Health and Care Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Chair
I understand that the Government wish to move a motion to amend the programme order, which was agreed by the Committee on 7 September, to cancel this afternoon’s meeting.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 7 September be amended, in paragraph 1(h), by leaving out “and 2.00 pm”.
As Committee Members know, the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, is today attending the funeral of our dear friend James Brokenshire. My hon. Friend is grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers for their support and willingness to be flexible in that regard. In the light of this, we will not seek to make any further progress on the Bill today.
The Chair
Because this motion has not been agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, it may be proceeded with only if everyone is content.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Elections Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have some preliminary reminders for Committee members. Please switch electronic devices to silent if you have not already. Please wear masks when you are not speaking, in line with Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Please send your notes to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
Clause 9
Local elections and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
Clause 9 and schedule 5 ensure that the changes made to parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland in part 1 of the Bill are applied to local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. We have already considered the substantive detail of these changes to parliamentary elections in clauses 1 to 8. The same measures will apply to Northern Ireland’s local and Assembly elections. For that reason, I do not want to go through the detail of the changes again. However, hon. Members may note that, although the existing Northern Ireland identification provisions remain unaltered, some small technical changes made in clause 1 will apply to the equivalent rule in Northern Ireland, including the requirement that the returning officer must provide a private space for voters to produce their identification should they require it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 10
Extension of franchise for parliamentary elections: British citizens overseas
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 10, page 13, line 4, at end insert
“and
(c) the person satisfies at least one of the following conditions—
(i) he or she was included in a register of parliamentary electors at some time in the past fifteen years;
(ii) he or she was resident in the United Kingdom at some point in the last fifteen years;
(iii) he or she is a member of the United Kingdom armed forces;
(iv) he or she is employed in the service of the Crown;
(v) he or she is employed by the British Council;
(vi) he or she is employed by a United Kingdom public authority;
(vii) he or she is employed by a designated humanitarian agency; or
(viii) he or she is the spouse or civil partner of a person mentioned in sub-paragraphs (iii) to (vii) above and is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with his or her spouse or civil partner.
(1A) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument define ‘United Kingdom public authority’ and ‘designated humanitarian agency’ for the purposes of subsection (1)(c).
(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This amendment is a probing amendment to enable debate on the premise of maintaining 15-year rule with exemptions for certain citizens.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. The amendment relates to the 15-year rule exemptions. I will make some introductory comments on overseas electors as a whole, in order to put the amendment into context. As a modern, progressive party, Labour is committed to building a truly global Britain and championing our core values of equality, social justice and opportunity for all. All hon. Members will agree that no area of electoral law is more important than the franchise—who gets to vote and is able to participate in our democracy. Overseas electors play a significant role in providing a close connection not only to our European neighbours but to countries across the world, and we must continue to encourage that valuable connection.
Under the current system, British citizens who have moved abroad can register to vote as an overseas elector in the last constituency in which they were entered on an electoral register. British citizens who have lived overseas for more than 15 years cannot register to become an overseas elector. The Opposition are committed to taking radical steps to ensure that all eligible voters are registered and able to use their vote. The issue of extending voting rights for overseas electors is important and must be considered properly.
The extension of overseas voting rights has come a long way since 1985, when British citizens living outside the UK were unable to register to vote in any elections. The Representation of the People Act 1985 introduced new provisions allowing British citizens living overseas to qualify as electors in the constituency where they were last registered to vote before moving. The time limit from 1985 was only five years. In 1989, that was extended to 20 years, before being reduced to 15 years in 2002.
In the 2015 and 2017 general elections, it was a Conservative party manifesto commitment to abolish the 15-year rule and allow British citizens a vote for life in parliamentary elections. Indeed, about three years ago, a private Member’s Bill was tabled by the then Member for Montgomeryshire that would have changed voting rights for overseas electors, but it did not progress in the previous Parliament. Our position has not changed since those debates in 2018: we are committed to building a franchise that ensures that everyone living in, and contributing to, the UK has their voice heard and represented. The current 15-year rule strikes the right balance between allowing expats to maintain strong links with the UK and ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. It means that expats can continue to engage with our democracy for a significant period of time after they have left the UK, but it maintains the balance in our representative democracy by which people who are affected by rules and laws get to decide who makes them.
My biggest concern about the overseas electors section of this Bill is the fact that it could undermine the integrity of our electoral process. Not only does this change threaten to overwhelm our election teams—who, frankly, are already overworked and under-resourced enough—it threatens to allow foreign money to flood into our democracy. Let us be clear: the true motivation behind these changes to overseas voting is to create a loophole in donation law that would allow donors unlimited access to our democracy, and allow them to bankroll Tory campaigns from their offshore tax havens. There is no possible justification for changing the law, other than to open a loophole so that donors can continue to funnel money into the Conservative party. For example, the new law will allow one of the Tories’ biggest donors to keep bankrolling the party for life, despite having reportedly lived in the Bahamas for a decade. John Gore has given almost £4.2 million to the Conservative party, making him the Tories’ No. 1 donor, despite his having spent more than a decade away from the UK.
The Conservative party accepted more than £1 million from UK citizens living in tax havens ahead of 2017 through existing methods, as reported in The Times. The new law will remove those barriers, and what angers me most is that in one fell swoop, expats will be granted more flexibility in registering to vote than people who live in this country. If the Conservatives were serious about improving democratic engagement, they would be extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, as well as concentrating efforts on registering the millions of adults in this country who are not currently on the electoral roll. This Bill allows expats to vote in UK elections regardless of whether they have previously been on an electoral register. It is a free ticket for anyone hoping to fraudulently register in a swing seat, who only require another expat to vouch for them.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The hon. Lady can be assured of the Scottish National party’s support for these amendments. It is interesting that she mentioned that many of these voters live in places that are described as tax havens, because when I tabled a written question to the Treasury to ask what estimate it had made
“of the total tax receipts paid to the UK Exchequer by UK citizens registered as overseas electors in each of the last five financial years”,
the Treasury Minister said:
“No estimate has been made of the information requested. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) cannot identify individuals registered as overseas electors within tax data.”
