westferry on steroids.
The Bill is nothing less than a developers’ charter that silences local communities so that developers can profiteer at local people’s expense. So why are the Government doing this? We have heard this afternoon from their own MPs just how unpopular the changes will be with local residents. The answer is, I am afraid, all too plain to see: according to analysis by openDemocracy, donations to the Conservative party from major developers have increased fourfold since the current Prime Minister assumed office. All that cash was not given altruistically; it was a down payment in expectation of a return. Residents will lose their right to a say over their own neighbourhood so that the Conservatives can reward the developers who increasingly bankroll their party. The Prime Minister is paying back developers by selling out communities.
The Government’s proposals have been criticised by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Local Government Association, the Countryside Alliance and even the National Trust—and no wonder, because what the Government advocate is not how good development works.
I had the privilege of chairing one of the country’s biggest regeneration projects, which delivered more than 5,000 new homes. I know from that experience how regeneration works for everyone only if it is a real and strong partnership between councils, communities and developers. The best developers know that, too: they do not want to develop in the teeth of local opposition; they want to work with the local community and build something that enhances the local area. Good regeneration is about not just bricks and mortar but people. Regeneration cannot be something that is done to communities without their involvement; it must be done with them.
The Government’s proposals on planning entrench sleaze. They are anti-democratic. They further undermine confidence in the planning system. They promote low-quality housing and fail to act on climate change. They do not deliver the level of affordable housing that this country so desperately needs. The Government must think again: if they persist in this brazen attempt to sell out communities to the wealthy developers who bankroll the Conservative party, they will deserve to reap the political whirlwind that will surely follow.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We have had a spirited debate. We have also had a sombre one when hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). I am sure that the hearts of all in the House go out to that little boy, George Hinds, and his family and the community in Heysham for the terrible tragedy that they have suffered.
We also heard from 58 other Back-Bench Members of the House. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) on their plug for the National Brownfield Institute, which I shall be visiting on Friday, as a physical manifestation of our commitment to brownfield first. The national planning policy framework says “brownfield first”; our fiscal stimulus, the £400 billion that we put into brownfield regeneration, financially demonstrates it; and we have instituted practical regulatory levers through our permitted development rights with controls changes to ensure that gentle densification using brownfield sites can most effectively occur.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) not so much on his speech, because it was as predictable as it was inaccurate, but on hanging on to his job on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that the deckchairs on Labour’s Titanic are much sought after, and we congratulate him on hanging on to his. He will make a magnificent and, I am sure, very loyal understudy to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).
At the heart of this Government’s pledge to unite and level up our country is an unwavering commitment not just to build back from the pandemic but to build back fairer, safer and better, and to build back more beautifully, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) both eloquently made clear. That commitment underpins our planning Bill as laid out in the Gracious Speech: a sensible transformation of our 73-year-old planning system helping us build those new homes and the vital infrastructure that communities need.
The simple truth is that our planning system has not been delivering the homes that we need for many years. It can take seven years to agree local housing plans and five years before a spade cuts the ground, and after all that time, and often after a great deal of local concern, nine in every 10 applications get approved anyway. It is also too slow, too complicated and too exclusive, and it needs to change. We will end the glacial pace of planning by mandating every council to have up-to-date local plans, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). With local plans providing greater certainty, more local people will be better engaged to have a say about the design of their neighbourhoods—what is built, where it is built, what it looks like and what infrastructure is required to support it. We will replace our old, analogue planning system with new, map-based systems fit for the digital age, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) asked.
I have heard very clearly the views of many Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland), to name but a few, about the importance of providing good and effective incentives to make sure that developers build out the permissions that they have. We will ensure through our reforms that such incentives are available and that they work.
I am also committed to neighbourhood plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) raised. We want to make sure that they are rolled out into areas that are less rural, and into areas that extend further north where we do not see enough of them, so that they can be effective levers for local people to plan additional homes in their neighbourhoods.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) rightly mentioned, we will never solve the generational problem of demand outstripping supply without dramatically increasing the number of homes built each year. We made good progress before covid-19, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear: in the year to 2020, approximately 244,000 homes were built—the seventh consecutive year in which net supply increased. That is a fantastic foundation for us to build towards our ambitious target of delivering 300,000 homes a year.
That progress is underscored by the £12 billion that we are investing in affordable housing—the highest single funding commitment for more than a decade, which will deliver 180,000 new affordable homes, of which 32,000 will be for social rent. Approximately half of those properties will be available through our new shared ownership model, allowing people to buy additional shares in their home, because two thirds of people in social housing aspire to buy their own home. It is this Government who will help them to realise their ambition.
Building back fairer means creating a true property-owning democracy in which everyone has a stake in their own home, their community and their country. That is why the Chancellor implemented the stamp duty holiday and extended it earlier this year; why we have brought forward the new mortgage guarantee scheme, helping thousands of first-time buyers; and why last Thursday we reached a milestone in turning generation rent into generation buy when the 300,000th Help to Buy home was sold to Sam Legg from Asfordby, who is just 19 years old. He was able to buy his first home with his partner Megan—something that, in Sam’s words,
“would not have been possible without Help to Buy.”
This Government are proud to be backing Sam, Megan and millions of people like them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), in realising their dreams of home ownership. We did it through Help to Buy and we are doing it through the right to buy and through our first home scheme, which will help first-time buyers to purchase their new home in their local community with a discount of at least 30%, and in some places up to 50%.
That is levelling up in action, extending home ownership and the prosperity that it brings to as many people as possible in all parts of our country, because we are proud of our country; we like our people. We do not despise it and despise them, as the Labour party always seems to. We want to put up homes for people like Sam and Megan so that they have a future. The Labour party wants to pull down statues to heroes like Churchill because it is fixated on the past.
We must recognise that there are some people who have found it difficult to get on with their lives. Nearly four years have passed since the tragedy of the Grenfell fire, and we owe it to the victims, the bereaved and their families to ensure that this country has one of the most rigorous and robust safety regimes in the world. The Gracious Speech confirmed that we will soon introduce the building safety Bill, delivering the greatest improvements to building safety in a generation.
Crucially, the Bill will place clear legal duties on those who build and manage new homes. It will establish a building safety regulator with robust enforcement powers, which will oversee new building work to ensure that risks are properly managed. First and foremost, we will put residents at the centre of the new system by creating a statutory residents’ panel.
The Bill will also restore confidence to leaseholders. We have always made it clear that building owners and the industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. Where they have not stepped up, we have stepped in, investing £5.1 billion to remediate unsafe cladding on high-rise buildings. We have also instituted a generous finance scheme to support remediation on lower-rise buildings. It is an absolute priority of the Government, and we will bring forward our proposals for this as soon as we possibly can.
Ours is an unashamedly ambitious agenda set out in the Gracious Speech. We will build back fairer and safer and better. We will confront the building safety issues that no Government have dared to tackle and we will create a robust world-class system. We will level up communities the length and the breadth of our country. We have the overwhelming support of the people across the country from Accrington to Asfordby, from Hastings to Hartlepool, with the people behind us and the future before us. Brick by brick, home by home, we will build back Britain better.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 2 and 3 together.
Financial Assistance to Industry
Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Paul Scully relating to financial assistance to industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.
That the Motion in the name of Grant Shapps relating to financial assistance to industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Employment
That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 17 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Food
That the draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 23 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 18 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Damages
That the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 25 February, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)
That the draft Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 11 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Plant Health
That the draft Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 25 March, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Adjournment: Whitsun and Summer
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House at its rising on Thursday 27 May 2021, do adjourn until Monday 7 June 2021; and at its rising on Thursday 22 July 2021, do adjourn until Monday 6 September 2021.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Petition
Anderson School (Chigwell)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [R]
I am grateful to be given the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to raise a matter about which I have been concerned since before I was elected to this House. For the sake of the record, let me say that I was a district councillor and a county councillor for Chigwell in Essex, in the constituency of Epping Forest, before I was privileged to join these Benches. The Anderson School is a specialist school for autistic children and young people situated in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing). Again, for the record, let me say that I became a governor of the school for a short period to actively help turn around its future. It was appropriate for me to stand down as a governor when I was selected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for South West Hertfordshire, and it remains one of my few regrets that I had to relinquish that role when I moved to Hertfordshire. I know that my right hon. Friend has consistently shared my concerns. She has been in correspondence about this matter for well over a year with Essex County Council, the Anderson Foundation, the National Autistic Society and the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Berridge of The Vale of Catmose.
The matter has become sufficiently serious to require the attention of the House because if the National Autistic Society is permitted to go ahead with its plans to hand over the school buildings to the London Borough of Redbridge, the Anderson School as initially imagined will be destroyed, and with it the hopes and dreams of many autistic young people.
The Anderson School is not an ordinary special educational needs establishment. It was designed and built for a very specific cohort of people, for whom Essex County Council had identified a need that could not be met in any other school. It is not an exaggeration to say that the school is a pioneer in the provision of opportunities for autistic children who have the potential for high academic achievement but whose mental health issues would make it impossible for them to flourish in a mainstream school. I am led to believe that most of the children who attended the school were heading for university, college or meaningful paid employment. It is the only school of its kind in the area—indeed, it is one of very few in the whole country. It is about to be destroyed because of a series of unfortunate decisions taken by the National Autistic Society.
The Anderson Foundation, a charitable foundation, raised the funds to build this pioneering school on the land of the former Tottenham Hotspur training ground at Chigwell. The land on which the school is built is green belt, and the protection of green belt is very important to the planning authority, Epping Forest District Council, situated as it is between the urban sprawl of London and the Essex countryside. Strict conditions were therefore attached to the granting of planning permission, in the form of a section 106 agreement. That agreement specifies that the school is to be operated for children and young people in the very specific cohort that I have described.
The Anderson Foundation collaborated with Essex County Council, specialist charities, engineers and constructors in the design of the school, resulting in state-of-the-art, first-class provision. Once the school was occupied, its ownership was transferred to the National Autistic Society, which paid the Anderson Foundation £6 million. That is approximately one third of the actual value of the land and buildings, so the NAS benefited from a gift of some £12 million. The NAS was thus given a wonderful opportunity to run the school for the benefit of these highly achieving autistic children. In my view, it failed.
The Anderson School opened for its first pupils in September 2017. Within a year, safeguarding and staffing issues became obvious. Several colleagues have received complaints from their constituents about the way their children were treated while in the care of the NAS. Ofsted carried out an inspection in March 2020 and deemed the school to be failing, and in April 2020 the NAS closed the school. The incompetence of the NAS in not in question; it admits its failings and it admits that it could not run the school as it ought to have been run. It was decided that a new provider should be sought to run the school, and that such a provider should be put in place as quickly as possible, in order to restore the opportunity that had been lost to the Anderson students.
The power to appoint a new provider appears to lie with the NAS, because it owns the school. My colleagues and I question that assumption. It is difficult to understand why the Department for Education considers it acceptable that an organisation that, by its own admission, was a failure at operating a school should be considered fit to be the sole judge of who should succeed it as provider. If the NAS was not fit to run the school, in my view it is not fit to decide who should run it next.
The NAS put the contract for operating the Anderson School out to tender approximately a year ago. The tender process was carried out under a veil of secrecy, with neither Essex County Council nor the Anderson Foundation consulted. The NAS refused to disclose which organisations had submitted a tender, claiming commercial confidentiality for the tender process. It chose a preferred bidder but refused to disclose its identity, again claiming commercial confidentiality. I was shocked to discover that the preferred bidder is the London Borough of Redbridge. The NAS has chosen the London Borough of Redbridge. The NAS deemed it to have offered “best value” because it was a government body, and therefore a very good tenant, and was willing to pay the significant rent requested.
The problem is—this is the point that I believe has been totally misunderstood by ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education—that the London Borough of Redbridge does not intend to operate the Anderson School for academically high-achieving autistic children. What Redbridge wants to do is to use the buildings at the Anderson School to decant the children with a wide range of special needs, some of whom are autistic, from two existing special needs schools in Redbridge—in other words, we will lose provision in the area. We can all understand the position of Redbridge. It has been presented with a golden opportunity. It can move its children, who have a range of complex special needs, from the old school buildings that it currently operates into the new building in Chigwell.
The land on which the two current schools stand is prime development land. Redbridge desperately needs to build more homes for its residents. In one fell swoop, Redbridge can rehouse its special needs schools, make a potentially large profit by selling the land and provide much needed additional housing. Who can blame it for using this financial strength to outbid everyone else for the use of the Anderson School buildings? Redbridge’s motives may be admirable but it should not be allowed to pursue its plans by destroying the Anderson School.
It is simply unacceptable that the NAS should be allowed to hand the Anderson School over to Redbridge. The NAS has openly told officials at the DFE that its intention in handing the school over to Redbridge is to secure the best financial return for the charity. We all appreciate that, as a charity, the NAS has an obligation to fulfil its charitable purposes and to maximise its financial resources, but which comes first? It surely cannot be right for the NAS to sacrifice the Anderson School by handing the buildings over to Redbridge simply to maximise its profits. Making money for the charity is surely a means to an end, not an end in itself. The NAS is not fulfilling its charitable purpose. It is letting down the academically high-achieving autistic children it ought to be serving.
To put it simply, if the plans of the NAS to enter into a contract with the London Borough of Redbridge are allowed to proceed, the buildings will still bear the name of the Anderson School, but the Anderson School will no longer exist. It will have been destroyed by the incompetence and the avarice of the NAS.
In a letter dated 6 April to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Berridge, stated that the Department for Education was satisfied with the current plans of the NAS and that the NAS
“is now in a position to offer a lease to the successful party”.
That is simply not true. The NAS is not in a position to offer a lease to Redbridge because Redbridge cannot, and will not, comply with the terms of the section 106 agreement. Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council have refused to amend the section 106 agreement. They are adhering to the principle that planning permission was granted specifically for the purpose of educating a narrow cohort of autistic children. It was not granted for the purpose of educating special needs children in general.
The Minister’s colleague goes on to say in that letter that Redbridge is
“unable to operate any provision on the former Anderson site until the Section 106 agreement is amended”—
“until”, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister’s colleague did not say “unless”—she said “until”. The DFE has made the assumption that the NAS will be able to appeal against the decision of Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council not to amend the section 106 agreement. Such a stance is not only arrogant in the extreme; it is undemocratic.
Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council are democratically elected bodies that act in the best interest of their whole community. It is simply wrong for the NAS, the Minister’s Department and the London Borough of Redbridge to cast aside their concerns, to ignore the aims of their education policy and to override their decisions. The section 106 agreement was put in place only a few years ago for a very good purpose. It should not be overturned simply to maximise the financial position of the NAS. It is scandalous that a newly built school has been left lying empty for a full academic year. It is appalling that the NAS plans would reduce the general capacity of special educational needs education in the Essex area by 78 school places. It is tragic that simply in order to maximise its own financial advantage the NAS wants to hand over the Anderson School to Redbridge Council.
Redbridge simply wants to use the buildings. It would completely destroy the ethos and the purpose of the Anderson School, and with it the hopes and dreams of the children it was built to benefit. I fully understand the limitations of the Minister’s powers to take action in this matter, but I implore him to intervene in whatever way he can to break the impasse between the various organisations involved in this terribly difficult situation, and to help to restore to the autistic children for whom it was built the opportunity of a bright future, which was the vision of the Anderson Foundation.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) on securing this important debate about the closure of the Anderson School in Chigwell, an independent school for young people with autism. I have listened very carefully to his powerful speech and will ensure that the very serious points that he makes are taken on board by the Department.
As my hon. Friend said, the Anderson School opened in 2017 and was approved for 55 pupils, aged between 11 and 19, whose special educational needs relate to autism spectrum disorder, but who are of broadly mainstream academic ability. The cost of the site and the building was funded by the Anderson Foundation and gifted to the National Autistic Society. At the Anderson School’s first inspection in May 2018, Ofsted judged the school’s overall effectiveness as requiring improvement, with two independent school standards relating to teaching and to leadership and management not being met. In accordance with the Department’s procedure, the school submitted an action plan to the Department setting out how it was going to address the unmet independent school standards. That plan was not considered acceptable in July 2018, and subsequently a new plan was accepted in December 2018.
In October 2019, the Department commissioned an additional Ofsted inspection to assess progress against the agreed action plan. The school did not meet all the standards expected, with Ofsted reporting that the standards relating to welfare, health and safety of pupils, and leadership and management were not met. A further action plan was submitted, but was deemed not to be acceptable in January 2020. Ofsted undertook a final inspection of the school in March 2020, as my hon. Friend said, and found the school to be inadequate. At that stage, before further regulatory action could be taken, the National Autistic Society announced the closure of the school, effective from the end of the summer 2020 term.
Following a thorough consideration of all the complaints from parents that have been submitted to the Department, the Department concluded that in the main the complaints appear to have been investigated appropriately at local level. Essex County Council has shared with the Department the results of its investigations and most of the complaints received triggered no further action, as they did not meet the appropriate thresholds. The conclusion was that two incidents were considered to have the potential to warrant referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency. That is consistent with Essex County Council’s re-examination of the complaints.
The Department is satisfied that there is no evidence in the complaints that we have seen to suggest that the problems at Anderson School were systemic to the National Autistic Society’s proprietorship rather than localised to the school itself. The National Autistic Society runs seven schools, four of which are independent. Of those, one is rated outstanding, five are rated good, and one is as yet unrated as it opened only in January 2020. Although the National Autistic Society owns the site, it will no longer be the education provider. It is in the process, as my hon. Friend said, of determining who is awarded the lease in line with its charitable obligations. The body that acquires the lease will have to go through all the standard relevant approval mechanisms before opening new education provisions.
I assure my hon. Friend that Department officials have been in regular contact with the National Autistic Society since the decision was taken to close the Anderson School and following representations from Essex County Council about the future of the site, although now that the school has closed the Department’s role is legally very limited. It is for the National Autistic Society to award the lease in a way that is consistent with the law governing charities, planning laws, and agreements with the original provider of the site. In conversations with the National Autistic Society, officials have received assurances that it has sought the necessary technical and legal advice on the process for awarding a lease and has been assured that it was fully in line with charity law and guidance issued by the Charity Commission.
The Department for Education is the regulator of independent schools in England. The Department registers independent schools, it sets the independent schools standards that those schools must meet, and it acts when schools fail to meet those standards. Due diligence checks are carried out on the proposed proprietors of any school; as part of that process, Ofsted is automatically commissioned to inspect the school prior to its opening and to come to a judgment on whether the school is meeting the independent schools standards. That is a rigorous process to ensure that the school meets the statutory requirements set by the Department. All owners of registered independent schools must meet all the standards at all times.
Registered independent schools are inspected on a regular cycle by inspectors from Ofsted or the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and the Department can commission additional inspections—for example, when there is a serious complaint or notification of a serious incident at a school. If the Department considers that any of the standards are not being met by a school, it may issue a notice to the proprietor of the school requiring the production of an action plan. If the school does not submit an action plan, or if the plan is rejected or inadequately implemented, the Department can take enforcement action, which means either imposing a relevant restriction on the proprietor of the school, or removing the school from the register of independent schools. It is always our aim to safeguard the education and wellbeing of children, so where schools do not meet the standards they must improve quickly or face enforcement action, which may result in closure.
Although the Department does not have a claim on the school site or a role in determining which provider the National Autistic Society chooses to award the lease to, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is working closely with Essex County Council through new free school provision to ensure that there is suitable and sufficient special educational needs provision in Essex. That includes two proposed free schools specialising in meeting the needs of pupils with autism spectrum disorder—Chatten Free School in Whitham, opening in September 2021, and The Hawthorns in Chelmsford, which is working toward opening in 2022-23. A new independent special educational needs and disabilities provision school opened in April 2021, The Tower School in Epping, which also offers additional places for children with autism spectrum disorder in Essex and the neighbouring area.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for calling this important Adjournment debate. As I said at the start of my response, I will ensure that his concerns and those of other right hon. and hon. Members are reflected on by the Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Hywel Williams |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Hywel Williams |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Caribbean Development Bank (Tenth replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2021
Draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Tenth Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021.
Nigel Adams
There is no greater pleasure than serving under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The two orders will permit the United Kingdom Government to make financial contributions up to the stated values to two multilateral development banks, namely the Caribbean Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank. I will set out the case for supporting those institutions and provide more details on the orders and the impact that our contributions will have.
The MDBs are at the heart of the international development system. They are important partners in delivering the UK’s development, prosperity and security objectives as a force for good in the world. The Caribbean and Asian Development Banks have deep local knowledge, and are highly trusted by the Governments who borrow from them. They play a key role in supporting nations to become more self-sufficient through economic growth and increased resilience, including by strengthening cross-border trade and regional integration. They also contribute to solving global challenges, such as climate change and health crises. Our proposed contributions to those banks demonstrate the UK’s deep and ongoing commitment to the multilateral system, as set out in the integrated review.
The first order under consideration permits the UK Government to provide up to £21 million over four years to the tenth replenishment of the special development fund, or SDF. The SDF is used by the Caribbean Development Bank to provide grants, low-interest loans and technical assistance to the Caribbean region’s poorest countries. The UK is one of the founding members of the bank, which is an important partner in the region. Nine of the 11 countries that receive SDF financing are Commonwealth nations.
Caribbean states are highly vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters. They are also heavily dependent on the tourism sector, which has been especially hit hard by the covid-19 pandemic, having accounted for 15.5% of GDP and 2.4 million jobs in 2018. Funding from the SDF will play a critical role in supporting economic recovery and strengthening resilience and preparedness for future crises. Over the next four years, 180,000 students are expected to benefit from educational projects, and more than 60,000 households are expected to have improved sanitation and water supply.
Negotiations for the tenth replenishment of the SDF concluded in February. Through the negotiations, the UK secured an agreement from the bank to set its first-ever climate finance target: to use 25% to 30% of its own resources for climate change mitigation and adaption. An overall financing envelope of $383 million over four years was agreed. Our pledge will maintain the UK’s position as the second largest donor to the SDF, with a burden share of 14%.
The second order under consideration permits the UK Government to provide up £117,640,000 over four years to the twelfth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund, or ADF. The ADF is used by the Asian Development Bank to provide grants and technical assistance to the poorest countries in the region. The UK has been a member of the bank since it was founded in 1966 and has contributed to every replenishment of the ADF since its establishment.
As set out previously in the House by the Foreign Secretary, the Asia-Pacific region is critically important to the UK. The Asian Development Bank is a key partner in that context. I met the bank’s president, Asakawa, only last week to discuss the bank’s work on climate change and financing for covid-19 vaccines. I also had the pleasure of meeting him in Manilla last year, where I heard first-hand about the bank’s economic response to covid-19.
Prior to the pandemic, the Asia-Pacific region was making good progress on sustaining economic growth and poverty reduction. However, many countries continue to face significant challenges. For example, at least 10% of people in the countries that receive grants from the ADF live in extreme poverty. Many of the countries supported by the ADF are small island developing states in the Pacific, whose reliance on tourism has led to significant economic setbacks as a result of the pandemic. They are also highly vulnerable to climate change. For example, rising sea levels could result in Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands becoming uninhabitable by 2050.
The ADF also provides significant levels of funding to fragile states, including Afghanistan. That funding is critical for ensuring stability and security across the region.
Over the past four years, the ADF has funded the construction of more than 1,000 km of roads. It has supported more than 900,000 women and children to benefit from new and improved infrastructure, and strengthened the resilience of more than 1.7 million people to climate change and natural disasters.
Negotiations for the twelfth replenishment of the ADF concluded last September. Through those negotiations, the UK secured important commitments, including an increase in the share of resources used for climate mitigation and adaptation from 23% to 35%, in direct support of our COP26 goals. An overall envelope of just over $4 billion over four years was agreed, and 42% of that will be financed by the bank’s own resources, with the remainder covered by pledges from donors. The UK’s pledge will maintain our position as the second largest non-regional donor to the ADF, with a burden share of 5.4%.
In conclusion, the Caribbean and Asian Development Banks remain important strategic partners for the UK. Our proposed contributions to the SDF and the ADF will allow those banks to support vulnerable countries to recover from the pandemic crisis, tackle climate change and reduce poverty. Those contributions will also strengthen the UK’s influence over those banks, which are well aligned with our objectives and values. They will support the delivery of the sustainable development goals and our ambitions as president of the G7 and COP26, and as Chair of the Commonwealth. I welcome this opportunity to hear Members’ views on the orders, which I commend to the Committee.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The Opposition support the transfer of funds to the Asian and Caribbean Development Banks, but I have some questions and points to put to the Minister.
We welcome the funds to the Caribbean Development Bank. Helpfully, the explanatory memorandum has set out what the sums of money will do. However, four years ago, during the previous replenishment, Ministers made it clear that they were approaching the bank with a degree of caution, and as such a quarter of the money was set aside as a performance incentive. Can the Minister explain whether those performances were met, that the money was disbursed and, looking to the future, does the new agreement contain any performance incentive? Given that the order provides for an increase on the previous replenishment, if only modest, can the Minister explain if that is part of a more concerted shift in priorities?