That puts quite an interesting spin on the old phrase “no taxation without representation”, does it not? It is very possible that we might see quite a lot of people getting representation without any taxation.
Cat Smith
The hon. Member could not have made his point about the loophole that this legislation will create any more clearly, and I agree about the principle of no taxation without representation. It strikes me that there are 16-year-olds in this country who are going out to work and are paying tax, and are affected by things such as the rise in national insurance contributions, who have no say in who their UK parliamentarians are, while overseas electors who live in tax havens will suddenly get free rein. Rather than taking the necessary steps to safeguard British democracy from malign foreign influences, as highlighted in the Russia report, the UK Government are instead allowing even more foreign interference in our democracy.
Turning to the issue of the election teams that register electors in councils up and down the country, the representations this Committee has heard have proven that those teams are already under a lot of pressure. They cannot cope, and if this clause becomes part of the Bill, the impacts on electoral return officers and councils is going to be huge, because the process of registering an overseas elector can take around two hours. If those officers were to see a huge increase in the number of overseas electors registering to vote, at a time when councils already face huge funding cuts and pressures, that would threaten the integrity of our elections as well.
Obviously, overseas electors fall off the register every 12 months, so the vast majority of registration applications occur immediately ahead of a general election, when the pressure on our electoral administrators is already at its most intense. Abolishing the 15-year rule and therefore increasing the number of British citizens overseas who can register to vote would completely overstretch electoral administrators, who are already being pushed to the limit.
I put three questions to the Minister, which I hope she will answer in her response. Do the Government have any indication of how many of the estimated 5 million Britons living abroad would apply to be overseas electors in the run-up to a UK parliamentary election or national referendum if the 15-year rule were removed? How does the Government intend to fund the electoral registration officers for the additional costs that will be incurred by the proposals, and what steps will the Government take to ensure that election teams have the resources and capacity to manage that increased volume of electors? If the Government are so intent on granting votes for life, why do they not focus on domestic voters and grant 16 and 17-year-olds the vote? The Bill will further embed and entrench current laws that prevent 16 and 17-year-olds, either abroad or in the UK, from engaging in parliamentary elections.
I will not speak for long on amendment 79 because it is probing, and I wish to trigger a debate on the premise of maintaining the 15-year rule with exemptions for certain citizens. The amendment attempts to demonstrate that abolishing the 15-year rule entirely is a drastic, extreme move that will flood our democracy with money from overseas and threaten its integrity. Instead of abolishing it entirely, the Minister could exempt certain groups of people from the 15-year rule, with the necessary checks in place. For example, the Minister might want to exempt those who have fought for our country and might lose their right to vote by being away, which seems very unfair. In the same spirit, we may not want those who serve our country in the service of the Crown—some 1% of our civil service are permanently based abroad—to miss out on their chance to vote, nor those working for the British Council, with the services they perform for our nation and standing in the world, or those employed by a UK public authority or a designated humanitarian agency. Will the Minister consider that this approach might achieve her aim of enfranchising expats while still protecting our democracy?
Kemi Badenoch
I read the amendment very carefully, and it is a shame so much was put into it because it contains some interesting points that we could discuss with the Opposition given the spirit of what they are trying to do. I recognise it is a probing amendment as well. Unfortunately, the way the amendment has been worded would completely undermine our manifesto commitment to scrap the 15-year time limit on British citizens voting from overseas. I reiterate that we intend to deliver votes for life and extend the franchise for UK parliamentary elections to all British citizens living overseas who have previously been registered in the UK, and extending the franchise to those people sets a sensible boundary for the franchise for those who have a strong connection to the country.
Given that we have been talking about fraud and ensuring that the franchise is protected, proposed new paragraph (c)(ii) is interesting, and I would have liked to have spoken to the hon. Lady about it. I know these amendments came in fairly late and perhaps we might be able to discuss what she is seeking to achieve there.
However, the additional conditions set out in the amendment would weaken the sensible boundary I mentioned and exclude a large number of citizens with a deep relationship with the UK, so we cannot accept the amendment for that reason. Most British citizens overseas retain those deep ties: many still have family here; some will return here; many will have a lifetime of hard work in the UK behind them; and some will have fought for our country in the past but are no longer a member of the armed forces. We can see the strength of their continuing connections in the passion of the campaigns for votes for life. The amendment purposely excludes the voices of those who have deep ties and wish to participate in our democracy, but through no fault of their own do not meet those strict conditions.
Patrick Grady
The Minister is speaking of the deep ties that people who have lived away from this country for more than 15 years continue to maintain. Given that the Treasury told me it has not made any estimate of and “cannot identify” individuals registered as overseas electors within tax data, does she think that, once the system is up and running, some kind of survey, canvass or random sample might be worthwhile? That would help us understand the demographics and nature of those electors. Perhaps, as part of that survey, there could be an assessment of what tax those people pay to the UK Exchequer.
Kemi Badenoch
I do not think there is anything wrong with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. Obviously, I will not commit to anything here, but it is always useful to know the exact demographic information and what people are and are not doing. We have done more than any other Government to prevent tax avoidance in this country. If he has good suggestions for what we can do, I am sure that the Treasury will take them up.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood made a point about political donations. It is a shame that we are not rising above the fray and that we are making out that things are done for political reasons when they are not. A long-standing principle originally recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life is that permissible donors are those on the UK electoral register: if someone can vote for a party, they should be able to donate to it. Election law allows registered British expats to vote in UK parliamentary elections and to make those donations for up to 15 years.
I understand the point about taxation. However, since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis of enfranchisement in the UK. Many people who could donate now pay tax in the countries they live in; others who pay tax on their pensions, property and investments in the UK might still not have a right to vote. Opposition Members’ tax explanation does not really add up.
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, I have just referred to that. However, within the UK, there are many who do not pay tax who can still vote. That is my point: the principle is not used universally at the moment. Many of the people who they are claiming do not pay tax actually quite often do. A classic example is full-time students, who do not pay tax but are allowed to vote.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood asked whether the Government have an indication of how many people we are talking about enfranchising. I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I can write to her on that specific point.
On the funding of electoral registration officers, the new burdens doctrine applies. We will not ask people to do things for which they do not have the resources.
The House has debated votes for 16 and 17-year-olds exhaustively. The fact is that 16 and 17-year-olds will eventually get the right to vote. The clause is a completely different issue, and we should not muddle them up. Based on those answers, I hope the hon. Lady feels we have had a sufficient debate and agrees to withdraw her probing amendment. We can have discussions on what else we can do to tighten up the franchise.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I was not going to comment on the amendment. However, while I have great regard for the shadow Minister, as she knows, I was disappointed in the route her speech went down by trying to make the issue about political donations. There is a system in this country for how our political parties are funded, and it is a cheap kick-around to try to say that our system is being corrupted. Donations to the Conservative party are declared through the official lines. Some of the examples the hon. Lady gave would still be eligible to make donations under existing legislation.
I make that point because this clause offered the possibility for some probing amendments to try to expand this issue, because it does need a great deal of thought. I am disappointed because the amendment is perhaps not clean enough to go down that road. However, I think that we are doing all of us in this House a disservice when we try to link a political issue to extending the franchise and the reasons behind that.
The Committee may recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) gave the example of Harry Shindler and that question is the driving force behind why he feels, despite being a Labour party member, that it is important to try to extend the franchise. Within the thinking—I say this as a former vice-chairman of the Conservative party, the international chairman of the Conservative party—at no time in any of the discussions about the idea was it linked to trying to bring in further funding from abroad.
We can get into a real political knockabout on political funding. We can talk about union funding; we can talk about the lack of tax returns from Unite the union. We can have that knockabout. What I have found over the years is that, yes, political funding can be a problematic thing, and it can be kicked about, but it is still a better position to have it than to have state funding for political parties, whereby people have their taxation used to fund a whole bunch of political parties whose political beliefs are nowhere near their own.
When we probe the clause, I make the plea that we should move away from trying to make out that there is some kind of corruption behind it, and stick to the arguments that many have made over a great period of time. I am sure that there are varying views in my party, even though there was a very clean line in the manifesto on this issue, about how things should go ahead and the implications, including about somebody who has basically absented themselves from this country for a long time—these are issues that are to be debated.
I put on the record my disappointment about how the amendment has been drafted and that it has been brought down to an issue that I do not think does anybody in this House a service—that is, when we try to paint the picture that there is something corrupt underlying legislation. My plea to the shadow Minister, when she sums up, is that she speak more to the amendments, because I am genuinely interested in them, although I do not think they are quite clean enough. My plea would be that we should please not bring this down to a level of, “This is just so you can expand your political funding”.
Cat Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We always have very interesting to-ing and fro-ing in these Committees, as we both have a keen interest in elections and constitutional matters.
I will specifically address amendment 79. I am conscious not to stray too much into wider discussion of the clause, because we are debating the amendment. I am quite pleased with some of the reactions to it from the Government Benches, in exploring the options—not all of them. It would have been nice to have had a little more pre-legislative scrutiny, and maybe a draft Bill, because I think there was common ground on some of these issues.
I am keen not to stray too much into discussing political donations right now, but I am aware that I did set out my broad response to clause 10 to put amendment 79 into context. There is one very easy way of clearing up the matter, which would be basically not to have political donations attached to it, because then of course there would not be a debate at all.
I very much welcome the Minister saying that there was nothing wrong with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Glasgow North that there might be some Government assessment of tax intake from the voters who are likely to be enfranchised by this legislation. I certainly look forward to seeing such an assessment and I also look forward to her writing to me with the estimated number of overseas electors that the Department feels are likely to be enfranchised by the changes that clause 10 makes.
In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 10, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“‘resident’ must be defined in regulations made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State”.
This amendment asks the Minister to address the challenges in defining residency.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 81, in clause 10, page 14, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—
“(3) The second condition is that the person making the declaration (“the declarant”) proves that they qualify as an overseas elector in respect of the constituency by providing valid supporting documentation to the registration officer.
(3A) Valid supporting documentation for the purposes of proving qualification for the previous registration condition are—
(a) a poll card, or
(b) a letter from the appropriate local authority stating that the person was on the electoral roll at the appropriate time.
(3B) Valid supporting documentation for the purposes of proving qualification for the previous residence condition must include—
(a) one document from List A, or
(b) two documents from List B.
(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B), List A documents include but are not limited to—
household utility bill (such as gas, electric, water or telephone);
full UK photocard driving licence with signature or ‘old style’ driving licence (including provisional or expired licences);
bank, building society or credit card statement, or bank or building society passbook, local authority tax bill (e.g. council tax bill);
local authority rent book;
solicitor’s letter confirming house purchase or land registry confirmation, or an official copy of the land register or other proof of title;
HM Revenue & Customs (Inland Revenue) tax document such as a tax assessment, statement of account or notice of coding;
original notification letter from the relevant benefits agency confirming entitlement to benefits or the state pension;
pension or benefit correspondence from the Department for Work and Pensions;
instrument of a court appointment, e.g. probate or court-registered power of attorney.
(3D) For the purposes of subsection (3B), List B documents include but are not limited to—
payslip;
employment document, such offer of employment or reference;
school, college or university (or UCAS) document, such as offer of a place, or confirmation of attendance;
insurance documents, such as full insurance schedule, or letter confirming insurance cover;
student loans company letter;
mobile telephone bill;
other evidence prescribed in guidance given by the Minister.
(3E) To be valid supporting documentation, a document must contain both a date (which can be earlier than the date the declarant left the address concerned) and the declarant’s declared last address in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment puts pre-existing guidance for providing documentary evidence for residency (see 3C and 3D) on the face of the Bill. The amendment also outlines additional evidence for proving previous registration.
Cat Smith
Amendments 80 and 81 both relate to the definition of residency and the evidence that is needed for someone to be classed as a resident. Amendment 80 is a probing amendment, with which I ask the Minister to address the challenges involved in defining residency. The ambiguity surrounding the notion of residency is critical to the future integrity of the franchise. There must be a clear definition of residency before the Government can consider enfranchising the millions of overseas electors who would be eligible under the new provisions. As yet, we have not seen any definition of electoral residence.