Funding to support the UK’s priorities, such as poverty reduction, girls’ education and climate change are welcome, particularly given the scale of the Government’s cuts to aid more generally. It would be useful to know from the Minister what specific improvements he intends the funds to achieve. How does that compare with previous contributions?
We know that a Department for International Development review into multilateral development in 2016 said that the Caribbean Development Bank, especially its special development fund was
“still performing well below the standard DFID expects, and below its own targets”.
It cited concerns about transparency and project delays, and said that a DFID team would be embedded in the bank to support future delivery and oversight. Now that DFID has been disbanded, can the Minister tell us how the UK will use its influence to ensure that the progress and development outcomes of the bank continue to be carried forward to future years and directed towards the world’s most marginalised?
On the draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021, we welcome the fact that funding will be used to support countries to meet international climate goals, such as the Paris agreement. Those are important objectives, because we know that many Asian coastal cities are exposed to flood and typhoon risk—caused by dramatic increases in heat and humidity. That means that, without adaptation and mitigation, societies and economies will be increasingly vulnerable to climate risk.
DFID’s review into multilateral aid in 2016 was positive about the bank, and judged that it performed well on risk management, anti-corruption and transparency. However, it highlighted a few areas of concern, in particular, it said that the bank could do more to ensure that poor and vulnerable groups benefit from its programmes and to support projects in fragile and conflict-affected areas. What have the Government done since the last replenishment to ensure that the bank improves in the areas where it fell short, and do they have any plans for further such reviews?
I was surprised to see mention of
“more resources for…girls’ education”
given that that long-term DFID commitment was recently reversed when it was discovered that the Government intend to make cuts of 40% to the UK aid budget for girls’ education. Does the Minister share my concern about the far-reaching consequences of that for the world’s most marginalised children, especially girls, at a time when they most need our support?
Both replenishments are increases made at a time when the aid budget for bilateral projects and programmes is being slashed. That seems to contradict a letter sent by the Foreign Secretary to the International Development Committee, which said
“bilateral programmes, with their advantages of effectiveness, local ownership and strategic impact will be the default”.
Can the Minister say whether that is still the position of the Department?
In the light of the Government’s devastating cuts to the aid budget, will the Minister consider reversing that decision or put it to a vote in Parliament?
Nigel Adams
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. As the world recovers from the covid-19 crisis, strong regional financial institutions, such as the Caribbean and Asian Development Banks, have never been more needed. Our contributions to the SDF and ADF will support the delivery of the UK’s development, prosperity and security objectives. As well as funding key development projects, those contributions will also reinforce the UK’s influence over the banks, which will allow us to drive them to be as efficient and effective as they can be. By supporting the orders, the Government maintain and further the UK’s position as a global leader in international efforts to achieve sustainable poverty reduction, climate resilience and international security.
The hon. Lady asked whether the recent temporary changes to the official development assistance budget will be reversed, and the answer to that is no. Those are temporary measures, and I assure that we will remain a world-leading aid donor and across Government we will spend more than £10 billion this year to fight poverty, tackle climate change and improve global health. The portfolio agreed by the Foreign Secretary will focus our investment and expertise on issues where the UK can make the most difference and achieve maximum strategic coherence, impact and value for money.
We will sustain our commitment to the world’s poorest people and, as the third biggest international donor, the UK will spend more on international aid in 2021 as a proportion of our national income than the majority of the G7. As the recent Statistics on International Development show, the UK is already one of the largest donors to the international covid-19 response. We have made £1.3 billion of new public commitments to counter the health, humanitarian and socioeconomic impacts of covid.
The hon. Lady asked how we assess the effectiveness of MDBs. We conduct annual reviews of all of our MDB contributions. The ADF and the SDF scored an “A” in 2020, which means they are assessed to be meeting expectations in terms of their outputs. The ADB was independently assessed by the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network in 2018 and was rated “highly satisfactory” or “satisfactory” across all eight organisational performance measures. A mid-term review will take place next year, when the banks will report on progress to all donors. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office uses our country network to assess bank impact on the ground and to identify improvements where they are needed. The hon. Lady should rest assured that we hold the MDBs to account on budgetary efficiency and we take a strong line on staff and board member compensation, which drives for further efficiencies. The 2017-18 Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network found ADB’s administrative expenses to be cost-effective and transparent compared to other MDBs. That oversight and scrutiny does work.
The CDB has higher administrative costs relative to its operations, which is partly due to its smaller size compared to other MDBs, but those costs have fallen significantly in recent years, and we expect that improvement to continue as the CDB continues to seek further efficiencies.
I commend the orders to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021.—(Nigel Adams.)
Draft Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard would be most grateful if Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 22 March this year. This statutory instrument was brought forward using powers under the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020.
The trade and co-operation agreement that we secured with the EU requires that new and efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements be developed between the connected UK and EU markets. The new arrangements were a key objective of the UK during the negotiations for the agreement. Efficient cross-border trade can lower bills for UK consumers and support our decarbonisation and security-of-supply objectives.
The agreement sets out the principles for the design of the new trading arrangements, but the detailed technical procedures still need to be developed by the transmission system operators. Those, collectively, are the companies that own and operate electricity interconnectors that connect the UK to neighbouring markets, and the electricity system operator that runs our onshore electricity network. The development of the new arrangements will need to take place in co-operation with the relevant electricity market operators, which are organisations that operate marketplaces for the buying and selling of electricity.
The agreement details the timeframes for transmission system operators to develop technical procedures for the new arrangements, noting that new arrangements should be made operational by April 2022. It is therefore important that the development of the new arrangements takes place quickly and efficiently. To support that development, this draft statutory instrument imposes duties on electricity transmission system operators in Great Britain, with the co-operation of relevant electricity market operators, to develop the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements for the day-ahead market period.
The instrument will also grant the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets the ability to regulate transmission system operators and relevant electricity market operators in their development of the new trading arrangements, to ensure that they meet their obligations under the regulations. The instrument will further enable Ofgem to make decisions on the allocation and recovery of costs incurred in the development of the new arrangements.
The new arrangements will also be used for trade between Great Britain and the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. Energy is largely a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but my Department has developed the draft instrument in close collaboration with officials in the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation. Input from our colleagues in Northern Ireland ensures that the instrument will support a UK-wide approach to the development of the new arrangements.
It is estimated that the new, efficient trading arrangements could bring significant benefit to consumers. Any delay will of course come at a cost to consumers. Therefore, it is important that the draft regulations are approved to ensure that the transmission system operators develop the new arrangements within the timeframe set by the agreement, so that the benefits can be realised as early as possible. The instrument is one part of a programme of works to deliver the new arrangements.
On 3 February 2021, the Secretary of State provided guidance to those organisations to encourage early action to support implementation of the agreement, while the draft regulations were still being prepared. This instrument follows that guidance to provide a regulatory underpinning for the initial development of the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements.
Since this statutory instrument was laid in both Houses, the numbering of the provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement has been updated following the final legal revision process. A correction slip has been laid in respect of the draft instrument to update the cross-references of the agreement.
If required, the Government will prepare further legislation for the operation of the new trading arrangements, once they are developed. I assure the Committee that such legislation will be laid before Parliament to ensure that it, too, may be scrutinised appropriately. Therefore, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have no issue with the thrust of the proposals in the draft SI. They are sensible in terms of the regulation and ordering of the passage of electricity both ways through interconnectors, so that the UK can trade across interconnectors, and all the countries associated with them, coherently. I might add that, of course, not all UK interconnectors go to EU countries. Although the arrangements are essentially a partnership between the UK and EU countries, one interconnector goes to Norway, which is not a member of the EU. I understand, however, that it falls within these rules as they stand for the purpose of its end of interconnectors for the future.
This SI, however, is shrouded in such a huge mosquito cloud of acronyms that it is difficult to understand exactly what is going on. I think I understand what the proposals purport to do overall, and I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions, on the basis of my understanding, about how other actions the UK may now be undertaking fit in with this particular proposal. To give hon. Members a brief example of what I am talking about, I shall take a paragraph at random from the explanatory memorandum, which states:
“Ahead of this, the United Kingdom secured the TCA with the European Union. Title VIII (Energy) and Annex ENER-4 of the TCA set out requirements for the development of new cross-border electricity trading arrangements at the day-ahead market timeframe that are distinct and separate from those established under CACM.”
I am sure we are all clear about that, are we not. What I take from that paragraph, and the rest of the explanatory memorandum, is that this SI is about cross-border trading. It is about ensuring that cross-border trading is regulated and organised in a way that is not only advantageous for prices, but is advantageous for the judicious use of capacity in interconnectors. It organises the day-ahead market in a much better way than would be possible were, for example, people to be auctioning both capacity and flow on different occasions.
As I am sure hon. Members will be aware, if a flow is secured, but not capacity, and capacity is then squeezed as the day-ahead market comes to closing point, the prices will go up substantially; what seemed to be a good deal from an arbitrage point of view then turns out to not be the case. In the long term, that can lead to the production of electricity at disadvantageous prices as an alternative in-country, when an interconnector arrangement would have been better, all things considered.
In those terms, the regulations seem a very sensible and wise move to take, as they essentially align the UK with arrangements across the EU, both in terms of its capacity considerations and arrangements for electricity flow. I think that is a good thing, and clearly the Government do as well. However, we need to understand that that means that interconnector traffic will now not simply be a question of deciding how much capacity—how much flow they can get down it—someone can use in their interconnector, possibly at the cost of other interconnectors in operation, but will actually be subject to a co-operative arrangement, so far as interconnector practice is concerned.
Assuming that is the case, I am concerned about what the UK will do about its interconnector exemptions policy. As I am sure hon. Members will know, someone could avoid the obligations that came along with the previous interconnector cap and floor regime, or those sort of regimes, by proposing to exempt an interconnector from all those rules and regulations and joint trading arrangements. In the instance of cap and floor, interconnector operators get a minimum amount of income for their capacity and flow, but they have to give income back beyond a certain point, so they have a stable investment environment; but if they want to make a lot of money out of an interconnector and wish to take the downsides with the upsides, they may apply for an exemption in order to—so they may think—make their interconnector work to their advantage.
The exemptions regime, which was previously conducted on both sides of the interconnector end jointly, has now come to an end, obviously, with the UK leaving the EU. Previous hearings on exemptions, which were carried out jointly by the UK and its EU partner states, have now come to an end, but the UK has not yet established its own exemptions regime, so far as I understand it. That is potentially important, because what a UK exemption regime will look like could be very important to the extent to which interconnector operators consider that they should reasonably be bound by the provisions outlined in the draft regulations—regulations which, as the Minister said, are subject to a number of detailed, technical further considerations to work out exactly how the scheme will operate and what its ins and outs are likely to be. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, although a specific UK exemptions regime is not in place at the moment, work is under way to put one in place in the not too distant future. I assume that to be case.
That question is not academic, because at present, there are no fewer than four interconnectors either operating or proposed to operate between the UK and France, the total capacity of which actually comes to more than the total amount of interconnection that the UK has at present with all other EU states. One might say that the passage of interconnection between the UK and France is very crowded. We are potentially in a position in which the only way to make money out of an interconnector between the UK and France is to, as it were, eat the lunch of other interconnectors, rather than by actually operating according to the sort of rational arrangements set out in the draft regulations. Two of the interconnectors that are either operational or proposed between the UK and France are either applying to be exempt or are exempt, and two are not. Depending on the UK’s exemption regime, those non-exempt interconnectors could have their lunch eaten much more efficiently by those exempt interconnectors in the future. Alternatively, they may even work together at a lower possible income level, but nevertheless under a organised and co-operative arrangement that actually secures the two-way traffic in the most felicitous way for both countries—not necessarily in the interest of any one interconnected company, but in the interests of those countries.
Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made on the UK exemption regime? Will it be aligned with the provisions in the SI, or does the Minister have plans to make it far less collaborative and co-operative than the regulations before the Committee suggest?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his valuable and insightful contribution. To confirm, Norway is not included in the regulations—separate discussions are ongoing with them at the moment, which, unsurprisingly, look very similar. I am happy to keep him updated in due course on how those are progressing.
On the question of the exemptions regime, the best answer that I can give is probably, “May I come back to the hon. Gentleman on that ongoing area?” I am happy to write to him with more details in the near future. He challenged me last time on a particularly tricky question, which I think we managed to fulfil, and although this is less tricky, I would not want to give him insufficient information today—I would rather write and provide him with the full picture so that he is reassured in due course.
The regulations will oblige our transmission systems operators to develop now and at pace new efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements. As I said, those are really important to supporting our decarbonisation, our security-of-supply objectives and, crucially, to providing economic benefits to all our customers. The new regime should be operational by April 2020. That is quite a challenging deadline, but adherence to it will enable us to realise as early as possible those benefits to consumers of the arrangements. We are very minded that we have a clear set of deadlines to meet to help everyone to get to that point. On that basis, I recommend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2021 - (18 May 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. First, let me ask you to switch any electronic devices off or to silent mode. I remind you that Mr Speaker does not allow tea or coffee to be consumed during sittings of this Committee. This is really difficult, but you have to try to observe the social distancing arrangements and sit only in the places that are marked. I ask you to wear a face mask when you are not speaking, unless you are medically exempt. Space is a bit tight in this room, so people just have to observe social distancing and try to make it as easy for people as possible as they are moving around.
Today we will consider, first, the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions, before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take all those matters without debate. Before we hear evidence from our first panel, we will have a short briefing from the Parliamentary Digital Service on cyber-security, which is of particular concern to members of this Committee because we are dealing with matters relating to the police and criminal law. The programme motion was discussed on Monday by the Programming Sub-Committee for this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 10.30 am The National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 11.25 am The Police Superintendents’ Association; The Police Federation of England and Wales Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 2.45 pm The Centre for Justice Innovation; The Centre for Social Justice Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 3.30 pm Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 4.15 pm Local Government Association; The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 4.45 pm Doughty Street Chambers; Garden Court Chambers Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 5.15 pm Youth Justice Board Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 5.45 pm The Bar Council Thursday 20 May Until no later than 12.15 pm National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders; Unlock Thursday 20 May Until no later than 1 pm The Victims’ Commissioner Thursday 20 May Until no later than 2.45 pm The Children’s Society; Community Justice Scotland Thursday 20 May Until no later than 3.30 pm The Association of Youth Offending Team Managers Thursday 20 May Until no later than 4.15 pm The Law Society Thursday 20 May Until no later than 5 pm Howard League for Penal Reform; Criminal Justice Alliance; Women in Prison; Sentencing Academy Thursday 20 May Until no later than 5.45 pm Professor Colin Clark, University of the West of Scotland; Amnesty International UK; Liberty
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 May;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 May;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 June;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 June;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 June;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 June;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 June;
(j) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clause 11, Schedule 2, Clauses 12 to 42, Schedule 3, Clause 43, Schedule 4, Clauses 44 to 47, Schedule 5, Clauses 48 to 51, Schedule 6, Clauses 52 to 66, Schedule 7, Clauses 67 to 73, Schedule 8, Clause 74, Schedule 9, Clauses 75 to 97, Schedule 10, Clauses 98 to 100, Schedule 11, Clauses 101 to 127, Schedule 12, Clause 128, Schedule 13, Clause 129, Schedule 14, Clauses 130 to 134, Schedule 15, Clause 135, Schedule 16, Clauses 136 to 156, Schedule 17, Clauses 157 to 161, Schedule 18, Clauses 162 to 168, Schedule 19, Clauses 169 to 171, Schedule 20, Clauses 172 to 176, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 24 June.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I are both delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I welcome to the Committee my hon. Friends, on the Government Benches, and hon. Members across the room. I am sure that we can expect some lively debates in the days and weeks of scrutiny ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Victoria Atkins.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to members by email and made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Victoria Atkins.)
The Chair
If everyone is agreed, we will go into a private session for the briefing on cyber-security and to discuss the lines of questioning. Time is very tight, so we will allow five minutes for the presentation and, if there are any obvious questions, a few minutes for that. If people have things that they want to follow up, I ask them to do that separately with the PDS; otherwise we are just eating into the Committee’s time.
The Chair
I want to check how members of the respective parties want to handle the questions. We have our first panel until 10.30 am; they will all be giving evidence by video today. It is slightly harder since we are not sitting in our usual formed lines, but my assumption is that I should simply alternate between members of the respective parties and allow enough time for the Minister and the Front-Bench spokespersons to come in towards the end. Are you happy with that?
The Chair
Obviously, you can either use the questions that are on the brief that you have been given, but there is no objection to your asking your own questions. However, the questions must relate to the content of the Bill; we do not want any flights of fancy from anyone. I hope that makes perfect sense.
Also, if anyone has anything that they need to declare, I hope that they will be kind enough to do that.
I think that covers all the preliminary business. I am conscious that it is difficult to be called with the arrangement in the room, so if you want to be called, just indicate that to me. And if you are sitting at the back, there is a microphone there, so that you will be heard properly. If anyone is having any terrible difficulties, let me know.
Otherwise, if you are happy to proceed, I will call the first panel of witnesses: Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and Chief Constable BJ Harrington, the NPCC lead for public order and public safety.
Examination of Witnesses
Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt and Chief Constable BJ Harrington gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: For myself, Chair, all I will say is that throughout the construction of the Bill, all my respective leads have worked with the Home Office officials, to try to make sure that our views have been incorporated, so we feel that we have had the opportunity to be engaged throughout the process. I do not think that I really need to say much more than that at this stage.
Chief Constable Harrington: I am one of those respective leads, so I have had plenty of opportunity to inform the Bill.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: We are always concerned about any officers that have to routinely undertake the kind of work in which there will undoubtedly be an impact on the officer’s welfare. We have a range of wellbeing work that we do, including a specific wellbeing service, Oscar Kilo, that looks after all aspects of wellbeing, particularly mental health wellbeing, which has become one of our priorities in recent years. When you get into specific roles such as the one that you identified there, there is training and assessment for officers who go forward and undertake those roles. There is also regular checking and assessment of those officers so that they are looked at again, spoken to and monitored for any of the specific impacts.
As you have identified, there is a range of roles that we now have officers undertaking that are by their very nature distressing, and of course we recognise that kind of repeated exposure, so there is psychological testing and support provided to those officers. In particular roles, that will incorporate routine and regular checking to ensure that the officer’s welfare is fine. That fits within the much broader work that we undertake more generally on wellbeing, and, as I say, particularly and increasingly mental health wellbeing.
Sarah Champion
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The reality is making that work. An issue that we undoubtedly have around wellbeing and the occupational health service provision is the restricted amount of capacity. That is one of our challenges. In all circumstances, where we want to refer officers or staff for support, one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support. Although there is a positive in the concept of providing more universal support, it would have to be balanced with being able to actually provide the capability and the capacity to do that effectively. That is one of the challenges we face.
The Chair
Chief Constable Harrington, do you have anything to add?
Chief Constable Harrington: Like Martin said, we have some systematic processes for those who engage in high risk areas. Some of the capacity issues are dealt with by our trauma incident management response, which enables supervisors and peers to recognise, debrief and spot the people who need further and greater intervention, and almost to triage that response following any kind of traumatic incident, particularly in the cases that have been referenced.
The Chair
I call Robert Goodwill. By the way, Members are free to take their jackets off if they feel so inclined.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: BJ, I will probably let you take that one first.
Chief Constable Harrington: First and foremost, all police training and all police responses to public order and protest, and those important freedoms that you referenced, are in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Of course, there is always the balance between the positive duties to ensure that people can express those rights, and those negative duties, ensuring that we infringe on those rights only when that is proportionate and necessary. I think the point is around getting the balance right in protecting the rights and freedoms of those who are impacted by that.
We asked for some of the changes that are incorporated into the Bill, including more currency around the powers in the Public Order Act 1986 as was. Protest and assemblies have changed since that time. There are issues such as when does a procession become a static assembly, and an assembly become a procession? There is the consistency of what the police can do, always within a landscape of balancing the competing rights of those affected and those who wish to express their rights. There is also the need for real clarity for both the officers who are required to make difficult decisions, balancing objectively and proportionately what they need to do, and for those who wish to express those rights or to have them protected.
We think that the proposals to align sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 really do bring that currency to what we see and how people protest, assemble and march now. There will also be consistency so that people can better understand. Of course, things like the public nuisance elements allow us—the police—to anticipate better where there will be significant or serious impact. “Significant impact” is the phrase we would want to see. You have seen and referenced some of that significant disruption to people whose rights are infringed by others. We think that the changes bring currency and consistency and, overall, greater clarity for all those who have to police it and those who take part.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: From our perspective, we asked for the consistency between those two sections, and that is included. We asked for, and would like to see, particularly serious disruption—a very high threshold—to become more like significant impact on the community. Of course, we can prove disruption, and it is also about whether the impact is on, for example, a small business, an individual, a neighbourhood or, indeed, a large institution or Parliament itself. We asked for that, and we think the Bill starts to address that.
In terms of the powers and the response to that, the tactics and things, whether that is the use of force, that we apply—you referred to water cannon available to other police forces and other countries—always need to be in that balance and, of course, proportionate and necessary to achieve that legitimate aim. But the proposals give us greater clarity to be able better to balance those competing rights, which are always tricky and difficult and always require judgments about those who are affected by it and those who are expressing their rights, and there will always be opposing opinions. I think the Bill broadly gives us that extra power.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: If I may reference Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services’ survey of the public, where there is serious disruption, the public are very supportive of the police being active and preventing that action taking place. I think the public will perhaps always step in when they see a significant impact on them, or in terms of the lower elements, where it is just frustrating perhaps or just annoying. I think the public in the survey showed that they are more tolerant of that.
It goes back to the previous questioner’s point: in the police service, we guard the freedoms of expression and assembly very carefully, because they support police legitimacy in terms of the police being the public, and the public being the police. So I think the Bill gets the balance right. I think the public will always be concerned where people are climbing on top of tube trains, which is simply dangerous. That will always be a case where the police or the public would want to intervene.
The Chair
Is there anything you want to add, Mr Hewitt?
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Not really. We police public order and protest in a particular way, and I am very proud of the way that we police that. As has just been said, it is always a challenge to balance the different rights, responsibilities and risks, and that is what our commanders do routinely. What the provisions in the Bill give us is greater consistency and clarity, which is really important for the commanders and the officers on the ground, but equally for people who are seeking to protest. This is an environment that changes and shifts, and the Bill gives us extra certainty and clarity in terms of dealing with situations as they arise.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Police training already clearly plays a large part in our obligations, positive and negative, under the Human Rights Act, and we make those judgments around balance now—the protection of rights and freedoms of others, versus the rights of assembly and freedom of expression that are so important. It is a core part of our training, from senior commanders through to police constables and every rank and grade in between. We already balance those competing rights.
In terms of preparation, we engage with protest groups where we can and where they wish to engage with us. We try to understand what it is that they wish to achieve through their protest, and we then try to speak to those who would be impacted on—you used the example of people in a shop—to understand what they need. We try to strike a balance that allows both of those rights and freedoms to be carried out and realised. Sometimes there is conflict in that, because some might seek to obstruct one or the other. That is when police commanders and officers have to make those judgments, but it is always about how they balance those rights in a way that is proportionate and necessary. Of course, any restrictions that we place on those rights must always be prescribed in law, and that is what we say the provisions in the Bill allow us to do more clearly for all involved.
Maria Eagle
Q
“entire classes or types of protests”
will be prohibited and that the bar for what will constitute significant disruption to the community, which is a woolly phrase—what does that consist of?—will be set at a low level, which will infringe on people’s rights to protest peacefully. What do you think about this, and what is your understanding of the definition of serious annoyance?
Chief Constable Harrington: The vast majority of protests across the country are largely unpoliced and take place without police intervention, and we use our current powers under the Public Order Act to impose restrictions relatively infrequently. Over the past year, I do not think it has been more than 20 times, although some of those have been high profile and have obviously been challenged in the courts. These are not powers that we seek to use frequently, and they are well considered. Of course, they are subject, and have been subject, to challenge in the courts, both through judicial review and subsequently when people have been prosecuted for breaching the conditions in relation to that.
On serious annoyance, we think serious disruption is a very high bar. We asked for “significant impact” on the community, to take account of where it may not be serious but is perhaps significant to a business, an individual or a school, or to the operation of someone’s life and freedoms. On serious annoyance, we need to see what Parliament’s decision on the definition of that is and to interpret that accordingly, always coming back to how we interpret the law in a way which comes back to the fundamental freedoms and those fundamental obligations on policing, which is to get the balance right between those who wish to express those rights and those who are impacted by them. We will have to see what Parliament decides and whether it is able to give us some clarity about what that means, so that we can make those judgments in an informed and lawful way.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: I have policed many protests over 27 years in London, and headed up public order for the Metropolitan police in a previous job, so, yes. There are lots of cases—Redmond-Bate and others—that would suggest that protest is annoyance and disruptive. This is the balance. We come back to the point: where does that level of disruption become, in our view, a significant impact on a community? That is the balance of judgment that we have to make. If that stops the operation of a business—a hospital perhaps—or stops thousands or tens of thousands of people commuting to their jobs each day, our argument would be that that tends to trip the bar to say that that is not proportionate and the balance is out of kilter there.