Currently, residence is understood to mean a considerable degree of permanence. That means that a person with two homes who spends the same amount of time in each can legally register at both addresses. A lot of hon. Members might be familiar with that situation, as many are registered to vote in both London and their constituencies. The Law Commission’s 2016 interim report recommended:
“The law on electoral residence, including factors to be considered by electoral registration officers, and on special category electors, should be restated clearly and simply in primary legislation.”
Over five years later, we have not had a Government response on that issue.
Although the definition of residence might seem a tedious issue, it is critical to the Bill. The Bill provides that overseas electors can register to vote using only evidence of previous residency, and that is an entirely new and untested voting qualification. The checks on residency in the Bill are very weak. A British expat qualifies to vote as a previous resident if they can provide one piece of evidence connecting them to a residence in the UK at any point in their lives. However, supplying a single piece of evidence at a single point in time does not actually prove residency. According to the Association of Electoral Administrators, scrapping the 15-year rule would increase the potential for electoral fraud, and it would be extremely difficult for EROs to determine the residency of overseas voters and check the validity of the attestation. Marginal constituencies in the UK could see an influx of overseas voters because of the changes brought in by the Bill. It is undoubtedly possible for a determined individual wishing to sway the result of a close election to forge documentation tying them to a past residency in a particular constituency. Moreover, there are no provisions to prevent an overseas elector registering with more than one local authority where they had been on the register. The Bill could open a Pandora’s box of unknown implications for the security of our elections, and for this reason the Government should define what exactly they mean by residency before we plough ahead with the policy.
Amendment 81 is also a probing amendment. It seeks to clarify what documentary evidence the Government see as necessary to register as an overseas elector. If an electoral registration officer needed to check on the registration of a domestic voter, they could simply go to the property, but that is not the case with overseas voters. The Bill asks EROs to determine whether evidence from overseas voters is sufficient. Although I trust the skill and experience of electoral registration officers, I am concerned that there will be a lack of consistent practice across the United Kingdom when it comes to deciding what is acceptable proof of previous residency or connection to a constituency.
Amendment 81 would put into the Bill the pre-existing Government guidance on declaration requirements. All domestic voters are now required to provide a national insurance number, full name and passport details, and they must be made aware of the criminal penalty for false declaration; the same should also be required for overseas voters. If it is good enough for domestic voters, overseas voters should be held to the same standard. I do not intend to press either amendment 80 or amendment 81 to a Division, but I hope the Minister might take the opportunity to clarify the issues that I have raised and perhaps to clarify the Bill with a Government amendment.
Kemi Badenoch
There are two aspects to this group of amendments: creating a statutory definition of residence and the list of evidence of residency. A statutory definition of residence, however well drafted, could end up inadvertently disenfranchising some groups or individuals. Linking the definition to physical residence could be problematic. For instance, an elector may be classed as resident at an address despite not being physically resident: they may be working in a different location, studying—students can register in two constituencies—or in hospital for a long time. Any definition must capture every eventuality; the risk is that, if it cannot, the results may not be as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood intended as it would mean the inadvertent exclusion of these groups.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 10, page 15, line 5, leave out from first “requirements” to end of line 6 and insert—
“(fa) contain a valid attestation of identity under section [Attestation of identity],”.
This amendment requires an overseas elector’s declaration to include a valid attestation of identity in accordance with the requirements of Amendment 83.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 83, in clause 10, page 16, line 15, at end insert—
“1CA Attestation of identity
(1) A valid attestation of identity must contain attestations from two attestors.
(2) The first attestor must be a registered elector resident in the constituency in which the declarant wishes to be registered.
(3) The second attestor must be a registered overseas elector.
(4) An attestor must not be the spouse, civil partner, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild of the declarant.
(5) An attestation must—
(a) be in writing and signed by the attestor,
(b) swear that, to the best of the attestor’s knowledge, the declarant is the person named in the declaration,
(c) state the attestor’s British passport number together with its date of issue,
(d) be dated on the date on which the attestation is made,
(e) confirm that the person attestor is aware of the offence, under section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, of providing false information to a registration officer, and
(f) confirm that the attestor is a person of good standing in the community.
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5)(f), examples of a person of good standing in the community include, but are not limited to, the following or their local equivalents—
accountant
airline pilot
articled clerk of a limited company
assurance agent of recognised company
bank or building society official
barrister
chiropodist
Commissioner of Oaths
civil servant (permanent)
dentist
director, manager or personnel officer of a limited company
director or manager of a VAT-registered charity
director or manager or personnel officer of a VAT-registered company
engineer (with professional qualifications)
financial services intermediary (e.g. a stockbroker or insurance broker)
fire service official
funeral director
insurance agent (full time) of a recognised company
journalist
Justice of the Peace
lecturer
legal secretary (fellow or associate member of the Institute of Legal Secretaries and PAs)
licensee of public house
local government officer
medical professional
member, associate or fellow of a professional body
Merchant Navy officer
minister of a recognised religion (including Christian Science)
nurse (Registered General Nurse or Mental Health Nurse)
officer of the armed services
optician
paralegal (certified paralegal, qualified paralegal or associate member of the Institute of Paralegals)
pharmacist
photographer (professional)
police officer
Post Office official
publicly-elected representative (such as MP, Councillor or MEP)
president or secretary of a recognised organisation
Salvation Army officer
social worker
solicitor
surveyor
teacher
trade union officer
travel agent (qualified)
valuer or auctioneer (fellows and associate members of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers)
warrant officers and chief petty officers.”
This amendment, which relates to Amendment 82, requires overseas electors to provide two forms of attestation of identity – one from an individual living in the constituency in which the elector is registering and one from an overseas elector.
Cat Smith
As is the theme, amendments 82 and 83 are probing amendments. They relate to attestation requirements for overseas voters, which there is space for the Government to strengthen substantially to prevent foreign interference in our elections. The amendments say that there should be two forms of attestation: one from an individual in the constituency where the elector is registering, and one from an overseas elector. This should provide a more robust approach to verifying the identity of an overseas elector. The Association of Electoral Administrators said that it had
“concerns as to integrity, with the possibility of increased applications via this route in a marginal UK parliamentary constituency.”
Such declarations could be made without documentary evidence, and the AEA questioned how likely it is that a false declaration would result in prosecution, when the attestor, as well as the applicant, live abroad. Given that, I do not think that a sworn statement is sufficient security to prevent fraudulent applications. Currently, all we require is that identity must be attested to by another overseas-registered elector who is not a close relative.
More worryingly, overseas electors who do not have access to documentary evidence are entitled to make a declaration of local connection. They can still register even if they have no proof that they were ever resident in the UK; they simply need another overseas elector to make a sworn statement about their identity. Effectively, multiple fraudulent overseas electors could attest for each other at different addresses in the UK using a declaration of local connection; that would allow for multiple false registrations. If it comes down to just a handful of votes—as does happen—fraudulent applications to register to vote could swing elections to this place. I ask the Minister to consider amendments 82 and 83, and to see ways that we can strengthen the integrity of our elections in this regard.
Kemi Badenoch
The amendments would require all declarations from overseas electors to contain two attestations, which is linked to the important principle of the Bill that only those entitled to register are permitted to do so. However, mandating applicants to in all cases provide an attestation of identity as part of their application would be inconsistent with the application process for domestic voters and the current process for overseas electors. The Government do not accept the principle that overseas electors ought to be treated differently and certainly cannot agree to such a burdensome threshold, which would add a significant extra layer of bureaucracy not only for the applicant but for the electoral registration officer, which the hon. Lady just mentioned wanting to avoid. Indeed, it could preclude people who are currently eligible from registering. We intend to strike that balance between ensuring that the registration system works well for citizens and administrators and maintaining the security of our elections.
I take the hon. Lady’s point that we should not create more opportunities for people overseas to do fraudulent things in order to get on the electoral register; that is quite right. We need to make sure that effective measures will be in place for overseas electors to prove their identity. That is absolutely our intention. As I have said when discussing previous amendments, the Bill contains provisions to make secondary legislation that will enable an electoral registration officer to seek additional evidence to verify an applicant’s identity where they consider that that is required, but it is not prescriptive about the nature of that evidence. I suggest that the Government continue to work closely with the hon. Lady and stakeholders to develop a balanced solution. To reassure her, I share her sentiments completely regarding the importance of having in place robust processes for applicants, but I hope she understands why, at this point, we cannot accept the amendment.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 10, page 16, line 15, at end insert—
“1CA Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors
(1) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 are amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In regulation 56, after paragraph (7), insert—
‘(8) This regulation does not apply to applications by overseas electors.’
(3) After regulation 56 insert—
‘56A Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors
(1) The provisions in this regulation relate to applications to vote by post or proxy by overseas electors in parliamentary elections.
(2) An application by an overseas elector under paragraph 3(6) or (7) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election and an application under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.
(3) An application under paragraph 3(1) or (2), or 6(7) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.
(4) An application under paragraph 4(1) or (2) or 6(8) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.
(5) An application under paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.
(6) An application under—
(a) paragraph 3(5)(a) of Schedule 4 by an elector to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of that Schedule, or
(b) paragraph 7(9)(a) of Schedule 4 by a proxy to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 7(6) of that Schedule,
and a notice under paragraph 6(10) of that Schedule by an elector cancelling a proxy’s appointment shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after—
(i) 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in the case of an application by an elector who is entitled to vote by post to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 4, and
(ii) 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in any other case.
(7) In computing a period of days for the purposes of this regulation, the same rules shall apply as in regulation 56.’
(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, amend—
(a) the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001, and
(b) the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations
so that each closing date in Scotland and Northern Ireland for electoral registration applications by overseas electors moves back by seven days in keeping with the amendments made for England under subsections (2) and (3).”
This amendment pushes back the deadlines to register to vote for overseas voters by 1 week to allow electoral administrators more time to process applications.
Amendment 84 would push back the deadline for overseas electors to register to vote by one week, allowing electoral administrators more time to process applications. The timescale for registration deadlines does not work, as we heard in evidence, and the amendment seeks to improve that situation.
The single biggest concern I hear from overseas voters is that they do not receive their postal vote in time and so are not able to return it in time for their vote to count. Concern has already been raised with the Committee by the sector and more widely about the timescale for postal ballots for overseas voters to go out, which of course is not easy when postal systems globally are so varied. In many ways, there is currently simply insufficient time for an ERO to register and process overseas electors’ last-minute postal vote applications and to send them so that they can be returned in a timely manner. I seek a practical solution for this issue.
Alec Shelbrooke
This may purely be my misunderstanding of the amendment, so I stand to be corrected, but would the consequence of the amendment be to extend the election period beyond 25 days?
Cat Smith
I do not believe that it would; perhaps I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The amendment would make overseas electors’ deadline to register as an elector in a constituency a week earlier than that for domestic voters so that EROs would be able to prioritise getting those postal votes out. In the evidence sessions, I was struck by what EROs were saying. An overseas elector currently has the same deadline to register to vote as a domestic voter. If EROs send a ballot paper to a postal voter in Lancaster who registered on the deadline day, we can be quite confident that our postal system is robust enough that the ballot paper could reach the voter and that the voter could return it. However, when it is going to the other side of the world, we know that they could not. Allowing that extra week would ensure that overseas voters’ votes are more likely to count when they cast their ballots, rather than so many, as currently, being disenfranchised because postal systems do not allow their ballot paper to get back in time.
Alec Shelbrooke
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making. What I am unclear about is what happens if the registration deadline is moved further into the election. I am not sure where the hon. Lady is going, because she is talking about the time to return the mail, so we are talking about registration and then the ballot being sent out and coming back. Is there confidence in the timeframe for the ballot itself to come back, if we are talking about delays in the timeframe, or do we need to add more time to the overall short campaign as a consequence of the amendment? I could be entirely wrong on all of this, which is why I am probing the hon. Lady on the amendment.