Equally, we have to take into account that there will be some annoyance and there will be some noise, but that is the judgment call that commanders have to make, balancing those and taking the evidence or the information from those affected by it. We would very much welcome from Parliament guidance and a steer as to what that would mean and what the levels are—if you excuse the pun—because that is how we can then make sure that we balance those rights lawfully and proportionately.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Some are very, very noisy, with drums, cymbals and bands, and others—certainly that I have been involved with—have been absolutely silent, because of the nature of those protests. Noise is one element which can disrupt, but so also is the presence. So there is a whole variety of different protests, but, yes, many are noisy.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: The presumption is that people have a right to assembly, and we would only impose conditions on those where we think that there is serious disruption, serious disorder or the likelihood of serious damage, or they are there to intimidate people. As the law suggests, we have always said that, in terms of serious disruption, that bar is very, very high, and we would like to see “significant impact”.
We use these powers currently very rarely. We allow and facilitate many protests, and sometimes to our criticism. Police commanders are criticised for getting the balance wrong because one or other side, or opposing views, think that it should not be allowed. I cannot say that every protest will always be allowed, but I think individual commanders will make informed, balanced judgments based on the information, always seeking to get the balance right, with a presumption that is set out in the Human Rights Act that we will facilitate a peaceful assembly, but always balancing that against the protection of rights and freedoms of others.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: As I said, we asked for greater consistency in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act. For the Committee’s benefit, for a procession, we can impose conditions such as appear reasonable to the senior commander in the circumstances—whatever range of conditions. For an assembly, we can only specify location, duration and maximum numbers. As I said, the point is when does a march begin and an assembly stop? You will have all seen that in your own experience.
We asked for greater clarity around public nuisance and for that to become a statutory offence, rather than a common law offence. We think that gives commanders and the public greater clarity and understanding. We think that is an important power that will allow us to deal with some of the more serious disruption to communities that perhaps might be planned.
We also asked that, where we have talked to individuals and gone through breach of the conditions, whether in advance, through publication, through engagement or through the five-stage appeal before we use enforcement, and where we have done everything we possibly can, often videoing officers speaking to or giving a leaflet to someone who we say is breaching, that the presumption be shifted, as they ought to know, because we have done everything possible. We have asked for those kinds of powers, and they are reflected in the Bill.
The Chair
I will come to Allan Dorans in a second, but in the interest of balance we will go first to Antony Higginbotham first.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Social media has been a game changer in many ways. We still get organisers who come forward and people who say they want to march from A to B. They will organise around that; they are what I call a traditional protest march.
But, as you rightly say, we can have protests or assemblies that are organised in a matter of hours—sometimes minutes—and the use of social media can change those protests and make them more dynamic. Hence, the currency around that, because something was advertised as an assembly at a particular point, but, very quickly, through social media, everyone is off to another point, and it becomes a march. We think that is really important, and the powers help us because we can be really clear about imposing proportionate, lawful and necessary conditions, if the threshold is met, on the whole of that protest, whether it walks or stands still. Then everybody can be clear about what they do.
In terms of social media, we have adapted very quickly, I think. You will regularly see police officers in our police liaison team trying to engage with organisers. We will see approaches through a whole range of social media platforms. Sometimes, as it is people’s right not to engage with us, you will see senior officers making very clear appeals and clearly setting out through social media what, in the policing judgment, is acceptable or not acceptable, in order to make sure people are clear about where they may or may not be breaking the law if we impose conditions.
So we have adapted to that and we continue to do that. Through events, you will see that we continue to do that for those events. We also use social media to understand the impact on those affected, so that we can either protect property or protect the rights and freedoms of those who may be affected.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: It is the ability to communicate quickly, to change their focus of protest very quickly and to divide and split up—it is just that it is dynamic. We see that in a social context—“I’ll meet you here” or “I’ll meet you there.” That is the same thing in protests.
I think you hit the nail on the head about what we are asking for around consistency and currency, allowing the powers that we use—again, proportionately and with all the balance and the constraints of the Human Rights Act—to be really clear, so we can say, “What is the impact of what this group propose to do? How do we best balance that?”
Then, if we think the threshold is met, we can impose conditions that allow us to be really clear about what we are trying to achieve. To the point you made earlier, we then need to communicate that very clearly to those involved so that they have every opportunity to express their rights, understanding what the rules and thresholds are for when the police would intervene.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: We are very careful with the use of closed online groups. The open-source platforms we use are exactly that: open source. Our communication with protest groups is open, as is their conversation with us. I think we are very careful; our access to those would be about criminality, and that is not what we are talking about here in terms of our use of those powers. This is not to limit or criminalise protests; it is to balance those rights of disruption with competing rights.
Seeking access to closed groups would always be at a very high threshold we would consider only with criminality. We do that in other arenas, and we have good powers and good co-operation in order to do that. We would not seek that routinely as part of policing protests or public order. As we have seen over the last year—even this last weekend—there have been largely peaceful protests. My view as the national lead is that we would only seek those powers where protests end and criminality begins, but I think they are well catered for elsewhere.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The first point I would mention is that there will be pilots for the serious violence reduction orders. We have been and will continue to work very closely with the Home Office to make sure that we fully understand the impact of such orders. There is no doubt that there are people who are more violent and have a history of violence, and we do a range of things to try to reduce the number of violent crimes. Our concern is to make sure that there is no disproportionality in the way these orders are used, so we are really keen to work very closely with the pilot site to assess how this can be another tool—and it is just one further tool—in dealing with street violence and violence among younger people.
We do think there is an opportunity for certain individuals to become subject to this sort of order, but we want to work with the pilot site to see how we can make that work; how we can make it an effective tool that does not cause more challenges with particular parts of the community.
The Chair
Thank you. I want to try to squeeze in one last Back-Bench question—Hywel Williams, could you make it brief, because I want to get to the Front Benches.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Potentially, that presents a challenge. The four Welsh forces work extremely well with Welsh Government, and—obviously—with local authorities in the individual force areas. There is always going to be a challenge when people are potentially in different legislative places. We have been dealing with that in many senses in our response to the covid pandemic for the last 14 months or so: we have very deliberately responded as one UK police service, but on almost all occasions there have been slightly different regulations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and, for that matter, Wales. That presents a challenge to policing, but I know for a fact that the four forces in what the National Police Chiefs Council would describe as the Welsh region work incredibly closely with the Welsh Government and with local authorities in the individual areas. We work effectively and collectively as one UK police service. I am confident that we will be able to bridge those gaps if they exist and deal with the challenges, but those challenges nonetheless do exist when we are potentially in different frameworks.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
I have some quick-fire questions first concerning several other issues in the Bill that we do not have time to go through in detail, so do not feel that you have to give long answers. On the police covenant—that we welcome—would you have liked to see other police officers included in the primary legislation, such as the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police? That question is to Martin.
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: As I say, we work as one police service and we really have done so over the last 14 months. Potentially, that would be a positive thing. We are working closely with the Government. I have set up a shadow police covenant board which has all the representatives of the organisations: staff associations, unions, police and crime commissioners, and the NPCC. We are working really closely with the Home Office officials who are putting it together. My view is that we operate as one UK police service, and it would be helpful if that was likewise.
Sarah Jones
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: There could be some potential to that. We have, as you know, been alive to the issue of exploitation, particularly in the guise of county lines. We have used other legislation to prosecute the criminals exploiting those children. It is clear, though, that it is a phenomenon. That is why the requirement to share information is important: so that we identify all the risk factors as we collectively try to reduce violence. It may be worth considering a specific definition, but it is well understood in policing. That aspect is part of how we try to deal with those issues— particularly but not exclusively county lines.
Sarah Jones
Q
“The solution to unauthorised encampments lies in the provision of sufficient lawful accommodation accompanied by closer working between the police, local authorities and all other public services.”
Will you expand on that view? Why did you come to that position? These are really quick-fire questions, sorry.
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: This is a really challenging area for policing, and it provokes strong views on all sides. The police often find themselves in difficult situations when dealing with these issues. Our group, which worked very closely on this issue, strongly believes that the fundamental problem is insufficient provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers to occupy, and that that causes the relatively small percentage of unlawful encampments, which obviously create real challenges for the people who are responsible for that land and for those living around. Police still get involved at the moment. The view of our group is that the existing legislation is sufficient to allow that to be dealt with, and we have some concerns about the additional power and the new criminal provision and how that will draw policing further into that situation. Really, our point fundamentally as the NPCC group is that the issue here is the lack of provision that theoretically should be made, which means that we have this percentage of Travellers who are on unlawful spaces and you end up in the situations that we end up with. Our view is that the current legislation is sufficient to deal with that issue.
Sarah Jones
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: I think we all understand that the volume of digital evidence that is required for almost every investigation has grown and grown as all of our lives are lived more digitally. That has created real pressure on the time limits of investigations and our ability to gather the evidence that we need to take an investigation forward. We have increased the capability. It is partly about equipment and having the right equipment to be able to extract digital evidence. It is also about having officers and staff who have the right capabilities to assess that evidence and produce it in an evidential form.
There is no doubt that that is a growth area, and all sorts of discussions are going on between us and Government about increasing our capacity and capability for that. However, the flip side and the really important point is making sure that what is being done is lawful, proportionate and necessary. Again, that side of the work is equally important.
This is never going to be about randomly extracting data; this is about extracting the data that is required to conduct a proper investigation, provide evidence and decide how something goes forward and, really importantly, doing that in a timely fashion. As we all know, there are real concerns about the timelines for investigations and prosecutions, and one of the key factors in the delays in those processes is the extraction and analysis of digital forensics. So we need the legal framework to allow us to do that properly and we then also need the resourcing and the capabilities to do it within the right time limits.
The Chair
Can I remind you, if Mr Cunningham is coming in, that you are in the last two minutes of your time, so how you use it is up to you.
Sarah Jones
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Of course, there is a process by which we have to react to highway obstruction. It does not allow us to assess impact on hospitals or access for emergency vehicles. There is clarity between what is a procession and what is an assembly, and we can apply such conditions as are necessary, with all of the balancing around what could be a march or an assembly or both. If you take Parliament square, sometimes people will rotate around it. I know there is particular interest in St Thomas’ Hospital with Westminster bridge, for example. The ability to have consistency allows police commanders, where required, depending on the size and nature of the march, protest or assembly, to be clear in advance about where emergency vehicles will be allowed to get through.
I use Parliament square as an example because it will be evident to members of the Committee and easy to describe, but the same issue might arise elsewhere. The process enables us to be clear in advance where that threat is posed or, at the time, to be clear and able to communicate that. With highway obstructions, there is a need to negotiate, discuss and decide whether there is lawful authority and if an emergency vehicle is trying to get through, that takes time and it will not be effective.
The Chair
Thank you. I have got to switch to the Minister, Victoria Atkins. If there is time, I will come back to Sarah Jones.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: That is right.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Yes, I welcome that very much. In some senses, that was previously there. When you look, in particular, at the work that has been done by violence reduction units in the past year to 18 months—a couple of years, in fact—getting all the relevant agencies in the local area to focus on and prioritise reducing violence, and play their part, is the way to reduce levels successfully. We can never do that purely by enforcement. This is a really important opportunity to bring all those groups together and focus on violence in their local area.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The fact that it is a partnership is really important as well.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: We did ask for public nuisance to be made statutory. A Law Commission report from 2015 clearly set out more broadly some of the benefits of doing that. The report refers to:
“serious distress, annoyance, inconvenience or loss of amenity; or is put at risk of suffering any of these things”.
The measure would be for more unusual kinds of protest activity that are not a march. Historically, people have hung off gantries of cranes, where there is serious inconvenience and loss of amenity.
Importantly, making it statutory establishes two things. First, the rules are very clear to those who have to use and understand the legislation. The common law is good, but it is steeped in decided cases and judgments that are often difficult to extract for non-lawyers. It allows Parliament to be clear about what the phrases mean, and to give guidance to policing and the public on what is intended. From a policing perspective, where we have intelligence or information, it allows us to act in advance to prevent some of those issues, where proportionate and necessary. That is the difference that it makes. We are working from the Law Commission report in 2015, which states a number of benefits. We see those as very important for those reasons.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Yes, that is the Law Commission’s summary of what that should be. That is where that phrase appears. We welcome the clarity; making it part of statute allows for phrases such as that and others to be clearly defined for us and for the public.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: As I alluded to, it is critical to have a clear code of practice and framework to ensure the extraction to be proportionate and necessary for that investigation, and to be very clear about timelines, how that will be done and how the victim—or the complainant—will be treated throughout. This has been a very challenging area for us. Having that certainty and clarity of the guidelines will help to ensure that everybody understands the process. As I said, the ability for us to do that as quickly as we can, to deliver the evidence we need, is really important to maintain confidence, as you say, for people to come forward, and to maintain those complainants throughout the process, to reduce the attrition levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
I have two brief questions. The first relates to the proposed increase in the penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. Does the police service welcome that change? Do they think that it will potentially deter people from attempting to assault officers in the discharge of their duties?
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Yes, we welcome that change very much. It is sad to report that we have seen a steady increase in assaults on emergency workers, primarily police officers. In the month up to 14 March this year, there was a 19% increase on the previous year in assaults on emergency workers, predominantly police officers.
We have done an enormous amount of work in the service; we did an officer and staff safety review process, which is working to improve the safety of our officers and staff. We have worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been supportive in achieving charges where officers or staff are assaulted in the course of their duties. I think the increase in the sentence is positive, provided, of course, that those sentences are handed down when people are found guilty at court. We are supportive of that, because it demonstrates the seriousness and the importance of the fact that, although our officers and staff protect the public and do dangerous things, they should not expect routinely to be assaulted.
Chris Philp
We completely agree, thank you. My final question relates to out of court disposals. There are proposals in this Bill to simplify the number of out of court disposals from six to two. That has been trialled, I think, in three forces over the past few years—
The Chair
Order. Minister, I am very sorry to interrupt you, but we are out of time. We will have to save that question for another witness or another occasion. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the Committee’s allotted time to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Apologies, Minister, but we are on a pretty tight schedule.
Examination of Witnesses
Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths and John Apter gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear from Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales, and John Apter, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Can I ask you to introduce yourselves for the record, please, gentlemen?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Good morning. My name is Paul Griffiths, and I am president of the Police Superintendents’ Association. We represent more than 1,300 senior operational leaders across England and Wales, and other non-Home Office forces and Crown dependencies. Our main priorities are to influence national strategy and to protect our members if they are at risk or from a wellbeing perspective.
John Apter: Good morning. I am John Apter. I am the national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and we represent 130,000 officers across England and Wales—across all 43 Home Office forces —from the rank of constable up to and including chief inspector.
The Chair
Thank you. I think we will try to follow the same pattern as before. I will try to get Back Benchers in first, and then I will allow about 10 minutes each for the Front Benchers.
Sarah Champion
Q
Can I ask of our witnesses the same question that I asked of the chiefs? In the police covenant, would it help and support your members if there were mandatory provision at the very beginning of training and all the way through to support you on a psychological level? I am very aware that you are the first people on many occasions to see some hugely traumatic situations. I am particularly thinking, on child abuse, of the amount of time that police officers have to invest in seeing some pretty horrific things. Should we put in the police covenant mandatory training and support for officers to deal with that trauma?
John Apter: I am happy to start. Thank you for the question. The police covenant is very close to my heart, and it is something that the Police Federation has campaigned for. Absolutely, it needs to be meaningful and tangible, and it needs to have a benefit for those it is there to support—not only officers, but staff, volunteers and retired colleagues. Mr Hewitt said earlier that much has been done about wellbeing in policing over the past few years, and I support that.
We have come an awful long way, but we have not gone far enough. One of the frustrations that my colleagues have is the inconsistency within forces. I have had this conversation with the College of Policing, and part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support. The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training from the start of somebody’s service to its conclusion and beyond.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I echo John’s view on this. There has been a rise in some of the challenges that officers face—even our members—in terms of psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and so on. In my role as president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, and as a trustee of the police charities that help and support in these issues, I have seen a rise in some of the challenges that officers face—not only those on the frontline, but my members who are senior operational leaders.
The service has come a long way with the frontline review, the officer safety review and a rise in our focus on wellbeing as a consequence of some of the challenges we have faced over the past decade. Do we need anything additional in the legislation in respect of that? There is a need for consistency across occupational health standards, but I think that could be achieved through the programme management rather than through legislation. There is a real focus in the service now, through Oscar Kilo and wellbeing, the NPCC, and staff associations in this area, and we are working closely together, so there is a golden opportunity with the police covenant to best serve and support officers and staff across the whole country.
Sarah Champion
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It is hugely important for us to be victim-orientated in our policing services. We have really focused, over the last 10 to 15 years, on vulnerability issues and the significant vulnerability areas of policing, through the College of Policing and the NPCC drive, and we have identified victims, both online and in the physical space. That is a clear focus for us as a service: how best to serve victims.
In many of the initial contacts with victims, we provide a very good service and there is very good feedback, but over time, with the pressures that we are under, that sort of connectivity, and the confidence and trust that victims have in policing, can get strained because of the lack of contact. That is not to say that things are not going on, but we have to work within a system—particularly through the criminal justice system, which is also under strain—where we have to work with victims as best as possible, to deliver the best possible service.
In terms of our service delivery to victims, not only are our tact and diplomacy important in the way we deal with them, at the incidents or wherever they report matters to us—whether current or historic—but there is almost a path by which we have to keep connected to those individuals to provide them with the best possible service. I think that is key for us: that connectivity, drive and support through all the criminal justice processes.
Sarah Champion
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We have the increase with the additional 20,000 officers who are coming in. It is my hope and expectation that we can actively deploy them to support victims, along with the other challenges and demands that we have. Do we ever have enough police officers? No. There are always things that we want to do, and we have the same ambition as society: to do the very best we can and do as much as we can. In that sense, we never have enough, but in terms of our ability to deal with some of the demand, the increase in resources is very welcome, and hopefully, we will be able to provide a better service to the whole public, as much as our focus around victims.
Sarah Champion
Q
John Apter: I completely echo and support Paul’s comments—he and I work very closely together on this. My colleagues want to do the best they can for victims of crime. What I would add to what Paul said is, “Let us not forget the victims within the service.” You heard from Mr Hewitt that assaults on officers, staffers and other emergency workers have increased by 19% during the pandemic—some horrific levels of attacks—and very often, my colleagues say that they feel they are treated as a second-class victim.
I think we have done enormous things to improve that over the years. A project called Operation Hampshire, of which we are particularly proud and which is being led by the Met, is improving the quality of service that victims within the service get. If I were to add to my ever-increasing wish list on the legislation, I would say that yes, the victims in the public must get the best service possible, but I want to see that same level of service—not better, but the same—extended to my colleagues and members of police staff, because all too often, they feel that that is not the case.
Mr Goodwill
Q
John Apter: This is a longstanding problem for policing and actually for all the emergency services. What we have seen far too often was highlighted in a case in the Hampshire constabulary, when a traffic officer—a roads policing officer, who was fully trained—was engaged in the pursuit of someone who had stolen a vehicle after quite a nasty burglary. It was a textbook pursuit; nobody was injured and we caught the baddies at the end of the pursuit. However, that officer and his crewmate were prosecuted for dangerous driving and they ended up in Crown court. The reason is that the law, as it is currently, does not recognise the training that the officer has received or the purpose to which the vehicle is being put. That puts my colleagues in a very vulnerable position.
So we have been campaigning for many years to try to redress the balance. I want to say on the record that this is not about the Police Federation saying that colleagues can drive as they wish without any fear of scrutiny; some people may have to face prosecution or inquiry. But far too many of my colleagues are prosecuted for simply doing what they have been trained to do.
All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.
We expect police officers and indeed other emergency drivers to get to a particular place as quickly and as safely as they can. The law fails to protect them at the moment. So, yes, we are seeking those changes. I am really pleased to see the Bill but there are some amendments that we want to see, and we are working closely with the shadow team and the Home Office to see if we can bring about those changes, to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose and protects the officers who deserve to be protected.
Mr Goodwill
Q
I guess that with an ambulance and a fire engine, it is less nuanced, but with the police you would not necessarily know until you get to the scene whether life is at risk and whether it is necessary to speed there.
John Apter: Indeed, and the training has certainly evolved. The emergency response and the pursuit training for police drivers has evolved over the years, and the training certainly brings in the judgment—it is all about the information that the officer will receive.
I was a roads policing officer for many years. I was trained in response and that judgment is so important because very often at the end of a pursuit or an emergency drive, it is the driver who is responsible for their actions—nobody else. So, yes, you can only deal with the circumstances that you are presented with and you have to risk-assess in that moment. It is a fine balance.
However, I would say, and I genuinely believe, that we have the best driver training in policing in the world—I really do believe that. Our driving standards within policing, with the emergency driving, are exceptional. We just need that element of protection, but it is not to say—I have used this phrase before—that I condone a wacky races culture. That is not what I am supporting. It is about balance.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: The only bit I would add is that there are circumstances where officers still have to exceed the speed limit as part of their duty. So it would be quite important for us to consider surveillance officers, those doing diplomatic escort and so on, where their driving may leave them in a position where they are under investigation, and it would be reasonable to have the same standards applied to them in the circumstances that could prevail.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I know that you have had extensive evidence on this from Chief Constable Harrington as the NPCC lead. Our members play a significant role in protest, whether they are silver or gold commanders, depending on the size and scale of the protest. One emerging trend that has caused them great difficulty has been the change in tactics with some of the protest processes, such as protesters gluing themselves on to certain items involving vehicles—locking on. That change in their movement and the inconsistency have caused our members considerable challenges in terms of how best to interpret the law and apply it in a necessary and proportionate way, so there is support in terms of providing consistency for some of the challenges that they face as the operational public order commanders.
In terms of some of the definitions around “serious disruption” or “significant impact”, we will obviously wait for that to be clearly defined by Parliament, but the training mechanisms that are in place for our public order commanders and public order teams are really significant, are quite detailed and do allow them to really play through and work through some of the judgment calls they have to make, and some of the judgment calls may have to be made within seconds, so some of the changes and amendments do gain support from us.
Maria Eagle
Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?
John Apter: These were changes that the Police Federation had not particularly called for, but what I do support, especially after listening to Chief Constable Harrington, is the view that we need to evolve the Public Order Act. Protests have evolved over the years. The way individuals react and, very often, confront police officers has dynamically changed. The vast majority of protests we do not hear about: they are unremarkable; they are peaceful. I do not think you will find many police officers, if any, who do not support the right of peaceful, lawful protest. But we have to evolve; the legislation must evolve to be dynamic, as the protesters are. Very often, we see on our television screens so-called peaceful protests, which are hijacked by those with an agenda to cause violence; we see this time and again. So while the Police Federation has not called for this particular part of the Bill, we are supportive of an evolution of the Public Order Act to make sure that it is fit for purpose but still allows lawful protest and gathering—bearing in mind the pressures on policing at the same time.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I think the relationship between the public and the police has never been more tested than it has been in the last 18 months. Some of the work and effort that has gone into public relations at a time when we have had to police—some of the laws that have been put in place for the covid restrictions have really put a strain on the relationship, in terms of how we balance peaceful protest with trying to maintain the health regulations that are in place. The relationship that we have with the public is fundamentally important to us, and some of the polls that have come out show that there is significant trust and confidence across the public in general. We recognise there is certain strain with certain communities, but in the main we do have public support. Knowing that that relationship is so strong and knowing about the use of the Human Rights Act in everything that we do in terms of policing should provide the public with the necessary reassurance that we police in an appropriate, lawful and necessary way, and we will continue to do so.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: One of the most important factors that has emerged over the last 18 months and that is a fundamental part of many of our police command issues—whether that is public order, investigations or firearms—is effective communication with the public, so that there is a clear understanding about what they can and cannot do, what we can and cannot do, and how that relationship evolves. We want to facilitate peaceful protest, because it is a fundamental part of our liberal democracy. That is golden to the public, and it is golden to policing as well, but how we balance the human rights of all the individuals, including the ones who are impacted by protest, is a really difficult and challenging balancing judgment that needs to be made by police commanders. From my perspective, a lot of this is about effective communication on what is lawful and what is not lawful. We need to make sure that liaison is in place where there are leaders in relation to the protest issues, so that we can plan in advance, facilitate it is as best as possible and continue as we have done in many veins, in terms of making sure to the best of our ability that people can protest and not be impacted either way.
Maria Eagle
Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?