Cat Smith
If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, I think we have identified the same issue, and I am going to go out on a limb here and say that we probably agree it is a problem that so many of these electors’ ballots are not returned. My proposed solution—I would be very keen to hear solutions from any member of this Committee; I do not believe any one of us has a monopoly on knowledge or innovation—is that allowing EROs an extra week on the UK end, at the start of the process of issuing a postal ballot to an overseas elector, would increase the chances of many of these ballot papers being returned in time. I do not see the amendment as changing the electoral timetable for domestic voters or the wider election, which I think is what the right hon. Gentleman is asking.
I hope that the exchange that I and the right hon. Gentleman have just had has not confused the Committee too much. My intention is to give EROs the extra time that they will need to register overseas electors, which takes longer than registering a domestic elector. The aim is for them to be able to issue, post and have returned a postal voting form from overseas electors, thereby ensuring that fewer overseas electors are disenfranchised in future elections.
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid that the amendment would have what I suspect is an unintended consequence, so we cannot accept it. In short, it prevents many overseas electors from casting their ballots, for this reason: the registration deadline for overseas electors is 12 working days before the poll. The amendment does not change that, but it makes the deadline for applying for an absent vote earlier than the registration deadline. The effect is that someone who registers by the registration deadline would not be able to vote because they would not have made their absent vote application, and the only way they could fix that would be to travel back to the UK for polling day. The proposed changes to move other absent vote deadlines further from polling day would make it more difficult for some overseas electors to update or alter their absent voting arrangements ahead of the election. Because our intention is to facilitate greater participation in our democracy among British citizens living overseas, we cannot accept the amendment.
Fleur Anderson
May I ask a question about potentially putting some aspects of this into secondary legislation? In other countries, overseas electors are able to avail themselves of the opportunity of going to their embassy—or our equivalent, the high commission—in order to post their ballot paper. That might help with some of the short timings, and also with the burden that we are putting on our EROs in local councils here. Have there been any discussions with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the use of embassies within this process to enable our overseas voters to vote?
Kemi Badenoch
I have not had a formal conversation with the FCDO, but I have had conversations with officials about what else we could do on the specific point that the hon. Lady has raised. The issue is that not everybody lives near an embassy, so that does not necessarily solve the problem that she has described, but we have tried to solve the problem of registration and making things easier for electoral registration officers in another way. The Bill enables overseas electors to remain registered for longer with an absent vote arrangement in place ahead of the election, so that is a burden that is being taken off the EROs. At the moment, the registration period for overseas electors is one year, so that is what those EROs have to deal with. We will extend that to three years in the Bill. Then, in addition, electors will be able to reapply or refresh their postal absent vote arrangements, as appropriate, at the same time as renewing their registrations. I think those changes will have the effect that Opposition Members want, by reducing the workload on electoral administrators during the busy election period.
Cat Smith
Obviously, I am shocked that the Minister has not accepted my amendment. [Laughter.] That does not get away from the fact that we have a real problem with overseas electors not being able to cast their votes, and I feel that there is nothing in the Bill that goes far enough to ensure that overseas electors can get a vote returned to the UK in time for it to be counted in an election. Because of my frustration with that situation, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 10, page 18, line 31, at end insert—
“1F Report on awareness of how to participate in elections as an overseas elector
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on levels of awareness of how to participate in parliamentary elections as a UK elector among—
(a) persons entitled to vote as an overseas elector under the provisions of this Act, and
(b) overseas electors in general.
(2) The report shall consider awareness of—
(a) the law governing entitlement to qualify and vote as an overseas elector,
(b) the processes of registering and voting, and
(c) other matters as the Secretary of State sees fit.
(3) The report shall set out any steps the Secretary of State intends to take to increase awareness of—
(a) how to participate in elections as an overseas elector, and
(b) the provisions of sections 1 to 1E of this Act.
(4) The Minister may not make regulations to bring section 10 of the Elections Act 2021 into force until the report under this section has been laid before Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Government to report on levels of awareness among overseas electors as to how to participate in UK parliamentary elections before the provisions on overseas electors can come into force.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 86, in clause 10, page 18, line 31, at end insert—
“1F Report on the effects on the number of registered electors
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the effects of sections 1 to 1E of this Act on—
(a) the number of overseas electors registered to vote in Parliamentary elections in each constituency, and
(b) the policy implications of any such changes.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) whether any differential effects on the electorates of constituencies necessitates a review of constituency boundaries, and
(b) the merits of creating one or more constituencies with electorates comprised of overseas electors.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament no later than three years after the day on which the Elections Act 2021 is passed.”
Cat Smith
Amendments 85 and 86 are on a report on awareness of overseas electors and a report on the effects of the number of registered electors. These two amendments ask the Government to provide crucial detail about the true impact of clause 10.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to report on levels of awareness among overseas electors about how to participate in UK parliamentary elections before the provisions on overseas electors can come into force. Surveys by the Electoral Commission have demonstrated the widespread lack of awareness about what it means to be an overseas voter and the eligibility criteria necessary to vote. That lack of awareness has no doubt created a significant barrier to casting a ballot.
An Electoral Commission survey found that there was a widespread lack of awareness about eligibility requirements, with 31% of respondents believing that eligibility required receiving a UK state pension and 22% believing that owning a property in the UK was required. Indeed, the Association of Electoral Administrators has previously stated that
“voter education is needed to inform overseas electors about the different ways available to them to cast their ballot.”
Before enfranchising millions more overseas electors, should not the Government focus on ensuring that those people who already have the vote are actually aware of their rights and how to exercise them?
Amendment 86 is tabled in a very similar spirit. It attempts to answer the number of unanswered questions that have resulted from clause 10. It is essential that there is appropriate evaluation and investigation of the effects on our democracy of passing the Bill. We must have a clear idea about the sheer volume of people who we are enfranchising and whether that is likely to impact our finely balanced constituency maps.
The potential introduction of millions of new voters will undoubtedly have consequences for our constituency boundaries—some Members have endured the attentions of the Boundary Commission as well. The number of overseas voters registering to vote has risen exponentially over the past 10 years and it continues to rise. It is estimated that potentially 5 million new voters will be enfranchised, so detailed provision must be put in place as to how those voters will affect current UK constituencies.
As the Minister knows well, the Opposition want a fair boundary system that benefits our democracy and not only the electoral interests of the Conservative party. The spread of new voters across these constituencies and how they will be allocated is crucial, and there must be detailed consideration to prepare for that.
In addition, I wonder whether the Minister has considered the benefits of introducing a separate constituency for overseas electors. On Second Reading of the Overseas Electors Bill in 2017, several Members referenced arrangements in France, where 11 seats in the Assemblée Nationale are reserved for French nationals living overseas, covering different zones of the world outside France and French territories, which of course have their own seats within the Assemblée Nationale. Will the Minister confirm whether any efforts have been made to investigate the potential benefits of overseas constituencies?
Kemi Badenoch
Unlike the previous amendments that we discussed, we are in complete disagreement with these amendments; the Government just do not believe that they are necessary. Amendment 85 would require the Government to produce a report that would unnecessarily delay the implementation of these measures. It is of course important that our fellow citizens are informed of these changes to their rights, and the Government fully intend to play our part in that process, working closely with the Electoral Commission and others. The transitional provisions in the Bill also include a discretionary power that would enable the Government to use the data we hold to promote awareness of the franchise changes around the time that they come into effect. In line with its statutory duties, the Electoral Commission will work on specific communications activity designed to target those overseas residents who have been added to the franchise, to raise awareness of the removal of the 15-year limit and how best to participate in future elections.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I want to pick up on what the shadow Minister said; Government Members have a great deal of regard for her, so this is purely a geeky rhetorical point. On overseas constituencies and the French example, the Third constituency for French residents overseas contains the United Kingdom and has about 85% of its electorate in Greater London. Does the Minister agree that that does not particularly serve the interests of constituents living in, for example, Estonia or northern Greenland, which are in the same constituency, who may not be able to access their Member of Parliament? Those constituents may have closer links with their home constituencies, where family members or friends may live.
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the complexity of that, which I will touch on later.
We do not agree with amendment 85. We encourage campaigners, parties and interested people of whatever political stripe to play their part in informing British citizens living overseas about these changes and related matters.
Amendment 86 would require a separate report on the impact on constituencies of the number of overseas electors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton sort of alluded to, overseas electors come from all corners of the United Kingdom. They will be entitled to register in the last place that they were registered or, if they were never registered, the last place that they were resident, which could be in any constituency. At each boundary review, the four boundary commissions take account of changes to the electorate to ensure a more equal distribution of electors across constituencies. All registered electors, whether domestic or overseas, form part of that electorate and will be part of the calculations for boundary reviews, so we do not need a report to determine whether a review of constituency boundaries is needed; that is already taken into account by the boundary commissions.
The proposed report in amendment 86 also refers to creating new separate overseas constituencies. We do not need a report to know that that is unnecessary and undesirable, not only because we are not French, but because overseas electors will continue to register in constituencies to which they have a significant and demonstrable connection. That constituency link is a cornerstone of our democracy.
On the shadow Minister’s point about effectively establishing an MP solely to represent overseas electors, that would be a significant change to the UK parliamentary system. The French have had it quite possibly even back to colonial times—I seem to recall that there were colonial MPs there; it is something that they have been doing for a very long time—but it would be a significant change to the UK parliamentary system, which would require complex bureaucratic deliberations to decide how many constituencies would be created and then to draw up and maintain those constituency boundaries. Overseas constituencies would also require changes to the way that the electoral administration of voters and conduct of polls is organised in Great Britain, where responsibility lies at local authority level.
The Government’s proposals in the Bill are the product of careful consideration. We want to work well with the Opposition and will continue to work closely with the electoral administration community and relevant stakeholders on the technical aspects of the policy’s implantation. However, the proposed report would not do what the amendment says and would not be a good use of that community’s time and resources.
Cat Smith
I suppose this is the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, who picked up on the issue of overseas constituencies being quite large. He gave the example of the northern European constituency in the French Parliament. Many UK constituencies are quite large—not quite as large as that, admittedly, but it would take me an hour and a half to drive from the most easterly to the most westerly point of my constituency.
Chris Clarkson
The problem is that we actually find it exciting. Does the hon. Lady accept that the boundaries Bill Committee, which we both served on, set a geographical limit on the size of constituencies; and that the proposed Highland North constituency, which will actually be slightly larger than Qatar, is at the extant limit of that?
Cat Smith
We were right to do that in that Committee. I am conscious that I am veering into discussing an Act not related to this Bill Committee, so I will be careful in what I say and how I frame this.
There is a difference between UK constituencies and overseas constituencies. I envisage an overseas Member of Parliament communicating using electronic means. If we have learned anything from the last 18 months during the covid pandemic, it is that, even when we are locked in our own back bedroom because of lockdown, we are still able to communicate with our constituents via Zoom and telephone surgeries. The advancement of technology is, as we always say, making the world a smaller place and offers us more opportunities, as parliamentarians, to engage with our electorates.
However, one challenge with the current system of enfranchising overseas electors—I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on this—is that as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, for example, he does not have an opportunity to canvass and knock on the doors of the overseas electors who will vote for him, or not, in a subsequent general election. Those voters often only register a matter of weeks before a general election. What he writes in his local paper as the Member of Parliament will often not be read by those voters, because they are not going down to the local shop and buying that paper. There is more space to explore.
The Minister said that introducing overseas constituencies would be a radical change to our democracy. That is not a reason to overlook it. There have been radical changes to our democracy before. The enfranchisement of women was a fairly radical change to our democracy—I would argue, and I am sure Committee members agree, that that was a good change—as was lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. I do not think that radical change is necessarily bad change, and I think we should explore overseas constituencies as a Committee. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene.