John Apter: Obviously, the relationship with the public is integral to our style of policing and for the communities, and it has been tested. Paul is right to say it has been tested to the limit in some places over the past 15-plus months. The overarching issue with the Bill, and on protest, is one for the NPCC and, as Paul says, for the commanders, but when relationships break down, it is my colleagues—my members—who feel the brunt of that out on the streets. Of course, when we are policing protests or any sort of activity where there is high emotion and where there will be an element, in some cases, who will be intent on violence no matter what we do, we have to react accordingly. But communication is key, accepting that some will not want to be communicated with; they will not want to hear the message. The relationship is so important—I cannot stress that enough. I agree with Paul: despite the challenges over the last year-plus, the relationship with the vast majority of the public is still very much intact and still very positive.
Maria Eagle
Q
John Apter: I think the problem that we found with the coronavirus legislation was that it was unprecedented. I remember when the legislation was brought in—it was unbelievable. It was almost like watching a film being made. I have been a police officer for more than 28 years, and I would never have dreamt that we would be policing in the way that we were asked to police. If that is how policing felt, you can only imagine how the public felt, and we had to evolve. There were multiple changes of legislation that were not always as clear as they could be, and I understand why. I understand why the legislation had to be rushed through, but that came with problems, because my colleagues did not always know what was fully expected of them but nevertheless did their best in the most trying of circumstances. With the Bill, Parliament can inspect and go through the processes in a timely way, so I hope on behalf of my members that whatever the Bill looks like at the end of the process, it will offer clarity and guidance, and that people will completely understand what is expected of them, both within policing and for the public. I have hopes, and Parliament will do what it does on scrutiny as the Bill goes through that process.
The Chair
Mr Griffiths, is there anything you want to add?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I was just going to add that when some of the health regulations were introduced at pace, at speed and at scale, there were moments when there was a lack of consistency across the country, but that was gripped by the police service with the four Es approach. The reality is that applying consistency through this legislation will aid public order policing across the whole country. As we move forward and develop, in line with the legislation, we will do what we always do, which is to increase our communication, and review and adapt accordingly, to best facilitate peaceful protest.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
John Apter: I declare that I was a special constable before I was a regular officer. I am passionately supportive of our special constable colleagues. I have always thought it was an injustice that special constables could not, if they wished, be a member of the Police Federation, as the representative body of police officers.
When I was a special many years ago, over on the Isle of Wight, I was not allowed to drive police vehicles, generally I was not out on patrol on my own and I certainly was not allowed to be a specialist in any field, but I did feel part of a team and I contributed. The special constabulary, thankfully, has evolved considerably over that time. Special constables are response drivers. They stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues. They have exactly the same powers and they carry exactly the same risks.
I have always thought, even when I was a special, that it was wrong that they were not allowed in law to be members of the Police Federation. The Police Federation has been pushing for this measure for a number of years now, not always with the support that we have now to get it where it is in the Bill.
When the Bill goes through with special constables able to be members of the federation—fingers crossed they do—special constables will feel included. I speak to many special constables, who often feel that it is wrong that they are just not included or considered. That is going to change because of the Bill. They will have the same legal support and welfare support. They will be treated as equals alongside my colleagues. It is absolutely right and proper that special constables have a credible, loud voice alongside the representation of other colleagues. This measure is long overdue; I believe passionately in it and I am looking forward to it being in the legislation.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We really value the contribution of special constables and other volunteers through our networks across the country. In terms of their contribution to policing, what they do is quite significant. Some of the work that they did through the covid crisis continues to amaze us. It is a valuable contribution. They epitomise the relationship between the public and the police.
I have always had a close working relationship with ASCO, the representative body—the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. This legislation is an enabling opportunity for special constables. It is right and proper that they get protection and support. I have raised issues about funding and true representation, but the legislation has support in terms of its enabling role. Those other reservations about best protecting the rights and so on of special constables are true and dear.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
John Apter: I am really pleased to see these measures in the Bill. The violence that my colleagues face is unprecedented. It increases year on year. As Mr Hewitt said earlier, we have seen a 19% increase in assaults on emergency workers during the pandemic—predominantly police officers. The level of violence has increased also. I have been a strong campaigner, and it is not only about a suitable deterrent in the courts. It is also about better training, better equipment, better support, welfare support, and treating police officers and police staff who are victims of an assault as a victim should be treated, which has not always been the case.
I have only one issue with the legislation. There must be a deterrent, but the increase in sentencing will mean nothing unless the courts actually use their powers. On the sentencing guidelines and what we have seen in recent years, I and my colleagues who are victims would say that perverse sentences have been handed down to people who have been extremely violent and inflicted nasty injuries on police officers or police staff, and they have walked away from court. I completely appreciate that it is case by case and the sentencing guidelines need to be followed. In the cases that I have examined, the sentencing guidelines have been adhered to, which tells me that the sentencing guidelines, certainly for assaults on my colleagues, are not fit for purpose. I absolutely support the increase in sentences, but we have to have a real fundamental review and a sensible conversation about sentencing guidelines as well. That is something that I would like to see pursued.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Naturally, because of the role and responsibilities of our members, thankfully, in one respect, we do not encounter direct risk in that sense, but I regularly get feedback from our members about the risks to the people that they lead, and it echoes John’s point around the rise in assaults on police officers and other emergency services. We have seen a 19% increase in the March period compared with last year. We are very grateful to Parliament for considering the increase in the sentence for assaulting emergency workers, but we are under no illusion that this is only one part of the jigsaw. We need to work with not only other criminal justice agencies to best represent, show and demonstrate the impact of this across society, but internally, in terms of our kit, equipment and training and also our development around tactical communication. We need to strengthen that ability to defuse situations by word rather than force. So there are many aspects to this, but we fully support Parliament’s consideration of extending the sentencing available.
The Chair
We will go to Mr Dorans. This had best be the last question before I go to the Front Benches.
Allan Dorans
Q
John Apter: That is a really important question. If you go back 10 years or so, my colleagues would say very little. Some forces were better than others, and that is chief constable-led. If a chief constable has emotional intelligence and those values about how people really matter, that trickles through the organisation, but that has not always been felt. There has been a sad lack of consistency when people are in specialist posts that expose them to trauma. I can give you a lived experience. For many years I was a family liaison officer dealing with trauma every single day, knocking on far too many doors and changing people’s lives, and not for the better. That was many years ago, about 10 years ago, but my force at the time, Hampshire Constabulary, was very innovative and gave us annual check-ups—welfare and psychological check-ups. We had welfare officers in the force. We had a lot of support, but then with austerity, unfortunately, some of those measures were removed and the force was a poorer place for it. That was typical across policing.
We have moved forward in such a positive way. I am often criticised by my colleagues because I talk up the good work going on—whether it is Oscar Kilo, the national police wellbeing service; the Coventry police, which are doing really good work in this area; or the Police Federation, where we have invested heavily on a welfare support programme for our colleagues—but it is not always felt by all our members. Getting that message out to people about what is available and how to access it is a postcode lottery across policing. We need that consistency.
We need occupational health to be benchmarked to a certain standard. I know we are going to have a chief medical officer—hopefully for policing—which I hope will bring that consistency. That is where the covenant can have some good legislative teeth to say to forces: “This is not a nice to have”. We can’t talk all day about looking after our people and say: “Put a post-script about wellbeing and the job is done”. It is much more than that.
That is not to say that is the norm. I don’t believe it is now, we have come a long way, but the covenant must show its teeth. It must be brave and make sure that that consistency is across all policing to support my colleagues, certainly with their mental health. We are seeing a crisis in mental health in policing that we have never seen before. It is a real significant concern: a continuous exposure to trauma. Officers are being exposed to levels of trauma that are unprecedented—more than people have seen in the military. This is based on evidence from the charity, Police Care. Something has to be done. Things are happening, but the covenant is a great opportunity to pull that all together.
The Chair
Chief Superintendent.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Picking up on mental health and trauma impacts across the police service, we are also starting to see police charities supporting these areas. There has been a 36% increase in inquiries to the police charities compared with the previous year, the vast majority of which are mental health concerns. There is clear evidence of the impact of trauma on police officers and staff. We recognise that everybody will experience some trauma in their life, but the exposure for police officers is quite significant.
We then have to look at what is the best thing that we can do. There is a whole array of things that we can do: providing appropriate space for debrief, increasing communication, and occupational health support. There is a whole catalogue of things, but I would class those as probably falling under what I would describe as the programme management, rather than any legislative concerns.
There are two matters I would like to raise on the police covenant. The first is the important role of independence within the processes, so that we get an independent view. Our employment rights are restricted—naturally so, we would not contest them, because of the nature of our role and responsibility in society—but measures that can be put into place to provide independent support, guidance and oversight are really important, so I stress the importance of independence in the system.
I would also like to raise the issue of mental health concerns and seeking the police covenant as a way through helping and supporting. Unlike the Police Federation, the Superintendents’ Association goes beyond the 43 Home Office forces. We support other police forces, including British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which at the moment are not directly covered by this legislation. I would like to emphasise the importance of the whole police family and make a plea to consider as part of the legislation those wider non-Home Office forces that play an integral part in UK policing.
Sarah Jones
Q
You have just made exactly the point that I was going to ask you about, on the importance of the police family and the wider family as part of the police covenant. Can I push you both a bit on the notion of independence from the Government when we are looking at the covenant? What could that look like? Would there be a benefit of some oversight from policing bodies, perhaps chaired independently, on the covenant report that is produced by the Home Secretary? Would you both welcome that?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It has always been my perception that a police covenant is almost the sector asking the Government for additional support or assistance, or to rule out any adverse impact on police officers, and for the Government to play their role across all other public agencies to try to level the ground and make sure everything is fair and supportive for policing.
The NPCC has employer responsibilities, which are sometimes in statute and are sometimes just its moral code for how to look after staff, so the way it is constituted in terms of how this flows is really important. My fear is that it would be left in a situation where the Government would direct the NPCC on how to support its own police officers, staff and volunteers. It is incumbent on Parliament to consider how best to get some level of independence, in terms of the oversight, and echo the responsibly to work across Government in terms of supporting the police covenant and all officers and staff.
John Apter: I want to touch on something that Paul said to a previous question. It is important that the Police Federation’s views are noted. This is about who the covenant actually benefits. Paul is right that we represent the Home Office forces, which are the big chunk of who the covenant legally covers, but we work incredibly closely with the non-Home Office forces, Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is really important that we are all treated equally within policing. We do not want the benefits that the covenant hopefully brings to be diluted in any way for any part of policing. I completely support and echo what Paul says.
On the independence—absolutely. When we were pulling together our concept of the covenant—obviously we want it to be very far reaching, but we accept that we have to start somewhere—one of the things that I was insistent on was that it must be enshrined in law; it must mean something. It is a positive step for the Home Secretary of the day to report to Parliament on a legal framework. It is right that the Home Secretary of the day has that responsibility.
When we talk about oversight, I do not want the covenant to become wrapped up in bureaucracy and red tape. If it is, nothing will be achieved and nothing will get done. Within policing, we have some strong views about the need for it to be independent. That is not to say that the Home Secretary, the policing Minister and the Home Office have not been incredibly supportive. They have, and we could not have got this far without that support, but in order to make the covenant meaningful for our members, retired colleagues and volunteers, I think that level of independence on the oversight programme, the oversight board and the delivery board, which would then lead in to the Government, is really important. We fed back those views collectively as policing. It is not just the federation calling for this; collectively, we all believe very strongly in it.
Sarah Jones
Q
Can I ask Paul about pre-charge bail? What are your thoughts about breach of bail, which we have talked about previously? We are finding our way through that with this piece of legislation. How do you think that would work in an ideal world?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I should probably start by saying that we did voice some significant concerns in 2016 about some of the changes that were coming in and highlighted this at the time as a joint letter between the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We worked with the changes that Parliament instructed, and we are grateful for the recent amendments that may come through the Bill in terms of timeliness and some of the issues that have been challenging us over the last four years.
We are supportive of the vast majority of it. The one area where had some concern was on the breach of police bail, where bail conditions are imposed and then suspects continue to breach those bails. Of course, those bail conditions would be there to protect victims or even the wider public. It could be extremely useful to us for that to be an offence in its own right. I note that there is an introduction to prevent the start of the custody clock, which was another risk that we thought may come from somebody who would consistently breach their bail, risking an impact on the investigation custody time limits for other aspects for which they were under investigation. The Bill suggests that three hours is sufficient to deal with that breach of bail, and that seems appropriate, but it could be beneficial to the police service for that to be an offence in its own right in terms of processing individuals for such breaches.
Sarah Jones
That is really helpful; thank you. Shall I go over to Alex? I am aware of the time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We have not been called to provide any advice or consultation on that. Could I get back to you in writing on that one? I would probably have to do more research.
The Chair
Do you have anything to add, Mr Apter?
John Apter: I am afraid I will have to give the same answer.
Victoria Atkins
Q
John Apter: I think we are pushing on an open door. Policing has changed significantly over the past decade or so, and it is the same with chief constables, who may previously have been reluctant to get certain wellbeing initiatives into place. There is wholesale agreement that the covenant will be a positive thing for policing.
The issue we have at the moment is that although we know the principles of the covenant, we do not really know what exactly will be in it. Chief constables know me very well, and I, on behalf of the organisation, will be holding them to account, but I genuinely think that it will be a partnership. Perhaps that is naive, but if, as expected, the legislation allows the covenant to be enshrined in law, I will be saying to chief constables very clearly, “This is not something you can cherry-pick. This is in legislation. This is to benefit our colleagues, staff, volunteers and so on. It is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential.” So they will be held to account, but in fairness I think it will be a productive partnership.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Most of them have probably worked their way through the hierarchy of public order command systems, from right at the frontline, following through to supervisory and management roles, but not necessarily in all cases. There is a detailed training command course for public order leads, which embodies everything that you would expect: to understand the tactics necessary when utilising public order, seeking the appropriate advice and guidance, understanding the law and the community, and all the different aspects of decision making that are so important to understand how best to corral a crowd or deal with a peaceful protest.
They will learn how to deal with everything from small, minor protests with just some shouting, to some of the challenges that, sadly, we have seen in the past 12 months, where they have faced attacks by missiles, etc. The training is detailed. I have absolute confidence in some of the public order commanders. We have to understand that they are called to make really difficult judgment calls, balancing human rights of individuals and the recognition of their own staff and the public. They make difficult decisions in a short space of time. It is a credit to them as individuals and to the training processes that allow them to do that.
Chris Philp
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: You are right to clarify that. Unfortunately, we have not been consulted on that particular aspect. If I can provide written evidence, we will explore a response and get back to you.
Chris Philp
Q
John Apter: Absolutely, the risk of a custodial sentence would be a meaningful deterrent, as well as everything else. As I said, it is about the training and equipment that officers and staff have. But I go back to my earlier point: the increase in sentencing will mean nothing if the sentencing guidelines do not allow the courts to use those powers effectively. Far too often, my colleagues feel that the wider criminal justice system lets them down. We need to address that, as well as increase sentences. Yes, I believe that it would be a deterrent.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It is very much welcome and supported. There is a hope that it will be a deterrent. We recognise that any sort of assault on emergency workers has a complex and dynamic number of factors that may cause that situation to arise. We must do everything in our power to eliminate or minimise every aspect of those factors. Hopefully, it will have a deterrent effect, and will send a very strong message from Parliament to emergency workers to say, “You are valued for what you do. We support you, and you should not have that sort of risk when trying to carry out your duties.” We will review the situation over time, to see what the deterrent effect is, but we are grateful for the support that Parliament proposes.
Chris Philp
Thank you. It may be worth you engaging with the Sentencing Council once the legislation passes, to ensure the sentencing guidelines reflect the seriousness of the offence, and that the sentences in practice reflect Parliament’s intention.
The Chair
Now is a good time to draw this session to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2021 - (18 May 2021)
The Chair
Q
Phil Bowen: Hello. My name is Phil Bowen and I am the director of the Centre for Justice Innovation. I would like to make the Committee aware that from July 2020 to March 2021 my organisation had a contract with the Ministry of Justice that enabled me to provide policy advice and challenge to Ministers and civil servants on the community supervision aspects of the sentencing White Paper and the Bill.
Adrian Crossley: Good afternoon. My name is Adrian Crossley and I lead the criminal justice unit and the addiction unit at the Centre for Social Justice. The CSJ is a think-tank that advocates social policy aimed at tackling the root causes of poverty in the UK.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Q
Phil Bowen: Of course. The Centre for Justice Innovation has long been a supporter of problem-solving courts. At their simplest, they bring together specialist supervision and intervention teams with the powers and authority of a court to review progress regularly against a sentencing plan. They generally operate out of existing courthouses and are built from existing resources. We already do work on and support about 11 courts across the UK that use problem solving to manage specific caseloads, including three in Northern Ireland, sponsored by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and four in Scotland. That is in addition to the 14 family, drug and alcohol courts already in existence in England in the public family law system.
As you know from the Bill, the Government propose to pilot three separate and distinct models of problem-solving courts in England and Wales in the criminal court system: a substance misuse court model; a model to tackle domestic abuse; and a model to help vulnerable women avoid short-term custody. We are very supportive of the move, for which we have been calling for a long time. We believe that the evidence base on all three of those models is robust enough that the piloting of them in England and Wales would be useful as a first step before thinking about their further roll-out across the system. We think there is a real chance to reduce the use of unnecessary custody and tackle reoffending, particularly in the substance misuse and vulnerable women models and, in terms of the model to tackle domestic abuse, to really hold perpetrators to account and give victims a sense of safety and involve them in the ongoing supervision of those perpetrators.
Adrian Crossley: Thank you; I am grateful. I am very well aware of the work that Phil Bowen is doing. CSJ also endorses the use of problem-solving courts. They have the potential to be enormously beneficial to defendants sometimes facing serious matters across the UK.
In terms of the scope of the proposed pilots, I think that the chosen three categories—domestic abuse, substance abuse and vulnerable women facing prison sentences—are wise choices. What is best about a problem-solving court is that it draws from real specialist knowledge and experience that can really look behind a problem, understand it and provide practical solutions, so these issues are worth tackling. One point I would note as a matter of caution is that problem-solving courts at their best are fantastic, but they do pose dangers. I am pleased to see that we are starting with a relatively small pilot because it is important to get right the things that sometimes appear to be small. For example, listing cases for problem courts to ensure that they are before the same panel that can continually look at a case and review it, and understand that the team that they are working with and the person in front of them are important.
In our jurisdiction, we have sometimes had difficulty with listing in front of lay magistrates—problems that they do not necessarily experience to the same degree overseas in the US. So there are examples of things that need to be done well and right. I am pleased to see that those three categories have been chosen, because they are worth tackling, and I am pleased to see that the initial pilots are small enough to allow proper analysis and reform as we go along.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Adrian, would you like to go first?
Adrian Crossley: Yes. Thank you. I can entirely see that that concern is absolutely valid. We know from the CSTR—community sentence treatment requirements—model that substance abuse and mental health are both dealt with alongside each other, separately but often in the same hearings. It is an absolutely valid concern. I would also say that as well as substance abuse, there is now a growing need to consider the impact of gambling addiction. That issue is becoming increasingly prevalent in our country. Sadly, over the last 15 years, there has been an explosion in this sort of addiction, and it draws into crime the people who would not necessarily always fall into it.
What I would say—I have said it prior to this—is that problem-solving courts are good if they are done well, and I would hope that we do not get too prescriptive about what kind of person is in front of us and categorise them as a domestic abuse or a substance abuse case. Often people have complex and chaotic lives with lots of different things going on. I would hope that a problem-solving court done well might have a category that they call a substance-abuse court, but be equipped to deal with something such as mental health as well.
I practised as a barrister for some time and I know that often clients, like I had before me, have issues behind what is apparent from the offence, which could go unseen unless probed. I spoke to a colleague earlier today and he explained to me that there are some 300,000 people in the UK right now who are indebted to a loan shark. You will never see the chaos behind someone’s life from a simple shoplifting offence. You need to be able to explore that. If problem-solving courts and pre-sentence reports are done well, in line with the new probation reforms, this should become clear and we should be able to help people with multiple needs before the courts.
Phil Bowen: To add to that, I understand that the current plans in the Ministry of Justice are to pilot those three types of models, but as all the models are drawn up, there is an awareness that people who would be eligible for substance misuse court are likely to have co-occurring mental health needs, and those would need to be addressed at the same time. The substance misuse court that currently operates in Belfast and the drugs court that currently operates in Glasgow recognise the complexity of people’s substance misuse and other needs, and seek to address them.
It is pretty clear, from what I have seen, in existing practice and what the Ministry of Justice is beginning to develop, that there is a broad awareness that it may be a trigger for intervention that vulnerable women are identified as at risk of custody, but there will be a recognition and services targeted at a range of their complex needs, one of which almost invariably will be mental health. That is very much at the heart of what the Ministry proposes, and we support that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Crossley: We welcome the addition of the new statutory duty clause for courts that requires them to consider the welfare and best interests of the child. We think that is a positive part of the Bill. It would be nice if it could go further. Seeing custody as something to keep people safe is not correct, but there is broad support, as far as I can tell, from people with an interest in youth justice for this change. I know some of my colleagues would like it to go further.
Adrian Crossley: I can only add that we have seen a substantial reduction in custodial sentences for youths over the last 10 years or so. We welcome efforts to encourage rehabilitation and use it absolutely as a last resort. I think it goes far enough.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Currently, as I understand, clause 45 would extend those definitions and include anyone aged over 18 who supervises or works with 16 and 17-year-olds. I know from personal experience with my own family that, often, older children at a dance school, perhaps over 18, often chip in to help with tuition and coaching. In some cases, they may even be in the same class at school as a 17-year-old who is part of that dance academy. I wonder whether there could be difficulties in situations such as that. Indeed, we also remove the right to give consent from 16 and 17-year-olds who may find that infringes on their ability to choose who to have a relationship with. Perhaps Mr Crossly might be most appropriate to respond first.
Adrian Crossley: The first point to know is that affording some protection in this area is absolutely imperative. We have seen abuse of trust that has led to not just inappropriate relationships—that is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with sometimes highly vulnerable children who are sexually abused. In order to make an inroad into dealing with that sort of offending, we need to get to the crux of how it comes about. All too often, positions of trust can allow a perpetrator to hide in plain sight—not only that, they make the person who is abused feel partially responsible and incapable of speaking out. The perpetrator recruits the trust of the people nearest and dearest, including their parents.
While I appreciate that there may be some difficulties in the administration of this issue, that will not unnecessarily impinge upon the movement of people and their enjoyment of their leisure, I do not put that value at naught—absolutely not. I do see, at the other end of this, we have a very real risk, which has existed pervasively throughout our society for a long time. I think the extension into the position-of-trust model starts to move away from identifying it as in small pockets of society and to see it as the modus operandi of some perpetrators of crime. I think its broadness is important and the clause as it stands is sufficient.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Adrian Crossley: So much of this, as with any law, is about how it is actually executed on the ground and how the decision-making processes operate. At this stage, when you are looking at the written form of the clause, I can see that there is potential there for consent. The administration of a clause like this relies on good practice, and I would say that these things can be circumvented. You have the same sort of problem with something as controversial as stop and search, where you can see that there may be a very good reason for it but, done badly, it can be incredibly corrosive to society; it can stop people moving around freely. But that does not mean that the legislation itself is wrong. It will come down to how we administer this, and a continual review of that is necessary. But I do accept this: it is not possible for me to say that there will not be friction and difficulty as this clause is administered.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Phil Bowen: One example to offer the Committee is from the public family law system. The Welsh Government and the courts system have just agreed to create a new family drug and alcohol court. The issue is similar, in that it requires a partnership between people in the Welsh Government, local authorities and the courts service.
I certainly know that, as part of the Ministry of Justice’s scoping of where the pilot sites might be, it is very keen to speak with Mayors, police and crime commissioners, the Welsh Government and others about where the most suitable sites are. So I do not think it is incompatible. It certainly will require partnerships and collaboration. That is what exists already in existing problem-solving courts; as I say, it already is going to be a feature of the new family drug and alcohol court in south Wales. So I do not think this is insurmountable. I certainly know there is a strong interest in the Ministry to have discussions with the Welsh Government about whether they think it is appropriate to have one of the problem-solving court pilots in Wales. I think there is still work to be done there, but wherever they exist, they require partnerships between different agencies and both national actors and local actors.
Hywel Williams
Q
Adrian Crossley: Sentencing inflation is a very real problem. For decades now, we have seen incremental rises in sentencing, right across the board. There is a theory that the more we increase the more serious offences tariffs, there is a trickle-down effect; essentially, it pulls up sentencing for lesser offences. We see, for example, sentences for drug offences increase over a 10-year period by about 30%, and for theft by around 22% over the same period. This has a very real effect on people’s lives. It is not just a question of a few extra years—that would be serious enough as it is—it can often be the difference between somebody having a sentence suspended and actually being taken away and put into a cell, so it is a very real problem.
Some regard this as a Bill of two halves with what some regard as very punitive sentencing on the one hand and some very progressive, challenging and, I would say, quite brave proposals for community reform and rehabilitation on the other. A great deal of subjectivity is involved in deciding how much time somebody should serve for very serious offences. I do not see anything necessarily wrong with reviewing how this society deals with very serious offending. If there is an increase in tariff, which we as a liberal democracy think is right, that is fine, but there are real dangers with that. My view is that we are likely to see a Prison Service that is wholly incapable of dealing with the stress of an extra 20,000 people—what is forecast for the next few years—inundated with new offenders who are likely to have very little access to meaningful reform and rehabilitation. That is deeply concerning to me.
If as a society we feel that that more serious offending requires a higher tariff, we also have to address the numbers in prison. The most important thing we need to do is to look at whether people who are currently being sent to prison, perhaps at the lower and medium end of offending, really need to go there. The Centre for Social Justice published a paper last year called “Sentencing in the Dock”. Our position was very clear that modern technology, with GPS tagging and alcohol tagging—I could list a number of requirements that are already rightly in the Bill—could provide a sufficient deprivation of liberty to act as a real punishment for serious offending or medium to low-level offending.
We need to be much bolder about the amount of people we keep out of prison and deal with in the community. We can see clearly that in treating alcohol, drug addiction, mental health problems, literacy and numeracy, you are far more likely to have an effect on those key drivers of crime if you deal with people in the community than if you put them in prison. We could be much bolder in dealing with community disposals. There is a real risk of sentencing inflation here, of a prison population growing out of control and, in my view, of brutalising people who might otherwise be able to reform.
Phil Bowen: I agree with a lot of that. The only thing I would add is that proposals are set out in the White Paper that are being taken forward by the Ministry that seek to strengthen the community justice parts of the system. They include things such as investing in early intervention and prevention, including the improvements to the out-of-court disposals regime, which I think is vital for young people and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in particular.
The nationalisation of the probation service represents a real opportunity to strengthen community sentences and win public confidence in community sentences back from the courts. I also think a strong interest and investment are needed in high-quality treatment for offenders and the more dynamic use of electronic monitoring. While I agree with a lot of what Adrian has just said that some proposals in the Bill seek to increase the use of prison, that takes away money from smarter investments in community justice. I would also like to emphasise that there are things in the Bill that we support, because we think they take forward that idea of smarter community justice.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Adrian Crossley: My view is that definitions usually start their life imperfect and develop with a great deal of expertise from public and experts who understand this issue perhaps better than I ever could. Notwithstanding that, and understanding that there may be a starting point of imperfection, they are useful. In my view, definitions of important criminal principles help real decision makers on the ground make practical decisions that are fair and consistent. Notwithstanding the fact that I see problems with that—we have seen so many different definitions of domestic abuse, which started its life as domestic violence, that it is clear these things are fluid and can develop—I think they have a practical application.
Phil Bowen: I have nothing to add to that. I agree with that.
Sarah Champion
Q
Phil Bowen: I think presumption to all of them is very useful. The other thing that I think is worth underlining is that part of the model of the specialist domestic abuse courts, which ought to operate in every magistrates court but at the moment do not, is that independent domestic violence advocates make sure the victims are asked about special measures and those special measures are put in place. I think there is a delivery and implementation question, as well as a legislative question, about whether the resources are there to help victims of domestic abuse and ensure those special measures are put in. Yes, I think a presumption would be useful, but I think it also requires attention to implementation and delivery issues. Special measures should already be used in specialist domestic abuse courts across our magistrates court estate and, in many cases, domestic abuse victims are without access to those measures, for want of anyone who asked.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adrian Crossley: I endorse pretty much all of what Mr Bowen has just said. I will not repeat what he said, so forgive me, but I particularly want to emphasise the focus that was placed on the reality of actual implementation. I worked for some years as a prosecutor and in defence, and I can say that, very often, lack of special measures is not the result of an omission in thought or some massive procedural error. Sometimes the implementation of special measures and, certainly, the pragmatics of what happens in court are not there and the stress that that puts witnesses through is absolutely huge. Sometimes, we talk a lot about witnesses not turning up or defendants gaming the system, hoping that the stress of waiting for trial is so bad that the witness just will not turn up, but the chaos and confusion that is caused by a broken system that is fixed on the day can be hugely distressing to a witness. I think implementation is important.
That point is not where I was going to go, however. Just for balance, I should say that it is always right that the accused should be able to face their accuser and evidence should be tested properly. Nothing that I have seen that has been proposed, including video examination in chief and cross-examination before trial, gives me any concern that without the right implementation that could not be done well. We always have to have an eye on making sure that the accused has a fair trial. This is important; it is not a nicety. However, the measures I have seen proposed give me no real cause for concern about that. I think it makes a massive difference to the view of the complainant and, unfortunately, it would also make a massive difference to the view of some defendants, who may face the reality of the evidence against them earlier. It may encourage pleas that should have happened earlier.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Phil Bowen: Very quickly, I think the proposal in clause 100, which reduces judicial discretion about imposing minimum custodial sentences, is a regrettable step. I have seen no evidence to suggest that that discretion has been misused. I am not sure on what basis that clause was proposed, and we have been arguing for its removal from the Bill. I see a place for minimum custodial sentencing, but I tend to be against anything that fetters the discretion of judges.
Adrian Crossley: Statutory minimums can have a function when we want to give a standard approach to the severity with which society regards a certain offence. My view, though, is that over a decade or two, judicial discretion right across the board—not just in this clause—has been steadily eroded, and I do not find that particularly helpful in criminal justice. Judges are well equipped to make decisions about what is in front of them, and they are well advised. No guidelines can ever foresee the variety that life can bring you, and my view is that the more judicial discretion there is, the better our criminal justice system is likely to be.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Phil Bowen: In general, we support the move to the two-tier system. It is something that was called for by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as you know, in 2016. Fifteen forces already operate such a simplified framework. The concerns we have are twofold. One is that in consultation events that we have already held with a number of police forces, they strongly suggested that they wanted to retain the flexibility to issue the community caution—the lower tier—without conditions. In the existing framework, they are able to issue a simple caution that does not involve conditions. Police forces want that flexibility, and the new framework proposed by the Government does not allow that in the lower tier.
The second issue, which speaks to previous comments about disproportionality, is that we would strongly argue that it should be possible to offer the community caution—the lower tier of the two tiers—to individuals who accept responsibility for their behaviour, rather than requiring a formal admission of guilt. This is an idea that was raised in the Lammy review and has subsequently been raised in the Sewell report. We think it would be better if that lower tier could be offered to people, who are required only to accept responsibility for their actions. As the Lammy review suggests, that may encourage the participation of people from groups who tend to have less trust in the police and the criminal justice system.
Adrian Crossley: Drawing from the 2014 audit, there are some learnings from the two-tier system, most notably the training of officers so that they can refer people to the intervention that is appropriate and useful, better inter-agency communication, and sufficient time for implementation. Once that is done, our view is that this is a great step forward. We are very enthusiastic about it. This is about intervening and offering help, not just having a meaningless warning. We have spoken to charities that have actively said that these sorts of interventions, which encourage somebody to engage with treatment, can really make a life-changing difference to people. It is unrealistic to expect them suddenly to go into full rehabilitation, but it can make an introduction and open up doors that sometimes people feel are just not open to them. We see that there is real strength in this approach. We have also heard a number of police forces suggest that it would be enormously helpful to them if community resolution remained on the books. Certainly, it is currently the most widely used disposal.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Adrian Crossley: No, not the simple caution. It is a community resolution. It is slightly different and more like a contract with the police force that they can enter into to take the matter further. That is enormously popular with the police right now. Just to be clear, our view is that the thrust of this two-tier system is that there is a condition attached to allow the disposal of tier one and tier two. We think that is a very positive thing.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Adrian Crossley: I think that risk is entirely possible; this is quite well documented. We have to look at ways to challenge that. Phil briefly touched on the “Chance to Change” pilots that are currently being operated, which look at this slightly lesser form of admission.
Our view is that we have to address the mischief here. If there is mistrust in this system, then there are two things that can be done. First, proper independently chaired scrutiny panels can look at the way these are run and the advice that they give to people when they enter the police station. I know that the Government have already suggested that that might be a way of dealing with this.
Above and beyond that is access to legal advice and to legal aid. We are seeing an attrition of people’s access to legal advice. My experience is that when people are properly advised about what is in front of them, when they understand that they are being treated fairly and decently, and when they understand the evidence against them, then they are in a position to make an informed choice.
If it is just a choice about, “Do you trust the police?” then I can entirely see how some communities would have reservations about that and even, when it comes to sentencing, well-founded reservations about pleading guilty. A system that is transparent and provides good training, a good understanding of what they are involved in and, clearly, good legal advice at an early stage, could combat that.
The Chair
I am afraid I have to strike a balance and I have to switch to the Minister, for his questions. I am sorry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
Adrian Crossley: So that I understand the question and I answer it properly, are you asking what merits we would need to see in order for there to be an expansion of minimum tariffs in sentencing? Is that what you mean?
Chris Philp
Or the risks. What are your views about the principles of the possibility?
Adrian Crossley: My own view is that judicial discretion should be king. I have not done any huge research into this, but in my view and from my practice, sentencing guidelines have become very prescriptive and they almost railroad judges into decisions. Judges always have parameters to work within, but what is before the court is often something that is necessarily unique. Minimum sentencing can shackle decision makers who are acutely aware of the facts in front of them.
The only benefit I see is in cases where there are overwhelming public interest concerns that mean that a minimum tariff would adequately address a specific mischief and would undo it. If I were to see that, I would regard that as a pro for minimum sentences. I would need to see an evidence base that that would achieve that.
Phil Bowen: I agree with what Adrian says. In general, a lot of the evidence from, for example, the United States on mandatory minimums is not encouraging, but I see an argument for Parliament identifying particular crimes of concern and putting those in place. We should be clear that the deterrent effect of that is likely to be pretty mixed. The evidence is pretty mixed about whether that kind of thing really does deter future crime, but I can see the public need for the Government to be seen to respond to public desires around particular signal crimes. That is why, although I do not reject them out of hand, I agree entirely with Adrian that judicial discretion is extraordinarily important because judges will know the facts of the case much better than the press or the public watching on.
Chris Philp
Q
Phil Bowen: I think the emphasis in the Bill and the White Paper on flexibility around the use of electronic monitoring is the strongest part of the proposals. What the Ministry seems to be doing, which I think is right, is to encourage probation officer discretion and the flexible use of electronic monitoring powers, both to control people where there is need for further control, and to loosen up things where they are doing well. Part of the problem with electronic monitoring to date has been far too rigid sets of curfews without the ability for probation officers to vary them while people are on community sentences. I certainly support that.
In terms of providing for longer periods of electronic monitoring, I can see cases where that may well be useful. The only note of caution that I would suggest to the Committee is that the evidence base suggests that for younger people—in particular, young adults who live at home and people assessed as low risk—longer periods of electronic location monitoring can have a backfire effect. In other words, it can lead to increases in reoffending. All that really means is that the Bill provides the powers that it does, and it is then the job of the probation service to use those powers as flexibly as possible and in line with the evidence.
Chris Philp
Thank you. I was going to ask about problem-solving courts, but I think that was covered adequately in earlier questions. I think Minister Atkins has some questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Q
Adrian Crossley: This policy actually has its origins in the CSJ. We are obviously very supportive of the serious violence reduction order. Just for clarity, and so I can answer that more fully, this is a post-conviction order. We regard it as being part of the wider system. We do not regard it as a stand-alone solution to knife crime in our country.
We see a very significant increase, not just in possession of weapon offences, but of violent offences perpetrated with the use of a weapon. What is clear to us is that we need to do something about that which is robust enough to challenge the mindset of someone leaving their home with a weapon. We draw from the group violence intervention models piloted in Boston in the US under Operation Ceasefire, which create a sort of pull-push effect. We really want to deter people from being able to leave the home feeling that they are safe walking around with a weapon. They should know that they are much more likely to attract police attention if they are on these orders. At the same time, in the sentencing court, we would hope that the order would be able to include other, positive provisions—perhaps even a knife crime behaviour order. Real intervention, engaging young people and pulling them away from that sort of offending can also have a pull effect away from that kind of offence.
I should say that currently, as it is being piloted, it is only for adults. Our view is that knife possession is pervasive across a number of age groups: it is particularly concerning when young people are carrying knives. We would like to see this scheme really being rolled out, so that we can intervene early when people are younger, to see that we do everything we can to take knives off the street and keep people safer.
The Chair
As it is 2.45 pm, we had better call this session to an end. I thank the witnesses for the evidence they have given to the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonathan Hall QC and Matt Parr gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: My name is Jonathan Hall QC. I am the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and I carried out a review into the management of released terrorist offenders after the Fishmongers’ Hall attack, which is relevant to the evidence that I will give today.
Matt Parr: I am Matt Parr and actually I am not the Chief Inspector of Constabulary; that is Sir Tom Winsor. I am one of the Inspectors of Constabulary; I have been doing that job for almost five years. I think the particular reason that I have been asked to give evidence today is that I have just led a series of inspections, including around protests and the way police look after them; into the Sarah Everard vigil; and then this week into the way that the Police Service of Northern Ireland policed a high-profile republican funeral. So I have been doing quite a lot of work on protesting, and I have had some discussions with the Home Office about the legislative proposals.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Q
Matt Parr: Three aspects of that come to mind. First, the use of social media has clearly enabled the organisers of protests to be significantly more nimble. It means that some of the obligations to engage with the police beforehand can be circumvented, creating really quite significant problems for police commanders in the way they plan for protests.
That is the first aspect, which is reasonably obvious to anyone who has been on or near a protest, namely that there is huge potential for social media to be used—in a good way; I am not saying in a bad way. But its ability to galvanise and organise and inform people to join protests or indeed in the way they conduct them is wholly different to what the police had to contend with 20 years ago.
The second point is slightly more subtle. When we conducted the inspection into protesting, we found that more and more police forces are doing more and more policing of protests, for one reason or another, and they are also finding it ever more difficult to persuade their officers to train to be public order commanders, or indeed to make themselves available to do the lower levels of training, so that they can then help out on the protests.
One of the reasons cited for that is that police officers at protests—not in all cases; the temptation to generalise and to be unfair to all protesters is something that we have to resist here—sometimes get identified through social media. One reason that they are disincentivised from going on these protests and volunteering to train to do them is that they are nervous about being vilified on social media, having been identified beforehand. So that is having a chilling effect for police officers and in fact quite often damages their morale.
One of the things we said about the need to modestly reset the balance in the interests of protesters versus the public, and a remark made about decisions made by gold or silver commanders who are the senior police officers commanding the protest, is that they are often nervous about the backlash on social media of any decisions they take. One of the consequences is that there is perhaps a tendency to default to the balance being more in favour of the protester than otherwise. That was my second point.
My third point is that a cautionary tale came out of the inspection we did into the policing of the vigil following the tragic death of Sarah Everard, and the impact of what is frankly a single still photograph that was circulated very quickly and very widely on social media. That created a backlash, and we ended up with some people, and indeed some public bodies and some unions, calling for the resignation of the Met Commissioner. In that report, we said that the reaction was unwarranted. We all know that there is a danger that people get their news and form their opinions from social media. We trawled through hour after hour of police body-worn video of the same incident and came up with a very different view to what social media—completely under- standably—led people to have. I will start with those three points.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Matt Parr: The Home Secretary asked us to look at five proposals at that stage in November, when she asked me to give an initial impression of five of the proposals going into the Bill. In the end, only four of them went in. We had some reservations, but in general we saw the four proposals—with some caveats, particularly around the fifth one that did not go in—as having the potential to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the policing response to protest. If you want to discuss the details of those, we can do that, but in answer to your general question about whether they would assist the police in getting the balance right in the age of social media, I would say probably yes.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: No, I tried to be as comprehensive as I could when carrying out my review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. I thought long and hard about the additional powers that might be needed, and I am pleased that they are contained in the Bill. I cannot think of anything else. From a detailed, legal perspective I would just say that there are a couple of points of detail about two of the powers, and maybe the Committee will want to question or press on whether further safeguards are needed. I did not draft the powers, of course, and I recommended that they be done generally and they have now been put into statutory language. Overall, I have nothing to add to what is here.
Sarah Champion
Q
Matt Parr: Shall I go first? I am afraid it will be a short answer. We are aware of the issue, and as you may know we do a 43-force inspection of all police forces on a rolling basis. We think that it is a bit early and that we need more time to reach an informed view on the issue, but we will look at it in our next round of inspections.
Jonathan Hall QC: I have a short point to add: I did look at one issue. There are special arrest powers in section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and those powers differ from other arrest powers in that they allow for people to be held for up to 14 days. I did consider whether there should be the power to bail after arrest in section 41 in my first report, but for various practical and technical reasons I thought that was probably wrong. That is the only thinking I have done about that.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I thought there were three key points. First, managing the terrorist risk from released offenders involves practitioners from agencies who are not always good at working together. For example, the probation service and MI5 do not have, historically, an easy way of working together.
Secondly, the likelihood of making really good decisions at the right time, which is what matters, would be increased if there was a shared understanding of risk. That involves greater data sharing, and not just secret data sharing—though that is important—but sharing data from all other sources. One of the good things about the Bill is that it resolves an uncertainty about when data can and cannot be shared. It also requires better understanding in all the agencies about what tools exist. Probation has a really fantastic, powerful tool—the ability to recall risky offenders to custody. That is probation’s power—it is not the police’s or MI5’s—and it is important for MI5 to understand that and to make sure that the person making that decision understood the risk. So a comprehensive understanding of each of those powers is important and, as you know, I recommended a couple of extra powers, which are in the Bill.
Thirdly, there is a particular difficulty in practice of managing people who had not been convicted of terrorism offences but who were of terrorist risk when released. Take, for example, someone who went to prison for a very violent offence and became radicalised in prison—they present a terrorist risk on release. It is quite difficult to get them into the structures that exist for managing such a terrorist risk, but the Bill is going to change that to make it easier—[Inaudible.]
Sarah Jones
You froze. You were saying, “to make it easier”.
Jonathan Hall QC: The Bill will make it easier for MAPPA—the management structures of risk—to apply to all terrorist risk offenders. That is not just people who were convicted of terrorism offences but people who are of terrorist risk when they come out of prison.
Sarah Jones
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I have nothing to say in relation to the power of the police to arrest urgently where there is a breach of licence; that is a really sensible addition. There is a power in clause 159 to apply for a warrant to search the premises of a released offender, and I support that. The point of detail is that it would be possible to apply to a judge for a warrant that would allow you to enter on any number—potentially an infinite number—of occasions. If you think about released terrorist offenders on licence, their licences can last a very long time—for example, 10 or 15 years—so perhaps the Committee may want to think about whether it is appropriate to have a power that would authorise multiple entries into a person’s premises throughout 10 or 15 years. The power of multiple entry under warrant does exist when you are talking about a live operation, and the police find that quite useful. I am not quite sure whether it is justified in the context of this particular risk. That is just one small point of detail, more by way of a safeguard.
Secondly, I recommended and am pleased to see in the Bill a power to search the person of a released terrorist offender. For example, if someone is going to London for the first time, or if a released offender who is very dangerous is going to meet a probation officer for the first time, that would authorise the police to pat them down to make sure they are not carrying something. That is good not only as a deterrent, but as a reassurance. It is reassuring to have that ability, which exists in the context of offenders under civil measures called TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
The only small point is that in the Bill the purpose of searching is
“for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism”.
In other statutes, for example the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the power is to be used for
“ascertaining whether the individual is in possession of anything that could be used to threaten or harm any person.”
When I was thinking about this point, I had in mind patting someone down for a weapon or something of that nature, rather than a personal search to check generally whether they are complying with their licence conditions. Again, that is something that the Committee will probably want to consider—what precisely is the purpose of the search. It may be that the purpose of the search goes a bit wider than is necessary. Those are two relatively small points of detail.
Sarah Jones
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: No, I do not think there is anything in the Bill to address that. The only other bit of the Bill relevant to my area of business is the power to refer an individual who has become dangerous in prison to the Parole Board so that they cease to be someone who is automatically released and can only be released by order of the Parole Board. I think that is sensible. I do not know whether you know that I am doing a review of terrorism in prisons at the moment. The need to be agile and respond to the radicalisation that does sometimes happen in prison is important, so that is to be welcomed. I do not think—unless you can refer me to it—that there is anything that addresses the question of deradicalisation or desistance. I think the truth is that officials will say that it is an ongoing process. I am not saying it will not work with some people, but I would not put all my eggs in that particular basket.
Sarah Jones
Q
Matt Parr: I have got quite a lot of sympathy with what you say. We were very clear in what we said that any reset should be modest. We also said that, because of article 10 and article 11 rights, some degree of disruption is not just an inevitable by-product, it is sometimes the whole point of the exercise of protest, and on that basis, it has to be encouraged. Zero protest is certainly not the aim as we saw it; zero disruption was not the aim either—some degree of it is inevitable. It is just a question of where the balance lies.
I take your point. Some of the things in the Bill we were not asked to comment on. For example, imposing conditions on one-person protests—clause 60 in the Bill —we were not asked to comment on. Some of the specific areas such as access around Parliament—clause 57 and then clause 58 if Parliament moves—we were not asked to comment on, either. There are things that we did not really look at, and therefore I have not got a judge on what effect they might have and what the potential benefit might be.
Perhaps the most contentious would be the third of the proposals that we were asked to look at that widens the range of circumstances in which police can impose conditions on protests: static assemblies or processions. It could be either type. We said that at the moment there are four acid tests. In the disruption one, it was “serious disruption” to the life of the community. As I understand it, the proposal is that that is modified to “significant impact” and so on. Ultimately, these will have to be judged in the courts. It struck me that it clearly aims to set a lower bar. Personally, when I reviewed it, I did not think the bar was necessarily the problem. There is just as much of a problem with educating and training the police officers and making sure they understand how article 10 and 11 rights can be properly tempered. It was a question of training and understanding as much as it was of where the bar was for disruption.
Interestingly—again, I am probably simplifying it a bit too much—there is quite a stark difference between London, which obviously gets a disproportionately large number of protests, and elsewhere. Senior police officers outside London—again, I am generalising—tended to think they had sufficient powers, and senior police officers inside London tended to think that more would be useful. I think that is a reflection of it.
I think yes is the short answer to your question. I think there are dangers and, as ever, the bar for measuring what was significant or what was serious should be a high one. We all recognise that. It should not be done on the flimsiest of pretexts. Again, it would then be open to challenge, and I think police officers would only wish to use it when they were confident.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Certainly most of those convicted of terrorism offences will have some sort of Parole Board referral anyway, so automatic release for people convicted of terrorism offences has virtually come to an end. I spoke—
Alex Cunningham
Sorry, can I stop you there? Can you explain the parole role in this, because my understanding was that it would not actually happen?
Jonathan Hall QC: Let us say I get a determinate sentence of eight years for robbery—no, let us say for fraud, a non-violent offence. I will be released automatically after four years. I understand the clause is intended to allow the Secretary of State to ask the Parole Board to look at me to see if I have become a dangerous offender while in prison. Let us imagine I have been radicalised and all the assessments are that I am a dangerous terrorist offender. The Secretary of State could refer that individual to the Parole Board to make a determination that they should now be treated like a violent or a sex offender. In other words, they will not be released automatically at four years, but would have to apply for parole. That is what I understand the clause does.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Okay. I have to say that I have not looked at the detail. The Parole Board has a role in deciding whether that person should be released.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“Making release from custody discretionary, and contemplating the possibility that the period in custody could be doubled as a result, is not some minor alteration in the administration of a sentence. It is retrospective sentencing by the executive, a form of internment, circumventing the judicial process and all the protections it confers.”
Do you think the changes to automatic release have any constitutional implications?
Jonathan Hall QC: I will confine myself to talking about terrorist-risk offenders. I do not want to discuss anything outside my remit. If you are talking about people who are sentenced to be automatically released as, for example, Usman Khan was, if in the course of their time in custody it becomes apparent that they are very dangerous, it is appropriate to be able to make their case dependent upon the Parole Board.
As the evidence from the Fishmongers’ Hall inquest has shown, Usman Khan came out with a huge amount of risk, as a result of his behaviour inside. Does that have constitutional implications? The current law is that that sort of change, as you know from the emergency legislation that went through last year, is not contrary to article 7. Does it have big implications for individuals? Yes, it does. It is a decision that would have to be taken very carefully. Does it give rise to the risk of a cliff edge? Yes and no. As you know from the Usman Khan case, they had to be released, and there was no way of changing that.
The point about someone’s release being discretionary is that it is then open to the Parole Board to time their release, and to delay their release if they are not safe enough to be released. Of course, there is always a cliff edge. A person could go to the end of their sentence. The Parole Board could say, “We are not going to release you at all,” and then they would come out automatically. It adds something to put them in the hands of the Parole Board once they have been identified as a risk.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: It is a really good question. It is a power that will be exercised pretty rarely, I expect. I do not think that you can ask the judge who passed the original sentence to change the sentence. That would be an odd situation, to ask the sentencing judge to reconsider their sentence, on the basis of what happened in prison.
If you think, as I do, that there will be the rare case where you need to delay someone’s release, I cannot see an alternative mechanism, other than putting it in the hands of the Parole Board. You are right that it will disappoint some people, as I think we have discussed in the past. I am slightly concerned about the fact that for some dangerous terrorist offenders—people who have already been identified as dangerous—the role of the Parole Board has now been abolished altogether, because of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 that is now in force.
I do not think it is a bad thing to have the Parole Board looking at the small sub-set of individuals who are identified as very risky. In the course of my review into terrorism in prisons, I have seen evidence of individuals who are very risky and potentially becoming riskier because of how they are in prison. It seems right that they should know that, as a result of the risk and what they are doing in prison, their release may have to be delayed.
The Chair
I am going to have to stop you there. I will switch to the Government side and Victoria Atkins.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: First of all, it means that anyone who is a risky offender—whatever they were put inside for, whether they were sentenced for a terrorist offence or were sentenced for a non-terrorist one but are in fact a risk—can be managed under MAPPA. The law as it stands states that someone must be a risk based on their offending.
To take the example of a fraudster who went to prison and was then dangerously radicalised and became a terrorist risk, their risk would not in fact flow from their offending. Clause 162 cures that, so that anyone who is identified as a terrorist risk may be manged under MAPPA. That is a good thing, because the authorities found it quite hard to deal with that cohort of people.
The other thing that clause 162 does is to make it very clear that people can provide information to MAPPA without having to do what they used to do when I carried out my review, which was to look for information gateways in, for example, the Children Act 1989 or the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, because they did not feel that there was a clear basis for them to share information with MAPPA. As you will understand, the key thing about managing terrorist risk is that all the right information should be receivable. Clause 162 cures that point as well.
Victoria Atkins
In other words, dealing with the reality presented by a very small number of the most dangerous offenders—dealing with that reality, rather than being constrained by the fact that they committed a fraud offence in the past, rather than a terrorist offence.
Jonathan Hall QC: Exactly.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Matt Parr: There were four tests in the law as it stands, one of which is “serious disruption”. Clause 55, I think, changes that to “significant disruption”, among some others. It is a general lowering of the bar.
Victoria Atkins
Q
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”,
or,
“serious disruption to the life of the community.”
That is the wording in clause 54 as well. As you will understand, clauses 54 and 55 are about ensuring consistency between moving protest and static protest. We heard from police witnesses this morning that one can flow into the other very easily, and back again.
May I also ask about clause 59? That places the common law offence of public nuisance on the statute book. Does the inspectorate have any views on that, or has it made any recommendations on it previously?
Matt Parr: Not previously, but we did in the report we put out in March. That was one of the five proposals that the Home Secretary asked us to comment on in particular. Our view was that we agreed with what the Law Commission recommended back in 2015, I think. We concluded, for much the same reasons as they did, that that was a sensible thing to do. In summary, we thought that protesters deserve to know where they stand, and that there was no harm in making the rules clearer than they are. It was supporting the Law Commission’s proposal.
Chris Philp
Q
Matt Parr: I am really sorry. I have not looked at that. I cannot give you an answer, I am afraid.
Chris Philp
Q
Let me turn to Jonathan, if I may, going back to clause 108, which Alex Cunningham was asking about. This is in relation to prisoners sentenced for non-terrorist offences who are deemed to become high risk in the course of their sentence. To clarify, is your understanding of the clause the same as mine—that the Secretary of State does not have the power to unilaterally ask for their prolonged incarceration, but instead the Secretary of State simply has a power to refer the prisoner to the Parole Board, which will then make the assessment of dangerousness? It is the Parole Board that makes the decision, not the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State simply refers. Is that your understanding as well?
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes. I have it in front of me. I think the point that Mr Cunningham was making is that it is the Secretary of State who refers it, but you are right: it is the Secretary of State who refers it, but ultimately it is the Parole Board that decides.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes, that is right. When the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020—the emergency legislation that came in after the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall—transformed people from automatic release prisoners to people who would have to apply to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point, it had an effect on people who are currently serving. That was challenged in the courts by one of the affected prisoners, and the High Court concluded that it was consistent with article 7.
Chris Philp
Q
The final point that Mr Cunningham raised was in relation to the potential for a cliff edge if somebody serves all of their sentence in prison and is not released early. He referred to the possibility of a cliff edge, which exists in various other contexts that you have referred to already. Am I right in saying that if the Government, the security services or the authorities are concerned about the risk that a particular prisoner might pose following release if they were released without licence conditions because they had served all of the sentence, it would be open to the security services, acting through the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to apply for a TPIM if they felt the threshold was met? That would be one option available if they wanted to manage risk, accepting that TPIMs are rarely used.
Jonathan Hall QC: You anticipated what I was going to say. Yes, that is available, but TPIMs are very resource-intensive, and they are very rarely used for that reason.
Alex Cunningham
I misunderstood the line about the role of the Parole Board. I was concerned about what happens beyond the completion of the sentence. As the Minister says, the TPIM is used only in extremely rare circumstances, and it was unclear when that would apply and when it would not apply. Again, my concern is the cliff edge—somebody being released into the community without any licence conditions or further restrictions on their movements.
Chris Philp
Q
The Chair
Hang on a second. I think we are supposed to be taking evidence from our witnesses. Do you want to answer that, Mr Hall?
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes. To continue the thought, where someone reaches the end of their sentence, their sentence cannot be increased—for example, by adding an extra licence period. In a way, it sounds quite a sensible idea that if someone is very dangerous, when they get to the end of their sentence you should just add a licence on administratively, but that would be completely wrong in principle, because the point of a licence is that you can be recalled. If someone was sentenced to 10 years by a judge and got to the end of their sentence, and you then added on a licence period of, say, five years, if they were recalled—quite a few terrorist offenders do end up being recalled—they would end up serving up to 15 years. That would, of course, be wrong in principle.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I am not trying to avoid it by saying that it is a really good question, but I have not properly absorbed the role of victims in the work that I have done as reviewer of terrorism legislation. One of the difficulties of terrorism is that you are looking more at future risk than at past impact, but obviously, a really bad terrorist attack has the most atrocious consequences for individuals. I am going to slightly dodge it, if I may, by saying that I have not really thought that one through, but I will take it away.
Matt Parr: I do not really have anything to add. It struck me at first glance—it is the first time I have thought about it—as a reasonably attractive idea, but again, I have not really given it a particularly great amount of thought.
The Chair
Are there any further questions? It appears not. In that case, I thank you both very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Nesil Caliskan, David Lloyd and Alison Hernandez gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Caliskan: I am Councillor Nesil Caliskan. I am chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board—[Inaudible].
The Chair
We are having a bit of a sound problem here. Could you repeat that, Councillor Caliskan?
Councillor Caliskan: Thank you, Chair—I hope you can hear me now. I am Councillor Nesil Caliskan. I am chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board and the leader of Enfield Council.
The Chair
While we straighten out the sound, let us go to Mr Lloyd.
David Lloyd: Hello, I am David Lloyd. I lead on criminal justice for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I am the recently re-elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire.
Alison Hernandez: I am Alison Hernandez, the national lead for roads policing and safety on behalf of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I was recently re-elected the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly. I am here particularly to give the voice of the public on some of the areas in the Bill, and in our role as a scrutineer of policing.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We are trying to straighten things out with Councillor Caliskan’s sound—hopefully we can get that sorted—but we will proceed because of time. I call Ian Levy.
Ian Levy
Q
David Lloyd: I think you make a really good point. Demonstrations are frustrating, especially when they put other people’s livelihoods at risk. Certainly, in Hertfordshire, we had an Extinction Rebellion demonstration that really put free speech at risk by closing down the printing press in Broxbourne, which my friend, the other Chair of the Committee, Sir Charles, will know all about. Certainly, it was difficult to balance the right to demonstrate against the right to free speech.
I think that the strengthening in this Bill is very helpful, although in that specific demonstration the issue was not so much whether the protesters could be arrested, but how they could be arrested, because of the way they had got themselves in some very clever holes so that you could not unpick them. However, I think we really do need to think about the broader population when people are demonstrating, rather than just the rights of the demonstrators.
Alison Hernandez: As you will know, it does not matter which police area the protests occur in; there is a reflection upon police forces nationally from communities thinking, “It is happening where we are, where we live.” There is sheer frustration about some of the disruption that has happened. One of the key factors for us is that it is about being proactive with people who want to run peaceful protests. Our police force in particular has been very good at doing that. As you may be aware, we have the G7 summit coming to us in June in Cornwall, so we are very sensitive, to a heightened extent, about this particular area, and we want to facilitate peaceful protest.
I think these measures in the Bill are needed. Anything that gives the police a tool that ensures public confidence in policing and shows that mob rule does not rule is really important. It really is reflected in public confidence that our police force is on the side of those who are on the right side of the law.
Ian Levy
Thank you. Councillor Caliskan?
Councillor Caliskan: I think it is important to differentiate between protest and the opportunity for the public to come together for things like a vigil. That is obviously—[Inaudible]—the very tragic death of Sarah Everard, for instance.
The Chair
Are you able to bring your face closer to the microphone or bring the microphone closer to your mouth? I think that would help.
Councillor Caliskan: Is that better?
The Chair
Okay, try now.
Councillor Caliskan: And we must also differentiate between a one-day vigil or protest and something that is over a longer period of time. In my experience, from having spoken to council leaders from across the country, the best way that peaceful protest is facilitated is planning in advance. That means the community and organisers having a good relationship with the police, and local forces working closely with local authorities ,so that you know when gatherings will take place, how you can put measures in place to support them to express their views and do so in a safe way. Differentiating between short-term gatherings and long-term gatherings is important.
Sarah Champion
Q
Councillor Caliskan: The first thing to say is that the Local Government Association broadly welcomes the Bill. We recognise its intentions for victims of crime and to support communities. However, there are aspects of the Bill, for instance, the offensive weapon homicide reviews, that I referred to, that lack clarity on the implications for resources, and why they are necessary, given that other reviews take place that could probably cover some of the issues. Reviews take place when you want to learn from an incident. It is unclear what the outcome of an offensive weapon homicide review would be and what learning would be achieved from that.
On the broader point about resources and support, local government have been under incredible pressure in funding youth offending services for several years. We know that youth services have seen a cut in their budgets. Youth offending services primarily have two functions: to stop reoffending, and to stop offending in the first place. The second function is not a statutory responsibility, and it is up to local authorities and partners, such as the police and NHS, to be willing to put in resources to stop offending in the first place. The early intervention and prevention aspect of things will be critical if the intention of the Bill to reduce crime over a long period of time is serious. Alongside the statutory responsibilities that the Bill sets out, the LGA’s view is that it is critical that there are adequate resources to be able to intervene with preventive measures at an earlier stage.
Sarah Champion
Q
Alison Hernandez: There are a few bits in the areas we have been looking at. One area that is particularly of public interest is around the level of offending on our roads from poor driver behaviour generally. There is an absolute appetite from the public—we carried out a survey about 18 months ago on road safety through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and over 66,000 people responded. It was absolutely clear that people witness offending behaviour on the roads where they live for about 70% of the time. So there is an appetite for more enforcement and for the fines levels, and that is in the Bill around delivering courses for some of those driver behaviours, which I think is really great. We are interested in seeing another area, which would be a levelling up of the fines for some of those offences. They are all different, whether for speeding, using a mobile phone, or not wearing a seat belt. The fines are all at different levels. Our suggestion is: why don’t you level up the fines, then you also have an opportunity to spend more funding on road safety?
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
I am very interested in this issue and there are two parts to my question. First, do you think that the existing powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are sufficient to address the issues that arise from unauthorised encampments for communities that are affected? If not, do you think that this Bill goes some way to fill any gaps that have been identified and raised by a number of different groups?
Separately, regarding local authorities, I think it is little-known that local authorities are actually required to find space for Travellers’ sites, transit sites and authorised encampments. Do you have examples of local authority areas that are doing that alongside communities and the police, and it is working well? And what more can local authorities do?
Siobhan Baillie
Alison Hernandez. Thank you.
Alison Hernandez: There are a few things, actually. Some of the existing arrangements under the legislation that you mentioned are quite strong, but there is a resistance—a nervousness—among police actually to deliver on them, and I think that having a very clear criminal offence makes it a lot easier for the police to act.
At the moment, if you look through the National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on how to deal with unauthorised encampments, it refers to a number of elements that must be met before the police take some action. This change actually enables the police to make that decision much more easily and more simply, so we really support the change to the way that we are looking at this issue.
I want to be clear that right now, as we speak, I have two unauthorised encampments, one in each county: one in Truro; one in Cranbrook. And these encampments are really affecting our communities’ confidence, by allowing people to break the law and cause damage. Actually, our communities are taking extreme measures to try to stop these unauthorised encampments from happening. This is not about being against people who have an alternative lifestyle; having such a lifestyle is absolutely fine. But when they impact on the communities’ amenity and actually cost the community money to clear up and solve issues, this offence helps to make it really clear that we do not want to see that situation in our communities.
I will just add that the sort of extreme measures that I have witnessed here in my area of Devon and Cornwall include a local council spending £18,500 on metal gates with locks to stop people from accessing pieces of land, which people have still broken into and accessed. The council have now built a concrete wall to stop those people, but it is also stopping local communities from using that land, too, because the council do not want to spend more money to clear up the land afterwards. So there is a challenge about sites—absolutely—for local authorities to consider, but I think this offence makes it clear for policing that there needs to be action.
Councillor Caliskan: The issue is experienced by local authorities up and down the country to different extents. I think it is true to say that there is disruption and that it can cost local authorities resources and funds. It is also true to say that across the country our Gypsy and Traveller communities are badly served in terms of sites that are allocated through planning policy, and it does not help when local plans take a number of years to agree things for them. So, even when there is a clear commitment to find additional sites, it can take years to identify those sites in planning policy. It is partly a planning policy issue and it is partly, I think, a lack of commitment to be able to find adequate space for our Traveller communities.
However, I have to say that the best example of existing local government being able to accommodate Traveller communities is when local authorities proactively build relationships, and while the Bill clearly sets out a way forward to be able to deal with the issues from an enforcement perspective, that is only a part of the picture. The LGA’s view would be that alongside that there needs to be a genuine commitment to accommodate communities, to have adequate spaces and to support those communities in additional things that they might need, such as health provision. Over the past year, there have been good examples of local authorities appointing community liaison individuals just for Traveller communities to be vaccinated, for instance. It costs local authorities resources, but there is a bigger picture that has to be considered.
David Lloyd: I think first of all we have got to start to look at how we can work together across the public sector, and I do not think that we are good enough at that. Very often, the first thing that happens is that the police are called to move on rather than thinking about what the issue is in the first place. Certainly, when I was first elected to a local council back in 1992, we had issues with Travellers and unauthorised encampments. If we had started then with a policy of ensuring that every single borough and district council had sufficient provision for those who may pass through, so that then, when there were unauthorised encampments, they could be moved on to those places, I do not think that anyone would feel that there was a problem in doing that. The issue is when there is no other place reasonable for them to go that is within close proximity. I do not think the duty of the districts and boroughs in two-tier areas and local councils in other areas is enforced sufficiently.
We always have to think about what it is that victims of all crimes and members of the public think most of all. One of the things that concerns people most of all is when there is an encampment—very often, it happens around a bank holiday weekend—and it seems that nothing can be done. I think that the strengthening powers within this will be helpful but that does not, in the long term, help with the real problem, which is: is there sufficient provision? We have got to do something alongside that.
In this discussion, along with the earlier question where Sarah Champion asked “What about budgets?”, we have to find a better way in local government—and I am proudly a part of local government as a police and crime commissioner—to share all of our budgets and we have to find a better way to plan together. Because one of the problems is that the issue of unauthorised encampment is always pushed to someone else as their problem, rather than any one of us picking it up as our problem. We have got to find a way through that.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The Bill introduces offensive weapons homicide reviews. What do you see as a rationale for holding only reviews where offensive weapons are involved? Why is the focus on this type of weapon and is there not a danger that those who have lost loved ones to other causes or other methods will feel that their loss is less valuable than others? That is to anyone who wishes to answer that. I think we will start with Councillor Caliskan, please. [Interruption.]
The Chair
I think we have lost you again, councillor. Shall we go to someone else while we see if we can sort this out?
Allan Dorans
Mr Lloyd?
David Lloyd: My understanding of the Bill—you will understand it better than me, probably—is that it does not get rid of other homicide reviews. Of course, the one that probably you and all of us are familiar with is the domestic homicide review, which is always very helpful, and we all learn a great deal across all agencies around that when that happens. I think this builds on that and that is reasonable.
One of the areas of focus at the moment is around serious violence. I think it not unreasonable, therefore, that we take a little bit more time and we have a little bit more evidence around what has gone wrong. I am a real believer in evidence-based policing, and we have to look at that really closely. I am very much in favour of that. It is going to be, remember, an 18-month pilot. If that brings about initiatives to prevent homicides and protect communities, I think that is a very good idea.
The Chair
Let us try Councillor Caliskan again.
Councillor Caliskan: Hopefully you can hear me now. I agree with what David said about the pilots, and it will be interesting to see the outcomes. The direct comparison is to domestic violence homicide reviews, where there can be very clear learning; and being able to learn, as a system of multiple agencies, where you might have been able to intervene earlier to stop something helps us to reduce crime in the future.
The issue with offensive weapons homicide reviews is that the evidence shows that somebody with an offensive weapon may not necessarily know their victim. You can take knife crime, for example, and compare it with domestic violence. In most cases of domestic violence, the victim and the perpetrator would know each other; that is not necessarily the case—in fact, most often is not the case—when it comes to knife crime.
I think it will be interesting to see the outcome of the pilots, but we have to be careful that we are not just creating additional burdens on agencies and that we have clear criteria and pathways for learning. Also, who will be the owner of the outcomes? Who will be responsible for being able to implement some of those lessons learned? I think that level of detail is probably missing from the Bill, so I wait to see the outcome of the pilots.
Alison Hernandez: One of the challenges around domestic homicide reviews is the lengthy delay from, obviously, when the incident happened to when the review is completed. Often, the challenge we have is that people have moved on and some of the corporate learning from it is not actually kept well within the organisation. So I think that that accountability around this trial would be really helpful, to be clear. There are opportunities around things like local criminal justice boards and there are opportunities through police and crime commissioners of actually holding on to this as part of something that we have to report on. So I think it would be good to look at that accountability to make sure it does not become a paper exercise and is not really utilised in decision making.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Caliskan: The burden of finding alternative accommodation is really about the fact that you are competing. You are competing because you may have victims of domestic violence that the local authority also needs to find accommodation for. So it is about limited resources. It does happen already: they will be rare occasions, but there may be examples where a young person needs to be relocated because they may have been involved in county lines or gang activity. But it is not simple and it is not just about relocating that individual—
The Chair
Councillor, I am very sorry to interrupt you. Is it possible to bring the mouthpiece closer to your mouth? We are really struggling to hear you.
Councillor Caliskan: How is that? Is that better? I will hold it.
The Chair
Let us try.
Councillor Caliskan: Hopefully you can hear me a bit clearer. The other point I was going to make is that it is not as simple as just relocating an individual. It is often a family that you have to relocate, and there are additional processes associated with that. Examples of issues are employment for the parents and the tenure of accommodation. If they own their own property, relocating them becomes more complicated. The picture is complicated, as you might expect. This is possible; local authorities do do it, but it takes multi-agency working and it requires a real bespoke approach depending on the individual and the family that you are trying to support.
Bambos Charalambous
Do Alison or David have any insights? I imagine not, but if they do I am happy to hear from them.
David Lloyd: All I would add—I am sure Members will be very much familiar with this—is that probably the vast majority of our criminals are under the age of 25 and a huge number of them are under 18. In Hertfordshire a couple of years ago, three quarters of our murders—we have very few—were committed by people under the age of 18. So in many ways we need to get how people are being remanded right. There are greater rights that children would rightly expect and have, but that does not mean to say that some of our most serious criminals are not children. Getting that balance right is difficult.
Councillor Caliskan: If I might add, there are good examples throughout the country where youth offender services are intervening at an early stage that not only supports individuals not to reoffend but provides a family approach, supporting siblings who may be at risk of being involved in criminal behaviour. That early intervention makes a real difference, so as local government we would look to see how such public health approach-led practice could be rolled out more consistently across the country.
The Chair
Commissioner Hernandez, do you have anything you want to add?
Alison Hernandez: Just one point in relation to youth remand. The challenge in helping young people and getting that right is the gap between arrest and conviction. With the courts backlog there is at the moment, that can be a long gap, and one of the challenges is that sometimes you cannot work with that young person until they get to the point of conviction. I just wanted to flag that up, but that is more about charge to conviction than remand and awaiting.
Mr Goodwill
Q
David Lloyd: I feared that you were going to say that. I am not convinced that anything can easily be done. Clearly, on private land, there is a planning process, but it is private land, and that is difficult. I think you are talking specifically about where someone has purchased land and invited people in, and they may well have inappropriately developed that land so that there is a site built there. It is very difficult to know how to deal with that. I certainly have not got the answer. You may well have an answer among you, but how you get the planning process to discriminate, if you like, in a positive way against that which is clearly not right and for that which is right will be difficult.
Sarah Jones
Q
David Lloyd: Can I come in first on that and perhaps also bring in another bit? One of my concerns about the Bill is that it does not go far enough; in fact, it does not really mention how we might use police and crime commissioners more. My concern has always been very much about trying to be at the centre of the criminal justice system and how we bring that together with someone who is a focus for that on a local basis.
One of the benefits of police and crime commissioners has been their ability to bring different parts of the criminal justice system together, along with local authorities, so that we can better ensure that we reduce violence and crime, that the lessons are properly learned and that we put support for victims and perpetrators in the right place. I think it is perfectly reasonable to establish the situation as we are doing it, but we need to go further. One tends never to talk about what is not in a Bill, but the big thing this misses, as far as I am concerned, is how you put PCCs at the very heart of the criminal justice system.
Frankly, with extra duties falling to police, more people will be arrested, and they will end up in a queue going to court which is getting ever longer. Until you have got someone who is able to break through that long queue to get to court, none of this will really work. That is a crisis that we need to solve, and I think we have a solution in trying to give more power to police and crime commissioners. That might be a discussion for another day, but it is something we really need to focus on.
Councillor Caliskan: I think the LGA would highlight that a prevention-first approach is a long-term, sustainable approach to deal with crime in our communities. We absolutely support collaboration and a multi-agency working approach, because it works. The evidence demonstrates that it works, and the best and most successful outcomes demonstrate that. Take the violence reduction units, for example; there are very good examples of that.
There are not violence reduction units everywhere, so there is this inconsistency. They were, as I understand it, first established based on the areas where there were high levels of knife crime. Now, whether that should be the criteria going forward is a matter for debate, but I would emphasise again that the long-term statutory responsibility is suitable and that the multi-agency approach is properly resourced to be able to deliver those early interventions.
The community safety partnerships are really welcome as well. Again, there are some good examples of them. I guess that the benefit of community safety partnerships is that local communities can decide what the issues are. That gives communities agency, and it allows different organisations to come together to have ownership of the problem.
We at the LGA would ask for there to be more consistency. For that, we should see violence reduction units extended and offered in more areas, and there should be a more sustainable funding model. If we are serious about seeing a reduction in crime, we have to have models that move away from just one-off grant funding or one-year grant funding, to five-year periods of funding, so that there can be long-term projects.
Alison Hernandez: If I may say, I get a bit frustrated with the conversation about funding, because it is not all about having funding from the Government. I absolutely applaud the serious violence duty. One of the challenges that we all recognise is that, generally, society is getting more violent. This isn’t, “Who has got the most violence in their area?” We have a general societal problem, which every area needs to be looking at, focusing on and tackling.
In Devon and Cornwall, we are not one of the areas that received the violence reduction unit funding, so the chief constable and I have come together in a partnership to establish a serious violence prevention programme. We are funding that through council tax payers’ funding, because we believe that it is fundamentally important that we make this a priority. So you can do it yourselves if you think it is important. The serious violence duty will help people to see that this must be prioritised to be tackled. We want to do prevention; we do not want to deal with the things in the Bill that are just about enforcement and the hard end of it. We are able to look at that early intervention and prevention.
Many Members will have heard of things such as Operation Encompass, which is throughout the country in all 43 police forces, to try to help children who are at the receiving end of domestic abuse. In that sort of thing, we are trying to help children as young as possible, to break that cycle of violence. We fundamentally know that domestic abuse is one of the key issues that, if not tackled at a young age, leads to more violence in later life. I am an absolute supporter of the serious violence duty. We have things within our own powers, as commissioners with our local authorities, to set the priorities to tackle that.
Sarah Jones
Q
Councillor Caliskan: I think you are right. There is no point talking about just enforcement if you want to see community cohesion. Enforcement alone does not allow for Gypsies and Traveller communities to have their place in our community when they want it. It is the nature of their protected characteristics.
What needs to happen? There was a question mark over the efficiency of—[Inaudible]—policy. There has to be a commitment from local authorities that those sites are allocated. The statutory legislation that already exists for these protected characteristics needs to be taken seriously. We should be meeting the obligations that are already set in statute, which says that we should have adequate sites for these communities, but we just do not.
I would like to give parliamentarians some reassurance that the LGA absolutely takes tackling crime seriously. That is why councils up and down the country fund multi-agency working. We take it really seriously—it is a priority, because residents tell us that they want to be safe. We also recognise that crime is a symptom of what is often a complicated socioeconomic issue. If we want to collectively be serious about tackling crime, we have to tackle it at every stage, which means talking about prevention and—[Inaudible.]
Victoria Atkins
Q
Alison Hernandez: I want to be really clear what we are all talking about. We are not talking about all Gypsies and Travellers.
Victoria Atkins
Exactly.
Alison Hernandez: We are not talking about the travelling community. We are talking about a minority of people. I have examples in Exeter city where the local authority created a very nice site so that we could admit them quicker from where they were. It had everything that they needed and the facilities that they wanted, and it was in a nice, secluded spot. When the police went in to evict them, they decided not to go to that site that was available to them. They wanted to go to the next game that they wanted to play. Let’s be really clear about this: we are talking about a minority of people who do not want to abide by the law of this country. I believe we need this offence to support our communities and to send a very strong message: you do not do this type of behaviour.
I mentioned the £18,500 metal fencing created at Drumbridges roundabout to stop them accessing that land. They broke into that land. I have communities who will tell me that they have spotters who go ahead to break open the gates, so they will use the excuse that the gates were already open. All these sorts of things are happening. I have asked about CCTV—can we put it on the main sites where we have these things happening? It cannot be done, because of human rights—because it is where someone is living. Every place you turn to as a community to try to solve this problem is not available.
For me, harms are being caused. On Dartmoor alone, when they had an unauthorised encampment, it became absolutely huge. When these things get so huge, no one can move them on, because the amount of resource required to do so is immense. The bailiffs were going to cost £50,000 a day, and they would still need police back-up in order to do it. The cost is absolutely huge. There is something about sending a message through this Bill which tells the public that we are on their side and that we do not support people who do not want to abide by the law.
David Lloyd: I entirely agree with that. In Welwyn Garden City, we have a person who has almost been driven to the verge of bankruptcy because there was an unauthorised encampment which decided, at the same time, to take on industrial-level fly-tipping. It would cost about £150,000 to move those materials. That originally happened 18 months or two years ago. It is still there among all the woodland.
These people are at the end of their tether. The cost is not just monetary. I have people calling me who really are frightened because they have had large numbers of people on their own land and they feel intimidated and personally threatened. We need to do something about it. Much of it is about sending a message.
While I recognise that it is not helped, as I said earlier, by the fact that local authorities do not provide sufficient spots for Travellers to move on to—I recognise that is something we need to do—we also need to send a message that these people can be moved on if they are in an unauthorised place. We need to send that message out again, as Alison has said far more ably than me, so that the public recognise that we are on their side and we are on the side of the underdog.
Councillor Caliskan: All I would add is that I recognise that there are strongly held views, and we have councils who articulate exactly what colleagues on this panel have spoken about. It can be a huge cost to a local authority.
The best way to deal with these issues is through a collaborative approach, not just through agencies in a particular area, but also with the communities themselves who may be occupying the space. Something has got to give at some point, and an obvious solution is trying to identify space. Local authorities absolutely do not want to be encouraging criminality and disruption, not least because it costs a lot of money, but we could be going round and round in circles unless we find a long-term solution. I recognise that the Bill is an attempt to do that. All I would say is that in order for there to be a collaborative approach, alongside that there needs to be an approach that is about dialogue with communities, too. I do not think that contradicts anything that other panel members have said.
Victoria Atkins
Just to assist the Committee, clause 61 focuses on the conditions whereby this offence can be committed. The phrases “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress” appear to cover the descriptions given by Commissioner Hernandez and Commissioner Lloyd.
On the serious violence duty, where the Government are requiring local agencies to work together to draw together plans to tackle serious violence in their local areas, I am happy to reassure Commissioner Lloyd that clause 13 very much views police and crime commissioners and mayors with policing powers as having a convening role in that. What value do you think will be gained in your local areas from requiring these organisations—vital as they are, in their many ways, in tackling the serious violence that we hope to prevent—to get around a table and work together with schools and educational establishments, in particular, to ensure that we prevent serious violence?
The Chair
Very briefly, please, because we are almost out of time.
David Lloyd: Things that are asked for specifically and are required of us get done. This measure strengthens what many of us are already putting into our own police and crime plans. It is always better to place a duty on us, because that ensures that it gets done. We really do need to ensure that the scourge of serious violence is reduced. There are many parts of the country—thankfully not Hertfordshire—where this is out of control, and this measure will help.
The Chair
Order. We will stop, because we are out of time. I am sorry, Councillor Caliskan, but we have a very tight schedule today. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and I thank Councillor Caliskan for persevering with some of the sound problems.
Examination of Witnesses
Adam Wagner and Marc Willers QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Marc Willers QC: Good afternoon. My name is Marc Willers. I am a QC barrister practising at Garden Court Chambers.
Adam Wagner: Good afternoon. I am Adam Wagner, a barrister practising at Doughty Street Chambers.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: I will leave the Gypsy and Traveller aspect to Marc. From a protest perspective, what worries me about the Bill is that it decouples the public order element from the Public Order Act 1986. It makes that Act do things that it was not designed to do—to protect public order by effectively giving the police powers to impose directions on any protest that is very noisy, which is any protest.
In terms of discrimination, I regularly act for clients who protest—not for any particular thing; I act for clients who protest all sorts of things. My concern is that the police and potentially the Government will end up cherry-picking the kinds of protest that they consider to be valuable and the kinds that they consider to be problematic. That will ultimately be a political decision, not one based on public order. Ultimately, it does not matter whether it is a left-wing Government or a right-wing Government—they will have the ability to discriminate against groups that they do not agree with.
Marc Willers QC: You might have guessed that I am going to indicate that the Bill, particularly part 4, discriminates against Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, two ethnic minority groups with a traditional way of life, an integral part of which is living in caravans, and which also involves nomadism. The Bill will criminalise trespass at a time when many of those who resort to and reside on unauthorised encampments have nowhere else to go, the reason that being site provision, an elderly but enormous elephant in the room, has not been addressed since 1960, when the Government and Parliament of the day introduced the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which closed the commons.
A statutory duty was introduced in 1968 by Lord Eric Avebury, but that duty was subsequently repealed in 1994. I am afraid that the encouragement of private site provision has failed abysmally, and we still have a cohort of Romani Gypsies, Irish Travellers and, indeed, new travellers who do not have a lawful stopping place. Criminalising trespass and giving greater powers, which the police have roundly suggested they do not need, to occupiers of land for the police to enforce really puts another nail in the coffin of nomadism and makes such people’s lives extremely difficult. The disproportionate impact on Gypsies and Travellers is there for all to see.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: It widens the test for being able to impose conditions on a protest to encompass pretty much any protest that is noisy enough to cause intimidation, to harass, or to cause
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
or “serious disruption”. If you are a protest organiser, you will know that that could apply to any protest. You have to appreciate that the current section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows for conditions only when a protest causes
“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
That is already pretty wide.
By making it about noise, you are effectively saying to the organiser that any protest could be caught by that description, so they will have to rely on the good will of the police and the Home Secretary, because the Home Secretary will have a regulation-making power not only to define any of the new terms that I have expressed, but to give examples. Organisers will have to rely on the police and the Home Secretary to decide that their protest is not worth putting conditions on. From a protester perspective, that puts you entirely in the hands of the police and the Home Secretary. That very problematic for somebody organising a protest, because a lot of people will think it is just not worth it, particularly when they are representing an unpopular cause or one that they consider to be controversial. Those are precisely the protests that are the most important, and the most important to protect.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: No; I have not, I am afraid.
The Chair
Is there anything you wanted to add, Mr Willers?
Marc Willers QC: Much the same can be said about proposed new section 60C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in terms of its language. It seems to me that a lot of the language used is vague and uncertain. There is a reference to causing “significant distress” as one of the conditions that could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who refuses to leave a piece of land. That, in itself, brings inherent problems, because a private citizen could very easily invoke the power and leave a police officer with a fait accompli—in other words, they have no option but to arrest an individual who refuses to leave land in circumstances where the occupier says, “I am being caused significant distress by the very fact that this individual is parking on land that I occupy.”
That distress can be engendered or underpinned by the prejudice that Gypsies and Travellers face in our society today. It is a widespread and long-standing prejudice, dating back to the first time that Romani Gypsies came to these shores in the 1500s. I am afraid that it is fuelled by mainstream media and politicians. It is instilled in the minds of many members of the public, and it is bound to play a part. There may well be unwarranted and unjustified concerns on the part of the occupier, which could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who has nowhere else to go.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Marc Willers QC: It might be better for Mr Wagner to deal with that issue, given that I am dealing with part 4.
Adam Wagner: This is a recommendation by the Law Commission, as I am sure you are aware. My concern about codification is that it becomes a statutory tool in the armoury that might not previously have been used. I appreciate that the Law Commission recommended it. It does have benefits in terms of clarity and making the definition of public nuisance a statutory one, rather than coming out of common law and arguably being subject to not being clear.
I do worry that once it becomes a potential tool in the box, it will be used more. From the perspective of protest, and protecting the right to protest and freedom of assembly, it is just another tool in the armoury of public authorities to limit protest. Both Mr Willers and I deal with cases involving private injunctions against protesters and, in Mr Willers’ case, Gypsy and Traveller communities. You can see this proliferation in the courts of the use of any kind of method that will allow private companies and public authorities to restrict what is generally non-violent activity that does not cause much, if any, public order issue. You can see that being used. My concern is that it adds another potential bar to an already quite extensive collection of bars to public protest.
Marc Willers QC: I echo what Mr Wagner had to say. In the context of unauthorised encampments, there has been what has been described by the Court of Appeal—Lord Justice Coulson—as a feeding frenzy, in a case involving Bromley’s application for a wide injunction, effectively creating a no-go zone in Bromley, where Gypsies and Travellers would not be able to camp. That has been replicated up and down the country, in what has been described, as I said, as a feeding frenzy of litigation.
The Court of Appeal, in that context, concluded that the creation of such no-go zones offended the Equality Act 2010, the European convention on human rights and the protection of the right to respect for the traditional way of life of Gypsies and Travellers, and the enshrined right to roam. To bring it back to unauthorised encampments, in part 4 of the Bill the Government appear to be creating the no-go zones that the Court of Appeal has said in another context would fundamentally breach the rights that I have identified.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Marc Willers QC: The problem with part 4—it is speculation as to whether or not definitions will become crystallised in litigation—is that most Gypsies and Travellers will have left the site and be unable to challenge the decision by a police officer to arrest them, given the scenario that would play out under, for example, proposed new section 60C of the 1994 Act. A Gypsy or Traveller parking on a piece of land with their family, perhaps on the way down to Kent from somewhere up north, is not going to hang around when threatened with the seizure of their vehicle to argue that they should be entitled to remain on the land. Even if they did, they would probably not get legal aid with which to challenge the application of the section and their prosecution. In those circumstances, we are probably unlikely to see much, if any, judicial consideration of the vague terms in part 4.
Adam Wagner: If I may, I will add that
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
is not new to the law. You see that wording in the definition of criminal harassment and in other places. My concern is more about width than about clarity. I have dealt with numerous cases involving over-wide injunctions. There is quite a lot of case law about clarity versus width, and the point is that once this language is in the law relating to noise, it will be obvious to the courts that it is a very wide provision indeed and will rely to quite a large extent on the decision making of the police officers.
For example, if a protest decided to be completely silent, it would be difficult for the police to say that that protest was going to cause enough noise to cause serious unease. I imagine that the next Extinction Rebellion protest we see will be completely silent after this. But in seriousness, I think the court will just see that as very wide. What you have really got here is nothing to do with public order; it is about nuisance. It is about criminalising a certain kind of nuisance arising from what should be a protected activity—exercising political speech rights, under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention.
Sarah Jones
Q
Marc, it was put to us earlier that this is not about discrimination or attacking Gypsies or Travellers. It is about people who are engaged in significant criminal damage in places where they should not be. It would be helpful to have your response to that charge—Adam first.
Adam Wagner: I hear that. I will just quote Lord Justice Laws, who said:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”
Protest has not changed; protest has always been a pain, a nuisance and liable to be inconvenient and tiresome. What has changed is that we have a Government who do not like certain protests—although that in itself has not changed either.
Extinction Rebellion is no different from any widespread protest movement—the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the environmental movement previously—but what is different is that it has managed to attract hundreds of thousands of people to its cause and is making real inroads on the public consciousness. That in itself is not a justification effectively to give the police powers to ban or impose conditions on any protest or, even more troublingly from my perspective, to give the Home Secretary—whose role is only to protect public order, not to protect particular opinions or to impose her, his or the Government’s opinion on any particular group—powers in effect to give examples of protests that she considers to be noisy, the ones that this legislation is targeting. You are getting yourself into a situation not where the public is better served, but where this essential part of democracy is going to be reduced down and chilled.
Sarah Jones
Thank you. Marc?
Marc Willers QC: The first thing to say is that those who are committing significant criminal damage can be prosecuted using existing legislation. If they are committing antisocial behaviour, existing legislation is in place. Indeed, the police made that point in their responses to the consultation on these proposed measures, and did so in spades. The response from the vast majority of the police forces was, “We do not need additional powers”, or, “We do need the existing powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to be strengthened.”
I have no hesitation in saying, fund the police properly and ensure that they prosecute those who commit criminal offences, whether they be Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers or members of the settled population—everyone should be treated in the eyes of the law—but part 4 and the proposed provisions do not just affect those who are committing significant criminal damage; they affect each and every Gypsy and Traveller who is exercising their right, enshrined in our convention and under the European convention of human rights, to nomadism, to roam. We should not force them into a position in which they are only lawfully exercising that right when actually on the road—a road to nowhere.
The provision not only will force them into that situation, in which they are literally only within the law when they are moving along the road, but will give police the power to seize their homes, should they fall foul of the provisions. Should they camp on a piece of land and be asked to leave by an occupier who is prejudiced against them and would not want them to be there out of fear that they might commit some behaviour instilled in the mind by prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers, then as I said, it is a fait accompli for the police who are called in. They will have to arrest and almost certainly seize the caravans, that being the home. The individual and family might end up being destitute.
This is all at a time when there is insufficient transit and permanent sites for Gypsies and Travellers to live on. The proposed legislation ignores the rather elderly and enormous elephant in the room—the lack of site provision. That lack of site provision has continued unabated since the 1960s, as I said, when the commons were first closed.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Yes, of course.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: I think I would be neutral on that. It is a very wide piece of legislation. Every time I read it, I am pretty surprised at how wide it is already. What I am pretty clear about is that section 12 does not need to be widened.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Well, potentially. The proof is often in the pudding. It depends on how the police use it and whether they are using it effectively. I have read the report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. I speak to a lot of police, and my experience is that they know they have a wide suite of powers when it comes to protest. What they struggle with, if you look at what has happened over the covid regulations, is deciding when to use them and what is proportionate. These are very difficult policing situations, and they are not necessarily solved by imposing widespread conditions that may lead to legal challenges, which may be successful. Successful policing of protests ultimately comes down to working with the protesters and civil society—hearts and minds stuff from the police. You saw that with the Sarah Everard vigil, and you see that with Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. I do not think you can really enforce your way out of some of the disruption caused by protest. It is really about allowing voices to be heard and being careful.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Well, in part. The Public Order Act was used quite extensively over the course of the Extinction Rebellion protests, and Black Lives Matter was under the covid regulations last summer. That was the power that was used, and those are much more extensive. The covid regulations are far too extensive. We saw there the problems when the police are given too much power, because then they have to make what are not really public order decisions but substantive political decisions about which protests they do and do not allow. That is the danger. I do not think it is a right-wing or left-wing issue; any Government should be worried about protests being limited by political decisions, rather than public order decisions.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: I think the objective test would assist the courts; I do not think it would assist police officers. Anything that limits these powers is better than not, but I just think the powers themselves are too wide for the reasons I have set out. I do not think that helps anything. From a policing perspective, applying all those tests is not going to be easy anyway. Really, this is about the width of the powers overall as a package, rather than the reasonable firmness test or anything like that.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Marc Willers QC: I do not think it would just be related to private lands—
Victoria Atkins
I accept that. There are provisions on common lands as well—you are quite right.
The Chair
I think we had better let Mr Willers answer as we are going to run completely out of time.
Marc Willers QC: It covers private and public land, and common land, and you are right that the conditions are “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress”. My comments earlier were about the fact that significant damage and disruption can be covered by other legislation. The “significant distress” point was one I made in the context of the fact that the occupier may have their own impression of “significant distress”, or may suffer significant distress because of an inherent prejudice towards Gypsies and Travellers.
The Chair
I am really sorry Minister, but we are going to have to stop there because we are out of time allotted for this session. I thank you both for your evidence.
Examination of witness
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby gave evidence.
The Chair
I now call Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, acting CEO of the Youth Justice Board. Once again, we are down to 30 minutes, so we have to be tight—we have until 5.15 pm for this session. Stephanie, would you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, and I am the interim chief executive officer for the Youth Justice Board. It is great to be here today to give evidence to you.
The Chair
I see that you are on an iPhone. Could I possibly ask you to flip it round so that you are in landscape?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Is that better for you, Chair?
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Absolutely. We would say that children who commit offences as children should be sentenced as children, and that, where possible, the court should take into account the age and maturity of the child at the time of the offence. I know that HMCTS has been working tirelessly—particularly at the moment with the covid pandemic—to make sure that children’s cases are held promptly and before their 18th birthdays.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We strongly believe that when the offence was committed as a child, that should be reflected in the length of the sentence, so they should be sentenced accordingly. We appreciate the logic for some of the tapering proposed in the Bill, but we feel that it fails to recognise that all children, who were under 18 at the time of the offence, had a distinct set of rights and vulnerabilities, and that the nature and length of time with which children and young people’s development takes place needs to be reflected. Indeed, evidence points firmly to brain development continuing up until the age of 25.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We wholeheartedly support the introduction of secure schools. We very much welcome the Government’s proposal to open the first secure school at Medway and we look forward to a further secure school as part of the Government’s commitment to an alternative to secure accommodation for children. We have been working closely with Oasis, which was announced as the provider of the first secure school. It is a very strong academy trust and will offer a different operating model from the secure environments that currently exist. While there is some great practice that takes place across the secure estate, we know from the data about the outcomes for children who have been in the current secure estate that those outcomes are poor and that further offending continues.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: It is a concern that the market, as you would describe it, for providing a secure estate is quite limited. We would want to try to stimulate that market, to get the full range of providers that will be able to meet children’s needs. I think there is something about really understanding the complexity of children in the secure estate. These children are extremely vulnerable and, as a result, their behaviours can then be deemed as being extremely risky and posing a risk to others.
Our only concern about the delivery of the secure school is that link, at the moment, to the academy sector, particularly for children entering the youth justice system who have quite often been involved in practices whereby they have been off-rolled. For instance, we note the high levels—the prevalence—of exclusion of children. For example, we know from HMIP data that 89% of children at Feltham in 2018 had been excluded from school. We would be really keen to seek an assurance through the tendering process that academy trusts that are selected to open or run a secure school have the full range of skills, expertise, structures and ethos to support children to change in a secure setting.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Youth offending teams are critical in early intervention and prevention with children who may be on the cusp of offending. There are a whole range of sentencing options available, but before that point there are out-of-court disposals, which means that children can be engaged in a range of activities, interventions and indeed supervision that would help them to address their needs.
Regarding the latter, I think there is really something about us all committing to understand children’s development, some of the social and economic environments in which children are living, and some of the deprivation and the structural barriers that children in our communities are experiencing, particularly children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, who we know are disproportionately represented across the youth justice system. So there are a range of options available from youth offending teams.
One of the challenges that we hear about from the sector is its capacity to work upstream. Often, that is a result of funding, although this year the youth offending teams have had an additional uplift in their grant to help with some of the challenges that they are currently experiencing.
Siobhan Baillie
Very tiny. I have a number of youth groups in my patch, as no doubt all MPs have, that are trusted by youngsters and that have been there and built the relationships. How do the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams work with the grassroots youth organisations?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: If I start with our role as the Youth Justice Board, we work really closely with the voluntary and third-sector community. We have a regular stakeholder forum, where we come together with all of the voluntary sector to hear their voices and concerns, so that we can have effective oversight of the youth justice system.
At grassroots level, which you referred to with youth offending teams, local authorities can subcontract or co-commission services to the voluntary sector, although again we know that in latter years some of those organisations have not necessarily been able to sustain themselves. However, those services are really critical to understanding the context in which children are living: the services they need, and the services that are able to get alongside children and help them. We also have a youth-affiliated network in which we hear from children and hear their voices. They are often the go-to services when children are in crisis, are feeling vulnerable, or do not know what to do.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“In this Chapter—
“adult” means a person aged 16 or over”.
Given the wealth of evidence on maturity, do you think that the section and other provisions of the Bill that address sentencing 16 and 17-year-olds are appropriate?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: I go back to my original answer in which we are clear that the age in law for children is up to 18. We absolutely promote a child-first youth justice system which means that children up to the age of 18 should get treated as children, as they are in law. The evidence base in the debate about maturity strongly suggests that brain development continues until the age of 25, and indeed some evidence shows that it may extend to 28 for males in particular. We would absolutely continue to champion the idea that children should be sentenced as children until their 18th birthday.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“There is no evidence that the threat of harsher custodial sentences deters children from offending, no evidence that contributes towards rehabilitation or promoting long-term positive outcomes. Meanwhile, there is abundant evidence that imprisonment is extremely harmful to children and disrupts their healthy long-term development.”
How do you think the changes to youth sentencing proposed in the Bill will impact reoffending rates?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: A number of changes are presented, and I want to pick out some of those. We are broadly supportive of the proposals relating to youth rehabilitation orders. We are supportive of anything that prevents children from being drawn further into the youth justice system. That would include offering them greater support in the community, and making sure that they get their needs addressed. There is no evidence to show that punishment changes behaviour. What we know changes behaviour is pro-social identity, and giving children a positive image of themselves where they can build on their strengths, and aspire to contribute to our society and our economy. We are very clear that we would not want to see the Bill result in more children being pulled into the youth justice system, and indeed we would want to see children continuing to be referred into the services that rightly should be there to meet their needs and prevent them from offending, as we have seen in the last 20 years since the youth justice system was established.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We really support the proposals and changes to remand. I will start with that point, if that is okay. We welcome the proposal that there be a statutory duty for the court to consider the child’s welfare and best interests when applying the prospect of custody test. We know that at the moment only a third of children in custody on remand go on to get a custodial sentence, which raises the issue of why so many children are being remanded in the first place. So we very much support the proposals around remand.
We particularly support the changes that would say that only a recent and significant history of a breach, or offending while on bail, would result in custodial remand. We recommend that those definitions be tightened or specified. We would recommend that “recent” refer to a six-week period, and “significant” refer to a situation where there is a potential to cause serious harm or injury. We are very supportive of measures that would reduce the number of children being drawn into the system, particularly into custody, so we support the recommendations around remand, but those measures in isolation will not reduce the number of children in custody. There still needs to be work in the community around appropriate accommodation for children, with holistic services that meet their needs. At the moment, there is a misalignment between the priorities of the criminal courts and available community provision for children’s social care accommodation.
We also think there is limited time to build an appropriate bail package. As we all know, there is more to do, although there is ongoing work around vulnerable children and reducing the likelihood of their being exploited.
We very much welcome the changes to the detention training orders, but some of them could result in an increase in the number of children in custody. It might be helpful if I talk through each of those changes. I am conscious of the time and that I am talking very fast, but I think those changes are quite significant. We welcome the fact that there will be more flexibility with their sentences, rather than the rigidity that we have now. However, there is a challenge that the fixed lengths mean that children may miss out on the opportunity to be enrolled in school, for training or for an apprenticeship.
We have some concerns that the findings of the impact assessment that the Government completed may mean that individuals making an early guilty plea may end up with longer sentences than they currently receive. While there would be no additional children’s sentence to detention training orders under this option, that would increase the capacity at any given point of the number of children in the secure estate. We have estimated that to be a potential 30 to 50 places, costing £5.3 million to £8.5 million per year.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We would suggest that some of the changes may further disproportionately disadvantage black and mixed heritage boys—that is indicated in the impact assessment that is currently being completed. We would be very keen to work on some mitigating actions that might prevent those unintended consequences disproportionately affecting those children further.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We would see the benefits very much related to the skills, experience and expertise that multi-academy trusts could bring into a secure school setting. As you may know, the secure estate is split into three different sections: secure training centres, secure children’s homes and young offenders institutions. The custodial element of those organisations is very strong and probably strongest in the YOIs and the STCs. The introduction of a very different model that accounts for children’s needs will not mean that they will not be secure; it will mean that they have a focus on education, mental health, and a trauma-informed approach to working with children who have complex needs, which is very much needed.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Gosh. We could probably provide you with a significant amount of evidence on that and I would very much welcome the opportunity to do that in writing to the Committee.
We would suggest coming from the perspective of the child first and using the evidence base that has been developed recently, which focuses on children, their personal and social identity and their strengths, rather than being deficit-based. The evidence, which equally applies to adults, is that if you look for good and build on good, much more is achieved than if you tell people that they are no use and no good and cannot contribute to society.
We know that with children, the earlier we intervene, the better—early intervention and prevention, and targeting services upstream. That is a challenge for youth offending teams at the moment. They have statutory caseloads and trying to balance intervening earlier is really difficult. Some local authorities manage to do that better than others. There is a massive evidence base and we can share the evidence after the Committee today.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We have been working really closely with the Ministry of Justice on the remand review. We are very keen to understand the data better and to have a look at the trends across the country. One of the things we would really welcome as, dare I say, an amendment to the Bill is for there to be a decision why bail is and is not granted. There is still a lack of evidence on what needs to change for more children to remain in the community, and we want to avoid perpetuating cycles of evidence.
You asked about what more we could do around the remand review. There is certainly something more we could do around trying to knit the system together better, through our heads of regions constantly having discussions with the sector around remand. We are doing quite a lot of work at the moment on developing alternative models for accommodation. We are working across London. We are investing in a pathfinder project to try to develop a different model for children, to prevent them being taken into the secure estate on remand.
Chris Philp
I think that covers everything I wanted to ask. Thank you for the work you are doing.
The Chair
If you do wish to furnish the Committee with further written evidence to support your comments, that would be most welcome. I think Mr Cunningham had a further question.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: As I understand it, the inspection framework for a secure school will be Ofsted, quite rightly, because it is a secure school rather than a prison. Of course, there is a role that HMIP might play in helping to share and disseminate best practice. As is the case when Ofsted does an inspection in the secure estate, HMIP is part of that broader inspection team. There is a role for it to share best practice as it sees and finds it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Some of the principal challenges come from the fact that services for children sit across everyone’s responsibility but no one’s responsibility. There is absolutely something about us continuing to reach out across the Government. We very much see joining services up as some of the leadership space that we are in and will continue to be in, so that children who are vulnerable to offending are seen and are not slipping through the gaps in service provision.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank you very much for your evidence today.
Examination of Witness
Derek Sweeting QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I am Derek Sweeting QC, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Two questions there. Would we support them? Yes, because open justice is a really important objective within the justice system. Will they work? There are obvious problems with managing hearings that are accessible over the internet, particularly in an age of social media when people know how to record things and take photographs and video online—that sort of thing. I think there are issues with how you police open justice and ensure that proceedings have the seriousness and gravity that they should have and that you do not get an abuse, particularly on social media, of the facility to be able to see things from afar. But generally I think it is a move in the right direction.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes. I think at the moment there are already dangers around jurors doing things that they should not through the internet and social media. They are given a very specific warning and written information about what they can and cannot do while they are serving on a jury. I think all of this must be considered with a lot of care. There are bits of court proceedings that I think should not be directly under the gaze of the camera and so on. So there is a lot of room for working out what the protocols are and how things work best.
On the general point, there is plainly a risk that we will have more occasions on which there could be potential contempts of court, but I do not think we can go backwards; we just have to manage these things as we have done with every technological step forward that impacts on the justice system.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Well, barristers never do that, of course. I think we are a long way off the American sort of proceedings that we sometimes see. That is perhaps slightly unfair to many American attorneys, who conduct their business with a lot of decorum, even under the gaze of the camera.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you. That was slightly tongue in cheek, although we do occasionally have barristers appearing at the Dispatch Box and I would not comment on their performance.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think the first part of the question is: what technology have we got in place at the moment?
When the pandemic struck, and once we got back in particular to jury trials in the Crown court, we did see the roll-out of CVP—Cloud Video Platform—which very few of us knew was under development at the time. That was vital to allowing work to resume in many jurisdictions. We have also got a new system on the way, so the technology is improving all the time.
The second part of the question is really about how satisfactory is remote participation by the witness or others in court proceedings, and I think it really prompts the question, if we can do it, whether we should. That is the point—that fact that we can is not really a reason for necessarily doing it. I think it is absolutely clear that proceedings in future will probably involve a hybrid, with some witnesses attending remotely where that is appropriate. That has to be judicially managed. I think for some hearings it is pretty clear that everything could be done remotely, particularly administrative hearings. But in hearings that are serious in their nature because they will result in the final disposition of a case and so on, there is a much greater argument for ensuring that all of the participants and all of the evidence start on the basis that if evidence can be given in person, it should be. Thought should then be given to what is unnecessary to have in person and what could be dealt with remotely.
It is an area where we are finding our way. The Bar Council has just issued a statement with the Bars of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and of course England and Wales, which I represent, which actually makes that point. It says that there are many aspects of a remote hearing that are not satisfactory, in the sense that they are not as good as having everybody in the room—the old model, where you get two teams together with a referee and you have an adversarial contest. But that model anyway is something that we need to think about as we go forward.
There is plainly a use for more remote, but I think the profession would like some guidance as to what the parameters are for when we should be remote, what the starting position is and when it is appropriate, and only appropriate, to be in person.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The two types of conduct that you have just described are in themselves likely to be criminal offences, so there is nothing new about that. Has protest changed in its nature? I think we have certainly heard some evidence that, particularly with social media, the way in which protests can be arranged makes it much more difficult for them to be managed. I think there is some public concern about that. The measures contained in the Bill, particularly in relation to noise levels and serious disruption to and impact on persons in the vicinity, raise a legitimate question about whether it goes a bit too far, particularly in relation to what “significant” means and who has to take that decision on the ground. You ask whether things have changed, and I think you might look at this and say that almost every suffragette protest would have been caught by the proposed legislation.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think it is a sensible measure. We welcome the fact that we have got a statutory maximum of 10 years. It was a Law Commission recommendation—clause 59 is what we are talking about. I think the only thing I would inject into the conversation around this is that the Law Commission report itself actually includes a defence of reasonableness, and that defence applies particularly to cases where the conduct is in an exercise of an article 10 or article 11 right to freedom of assembly or freedom of expression. Effectively, you might say that the Government seek to criminalise, on the basis of what the Law Commission’s report addressed, acts that the Law Commission itself thought would be caught by a reasonableness defence in relation to public protest and the exercise of important rights of freedom of expression or freedom of assembly.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think it changes things, rather than adds, doesn’t it? In relation to memorials, we will now find ourselves in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court. It is important to acknowledge that approaching the issue of damage to memorials only on the basis of value, for example, really underplays the quite significant sentiment that attaches to particular memorials and ought to be recognised. However, magistrates already have the power to imprison in relation to the existing offences that would apply. It seems a little unnecessary, I would have thought, to say that all these offences need to be covered by an offence that means they have to be dealt with in the Crown court, with all the extra cost and time that that would entail, particularly in a jurisdiction that already suffers from a significant backlog.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I wonder whether the sledgehammer is being used for a nut here. I think you have to reflect public concern about attacks on memorials, but this may just flip the problem from something that perhaps does not provide enough in the way of sentencing options to a much more onerous and ponderous procedure to deal with something that can involve, for example, removing flowers from a memorial, which you would not have thought would be something that could not be dealt with by magistrates. One would anticipate a range of sentencing options within the summary jurisdiction and perhaps in the Crown court as well, but not the need to go off to the Crown court for all these offences.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The answer is that we are probably likely to see longer sentences and more of them. I hope that does not sound too pessimistic, but that is the overall effect that you are asking me about. That is probably what we will see if the sentencing reforms are carried into effect, because to some extent they limit judicial discretion and extend the role of mandatory sentencing.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: You are adjusting the release point within a sentence that has already been passed by the court. I think there is an argument that it might make things more complex, but on the face of it, it seems to me to be something that may actually provide a little clarity within the existing sentencing regime.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Which one are you referring to?
Alex Cunningham
The provision about the changes to automatic release and referral to the Parole Board.
Derek Sweeting QC: I am not sure that we have commented on that, actually.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The concerns around that are really that it is sensible to try to reduce the complexity of this area—I think the ambition is to reduce down to two—but I think the attachment of conditions to both of the cautions that are left, as a requirement, is not necessarily helpful. It would be useful to have something that was a more general tool that the police could use, that would not turn up in criminal records later on and so on, and that would give the police the option effectively just to give what is now the simple caution.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes. I think we have drawn attention to the fact that those are not in the Bill, so it would be sensible, we would have thought, to try to do that and to be a bit more ambitious around the youth justice points in the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: We do welcome, certainly, the British Sign Language proposal in the Bill. I think that, if anything, we were slightly surprised that there was not some consultation around it. There are jurisdictions in which this is a development and there is some learning about it; there is some practice as well. It involves, generally, two signers, so there is obviously a resource impact as well. This is not just about the interpretation of evidence; someone would go into the jury room when the jury retired. That is likely to require some additional training of signers, because it is a different role from just interpreting. Those are the sorts of things that we think might well have been covered by some consultation.
In fact, in a way, the opportunity was lost, by not consulting, to consider whether there are other categories of disability for which reasonable adjustments and accommodations might be made to enable people to serve on a jury, because it is an important civic duty and the wider the range of citizens who can undertake that duty, the better. So it is the right direction of travel, but we think the arrangements around it will obviously need some thought, some investment and some training for signers, and actually there might have been an opportunity to think a little larger about who else might benefit from similar adjustments or adjustments that are specific to their needs.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I hope it is not the case; I think it is once in a lifetime, as far as I am concerned. If I did not make the position clearer earlier, that was because we were really dealing with the general question of remote participation. I think, in the case of remote juries, that is an area where we do have significant concerns, and I think we would oppose the measure that is proposed in the Bill. The reason for that I think you have touched on already: this is not a measure that has been needed over the course of the present pandemic. It is said, I think, to be effectively a just-in-case measure, an emergency measure, but it is wholly unclear what the circumstances would be in which the measure would be required or executed—put into effect. So I think we do have concerns about that.
Fundamentally altering the character of a jury trial by, as the Lord Chief put it, having the jury as spectators rather than participants, which is certainly the view he was expressing about what the impact of remote juries would be—changing it in that way is a very significant change to a very important part of our justice system, a bit of the justice system that really has public confidence, and that we know from the research really recognises diversity and does not produce outcomes that are unfair. I think we need to be very careful and cautious about making significant changes. I think, if we are going to have a measure, it should not be a measure on which we say, “Oh well, there might be a need for it at some point.” If the point arises, it would be much better to consider itin the circumstances of any future emergency, if it occurs. We certainly would not like to see remote juries deployed outside of emergency conditions. There does not seem to be any reason to do that. There is no research about that and no evaluation of the effect on outcomes of having a remote jury. Even in Scotland, where it has been trialled during the pandemic, with much larger juries of 15, it is yet to be evaluated.
We would suggest that it ought to be approached with a lot of caution. It is not a measure that is needed; we can wait until it is needed. Equally, as I think is acknowledged, the technology is only barely there. Again, we ought to wait until the technology can be factored into the mix to consider whether it is a good idea.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Those who are vulnerable; young defendants and those who may find it difficult to follow proceedings if they are held remotely, who may need particular access to their counsel, which is much more difficult if you are dealing with things remotely. There is a raft of problems that you may encounter when you physically separate the defendant from the trial process.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: In the end, it will have to be managed judicially. I am not sure that we need to hem in the exercise of discretion in relation to that. There are already provisions in relation to what the judge must take into account when considering whether there should be remote participation. They are very difficult to apply to juries, by the way, but if they are followed, we will find that they involve a significant number of safeguards for the fair conduct of proceedings.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes, I think my point was really about the suggestion that the statutory offence—these are the words—is to cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance but, yes, you are right that there is an offence of that sort in there.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Two questions. Is it more convenient? Certainly, during the pandemic it has been important to have a method of holding hearings when we have to socially distance. Under the circumstances of the pandemic, it was vital. Remote hearings have enabled the family jurisdiction in particular to keep on working from the word go—it never stopped. Using technology in those circumstances in remote hearings was extremely helpful. It was certainly convenient during the pandemic.
Is it convenient for everyone? During the pandemic itself, we had some opposing views. Counsel certainly found it convenient, but one or two participants in family proceedings publicly said that they felt detachment from the proceeding. We have to recognise that there are reasons for being cautious about making the assumption that if it is convenient for legal professionals and judges, it is also necessarily a good experience for users. Certainly, there are whole categories of users for whom, if they cannot get to court or if they have mobility problems, the ability to have a hearing remotely is going to be valuable. Of course, we have been in a big laboratory, and we have tested a lot of these things in a way that we that we would not have been able to do in the decades before the pandemic. We need to take forward the best of remote and carry on using it.
Are there disadvantages? Yes, I think there are. There are experiences that we have all heard about, which are salutary and should make us be cautious about just assuming that we can always do things as well if we are doing them remotely.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I am not sure that is right. The point that I was making is that the proposed amendment is to the mode of trial for a limited class of offences of criminal damage. That is the effect of the amendment. It removes the power for an offence involving a memorial to be tried in the magistrates court, however small the value of any damage. That was the point I was making earlier. I was really being asked whether that is a proportionate measure, and the point I was making is that there are some offences involving memorials where one would have thought that the magistrates’ powers are perfectly adequate, and it is not proportionate to require that matter to go to the Crown court.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Well, there might be, but equally there might be cases where it is wholly unnecessary to go to the Crown court. Since the definition of “memorial” extends to moveable items, removing a bunch of flowers from a memorial amounts to the offence. It is difficult to see why that merits a trip to the Crown court. It is well within the magistrate’s existing sentencing.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: My understanding that a mode of trial change is being contemplated under part 2.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: There are obviously circumstances in which minimum sentences can be used. It is a matter for Parliament. You have to reflect on public disquiet and the need to make sure there is a sentencing regime that reflects the seriousness of offences. The general position is that if you have minimum mandatory sentences, you inevitably tie the hands of the judge to some extent. If you carry on extending that, you are making potentially significant inroads into judicial discretion. The lesson of sentencing is that cases generally need individual sentences because there are very complex differences between them. You were just making the point about judges having discretion to sentence according to the gravity and nature of the crime.
The Chair
Does anyone else have any further questions? I cannot see anyone. In that case, Mr Sweeting, thank you very much for your evidence to the Committee. I thank all witnesses who gave evidence today to the Committee. That brings us to the end of our oral evidence session for today. The Committee will meet again on Thursday to take further evidence. We will meet in this room at 11.30 am.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Written Statements
Public Consultation on the National Data Strategy and Data Sharing Code of Practice: Government Resp
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing our response to the public consultation on the UK national data strategy and laying the Information Commissioner’s Office data sharing code of practice.
Government response to the public consultation on the national data strategy
The national data strategy, published in September 2020, set out a framework for action to maximise the power of responsible data use across the UK. It also launched a 13 week consultation which closed in December 2020. We received 282 unique responses from across the public sector, civil society, industry and academia, as well as from members of the general public. Consultation feedback has confirmed that our framework is fit for purpose. Many respondents also recognised the need to rebalance the narrative, moving away from thinking about data use primarily as a threat to be managed, and instead recognising data as an asset that, used responsibly, can deliver economic and public benefits across the UK.
The Government response to the consultation builds on the insights we received, and details how we will deliver across our priority areas of action in such a way that builds public trust and ensures that the opportunities from better data use work for everyone, everywhere. This includes setting out our plans to create a national data strategy forum which will ensure that a diverse range of perspectives continue to inform the strategy’s implementation. The response also reflects on the crucial role of data in building back better after the covid-19 pandemic.
In the coming months, we will publish focused updates on progress in delivering specific missions and or actions within the national data strategy.
Data sharing code of practice
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent data protection regulator and has a statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) to produce a code of practice that provides practical guidance on data sharing. Today, the Government have laid the ICO’s data sharing code in Parliament. Alongside the laying of the code, the ICO has launched a data sharing information hub on its website, where organisations and businesses can find clear guidance and practical tools on how to share data fairly, lawfully and transparently, while protecting people’s personal information.
The Government are committed to working with the ICO to promote responsible data sharing which can have benefits for the economy and the delivery of public services. The national data strategy recognised that better use of data can help organisations of every kind succeed—across the public, private and third sectors. Data can be a driver of scientific and technological innovation, and central to the delivery of a whole range of vital public services and societal goals, from tackling climate change to supporting the national health service.
A copy of each document will be placed in the Library of the House today.
[HCWS37]
Plans to Restore Nature
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The events of the last 12 months have led people to appreciate the difference that nature makes to our lives more than ever before. Restoring nature will be crucial as we seek to build back greener from this pandemic, and in what is a huge year for the environment we will use our COP26 and G7 presidencies to take a leading role on driving a global green recovery on the world stage.
As a core part of our commitment to leave the environment in a better state than we found it, and acting on the recommendations of the Dasgupta review, we are announcing today that we will be amending the Environment Bill to require a historic, new legally binding target on species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature in England. We hope that this world-leading measure will be the net zero equivalent for nature, spurring action of the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis.
We will develop this target alongside the longer-term legally binding targets we are already developing in the Environment Bill, and set the final target in secondary legislation following the agreement of global targets at the UN nature conference, the convention on biological diversity COP15 in autumn 2021. This amendment will be tabled at Lords Committee stage.
We should not underestimate the scale of the challenge ahead in halting the decline of nature. Over the last 50 years, much of the UK’s wildlife-rich habitat has been lost or degraded, and many of our once common species are in long-term decline. We have also come to better understand the link between our own health, and economic prosperity, and that of the planet. The independent, global Dasgupta review on the economics of biodiversity, led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, has shown us that a healthy natural world, measured in its diversity of life, underpins so much of our economic prosperity and resilience.
To achieve our new target, alongside others in the Bill, we will also need measures that go beyond what is in the Bill.
We are also announcing today:
An England peat action plan to restore, sustainably manage and protect our peatlands. We will restore at least 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025, investing £50 million through the nature for climate fund and phasing out the most damaging practices to our peatland.
An England trees action plan to better protect our existing trees and expand woodland coverage, aiming for 12% woodland cover by the middle of the century. Over £500 million of the £640 million nature for climate fund is dedicated to trees. Tree planting rates in England will treble by the end of this Parliament to benefit our local communities, nature and climate.
Species reintroduction measures to recover threatened species and continue to provide opportunities for successful reintroductions. We want to see a more nature rich Britain, with further action to bend the curve of species loss in this country.
If we are to deliver this ambitious new target and reverse the downward trend we have seen in recent decades, we need to change our approach. We must move the emphasis away from processes that simply moderated the pace of nature’s decline, and instead put in place the governance regime that can deliver nature’s recovery. We need to create space for the creative public policy thinking that can deliver results, rather than relying on change being set by litigation and case law.
I am therefore also announcing today that I will be tabling an amendment to the Environment Bill to provide for a power to refocus the habitats regulations to our domestic priorities. We want to ensure our legislation adequately supports our ambitions for nature, including our new world-leading targets, rather than remaining tied to legacy EU legislation. We have already set out some important measures in the Environment Bill to switch the focus to nature recovery. We have the requirement for environmental targets on wider areas, for example water quality; a requirement for an environment improvement plan; local nature recovery strategies to steer habitats delivered through biodiversity net gain; and Natural England are making progress with a more strategic approach to nature recovery through their support for delivering the nature recovery network.
We will take a measured approach to reform. We will also consult with the new Office for Environmental Protection, and work with conservation groups on any proposals we develop before any regulatory changes are made. In addition, later this year, I intend to bring forward a Green Paper setting out how we plan to deliver a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose in driving forward our domestic ambitions now that we have left the EU, including our objective of protecting 30 percent of terrestrial land by 2030. We need a revised approach to deliver this new species abundance target and better support iconic and much-loved native species like the hedgehog.
As announced in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May, we will also be bringing forward amendments in the Lords to reduce the harm from storm overflows to our rivers, waterways and coastlines.
New duties will require Government to publish a plan to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows by September 2022 and report to Parliament on the progress towards implementing the plan. Water companies and the Environment Agency will be required to publish data on storm overflow operations annually.
These new measures will complement the existing provisions in the Environment Bill which will tackle air, water and waste pollution, which are critical to meeting our goals of net zero emissions, stemming and reversing biodiversity loss and improving public health.
Work on implementing measures in the Environment Bill has continued since it was last in the Commons. We have appointed the first chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, Dame Glenys Stacey. We have published a draft principles policy statement, started work on developing legally binding environmental targets, launched consultations on the deposit return schemes for drinks containers, and extended producer responsibility for packaging and consistent recycling collections.
The Environment Bill will have its final day of report and Third Reading in the Commons on 26 May, before moving to the Lords. We are aiming for Royal Assent in the autumn. In the year of COP26, the Environment Bill is at the core of delivering the Government manifesto commitment to deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth and leave our environment in a better state than we found it.
[HCWS38]
Call for Input: Canada and Mexico Trade Deals
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The call for input on future free trade agreements (FTAs) with Canada and Mexico will formally be launching as of today.
The UK has set its sights on the next generation of British-shaped trade deals to secure closer economic ties with major economies of today and tomorrow, with Canada currently being the ninth largest economy in the world, and Mexico forecast to become the seventh largest by 2050. These deals will secure more access for British goods and services, opening significant new opportunities for UK business by boosting trade with Canada and Mexico, already worth £22.8 billion and £5.1 billion respectively in 2019. They will cement the UK’s position as a world leader in digital and services trade, and constituent key building blocks to UK membership of CPTPP as well as delivering benefits to the whole of the UK.
The UK signed trade continuity agreements (TCAs) with both Canada and Mexico before the end of the transition period and committed to start negotiating the new trade deals later this year. Building on the deals signed in 2020, which secured tariff-free exports on 98% and 88% of goods to Canada and Mexico respectively, this next generation of trade deals provides the opportunity to set new benchmarks in areas like digital trade, climate and women’s economic empowerment, and cement the UK’s position as world leader in digital and services trade.
The call for input will provide businesses, public sector bodies, individuals and other interested stakeholders with the opportunity to give valuable feedback and highlight their priorities for our future trading relationship with these two countries.
The feedback received from stakeholders will be crucial when shaping our mandate, and will inform detailed negotiations preparation, and policy positions. The Department for International Trade is committed to ensuring future FTAs and their provisions are informed by stakeholder needs and shaped by the demands of the British economy.
The UK is to begin negotiations for upgraded trade deals with Canada and Mexico this year focused on creating even greater opportunities for UK businesses. Our new negotiations will allow us to go further to boost trade with these economies. Canada was the UK’s 15th largest export market in 2019, and according to IMF data, Mexico ranks as the 15th largest economy worldwide, with a market of over 130 million consumers, offering significant opportunities for UK businesses in industries including automotive manufacturing and food and drink.
Forging stronger trade links with Canada and Mexico will also support the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (CPTPP), as they are both members. CPTPP is at the cutting edge of global trade and will remove barriers, raise standards and support jobs, putting the UK at the centre of an increasingly influential and modern trade network of 11 economies in the Indo-Pacific region with a combined GDP of almost £9 trillion in 2019. Joining will help open up a new horizon of opportunities for British businesses, particularly in services and digital and data provisions. Canada and Mexico also represent the second and fourth largest economies out of the CPTPP countries, which in total account for 13% of global GDP. This would increase to more than 16% if the UK were to join.
The UK and our partners in Canada and Mexico share a desire to launch negotiations later this year. The call for input will strive to support the goal of greater economic prosperity for businesses and it will ensure that their needs are heard. The Government are committed to transparency and will ensure that Parliament, the devolved Administrations, UK citizens and businesses have access to information on our trade negotiations.
The call for input can be accessed using the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/trade- with-canada-and-mexico-call-for-input.
[HCWS35]
Transport for London Funding Deal
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government and the Mayor of London have agreed to extend the current Transport for London (TfL) funding deal. The deal was due to expire on 18 May 2021 but this extension will continue to support the capital and the transport network until 28 May 2021 on the same terms as now. The extension will provide certainty while we finalise the terms of the next funding deal which will get TfL onto a more financially sustainable footing.
The extension comprises an additional funding payment of £65 million with a top-up grant available based on actual passenger revenues.
The Government have repeatedly shown that they are committed to supporting the running of essential services across the capital with over £3 billion emergency funding provided since the start of the pandemic. Support for London needs to be balanced with the national recovery and ensure fairness and value for money for the taxpayer. The Government will continue to work with TfL and the Mayor so TfL can be financially sustainable as soon as possible.
[HCWS36]