Chris Clarkson
I will start on a note of agreement: radical change does not have to be bad change. I am the proud great-grandson of a suffragette who was arrested with Mrs Pankhurst—something we are very proud of in our family. However, I will pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about not being able to communicate with electors. I think she will agree that, in her constituency, for example, issues raised in in Fleetwood might not necessarily be the same as those raised in Lancaster, so there is already diversity within constituencies. That is certainly the case with Heywood and Middleton, two very different towns. Let us extrapolate from that. Hypothetically, if I represented a constituency that involved Israel, Cyprus and Egypt, very different issues would affect my constituents, and I would not actually be on the ground and directly engaged with those issues; I might live in one of those countries, but I might not be directly engaged with the issues affecting my constituents. The hon. Lady made a salient point about being able to use technology to communicate with people. If I want to speak to my overseas electors now, all I need to do is get the electoral roll, find out who is registered and put out a notice on my Facebook page—for example, “Are you registered to vote in Heywood and Middleton while living abroad? Here’s a Zoom call with Chris.”
There are ways of making this work—in fact, technology has made it more practical to do it as we are doing. Having overseas constituencies, however, creates disparate groupings; it would be very hard to represent the commonality of British citizens living in two different countries, with different ways of life, facing different challenges. They might include aid workers in the middle east and expats living next door to RAF Akrotiri. They will have very different interests. It is extremely difficult for an MP to represent that range, especially if they are not physically present most of the time.
Cat Smith
I may have forgotten the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention; I ask his forgiveness if I do not respond to that. If the hon. Gentleman put out a Facebook ask to his overseas electors about a Zoom surgery, I would be interested in how successful that was. Perhaps we can discuss that in the Tea Room when the Committee adjourns.
I come back to amendments 85 and 86, Ms Ali; I can sense your mood. They are probing amendments, and I am glad that they have stimulated debate—across the whole Committee, I hope, and not just from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton. He obviously has a varied constituency, with the issues raised in Heywood being very different from those raised in Middleton. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
Clause 10 and schedule 6 deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments to make it easier for British expats to vote in parliamentary elections and to get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights. That will enable greater participation in our democracy among our fellow British citizens living overseas.
The Government believe that the current 15-year limit is arbitrary and anachronistic in an increasingly global and connected world. Most British citizens overseas retain deep ties to the United Kingdom. Many still have family here, some will return here, and many will have a lifetime of hard work in the UK behind them. Some will have fought for our country.
Going forward, any British citizen who has previously registered to vote in the UK or was previously resident in the UK will be able to register as an overseas elector. That sets a reasonable boundary for the overseas elector franchise. Previous registration or residence denotes a strong connection to the UK. Individuals will be eligible to register in respect of one UK address—the last address at which they were registered to vote, or, if they were never registered in the UK, the last address at which they were resident. This approach maximises continuity with the existing registration system, which electors and administrators are familiar with. It puts in place clear rules regarding where persons may register. It will also ensure that overseas electors, like now, have a demonstrable connection to the place where they vote.
As I stated when we were debating amendments 79, 80 and 81, I recognise and share some Opposition concerns, such as those about reducing the opportunities for fraud and for using loopholes. I will work with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and other stakeholders to make sure that we confer these rights properly. I reiterate that the changes will facilitate participation by making it easier for overseas electors to remain on the register, and there will be an absent vote arrangement in place as well.
Clause 10 will extend the registration period for overseas electors from one year to three years. That will be accompanied by a fixed-point renewal cycle, under which all overseas electors’ declarations will expire on the third 1 November after they are made. That three-year cycle aligns with the postal vote renewal measures elsewhere in the Bill, to make it easier for overseas electors to reapply or renew their absent vote arrangements at the same time as renewing their registration. Changes to the registration period and the registration renewal process will benefit not only citizens but electoral administrators by reducing their workload during busy electoral periods.
Finally, the transitional provisions in schedule 6 include a discretionary power that will enable the Government to use the data they hold to promote awareness of the franchise changes around the time when they come into effect.
Patrick Grady
I do not have much to add, because I think the matter has been dealt with pretty well in debates, and in the evidence sessions. I reiterate that UK voters do pay tax if they live here, because they buy things and pay VAT, so there is a point about taxation and representation. I appreciated the Minister’s earlier comments, and I hope for a little more analysis of exactly how people who have lived away from this country for a long time and can now vote will do so.
Engagement with overseas electors is valuable. I have a small number registered in Glasgow North, and they will sometimes offer quite valuable perspectives. Perhaps one of the takeaways from this is that we can all organise Zoom surgeries for our overseas electors. SNP Members will continue to do our best to increase the number of overseas electors in the UK Parliament, largely by making Scotland an independent country, and then people who live in Scotland who want to register as overseas electors for elections to the UK Parliament will be able to do so.
Alec Shelbrooke
On that basis, will Scottish residents living in England be able to vote in any possible future referendum?
Patrick Grady
I think that may be outwith the scope of the Bill, although I will speak later about encroachment into devolved matters. There was some call for what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but it would be difficult for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for it. We have a legislative framework here that defines an overseas elector, and that would not apply to people who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but I can see from the Chair that this is definitely outwith the scope of the Bill, so I will leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 11
Voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 8 to 20.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Government amendment 7.
Kemi Badenoch
Clause 11 and schedule 7, which is associated with it, amend the voting and candidacy rights of European Union citizens. The law as it stands reflects our old obligations under EU law. It grants local voting and candidacy rights automatically to all EU citizens resident in England and Northern Ireland. That extends to Wales for police and crime commissioner elections. Since those rights were granted under freedom of movement rules, no immigration-based eligibility requirements are attached to them. Now that the UK has left the EU, it is no longer appropriate for there to be a continued automatic right to vote in, and to stand in, local elections solely by virtue of being an EU citizen. The concept of the UK participating in joint EU citizenship has ended.
The clause and the associated schedule will remove the automatic granting of rights to EU citizens to vote, to register to vote, and to stand in all levels of council election and referendums in England, Greater London Assembly and mayoral elections, elections for local authority and combined authority mayors in England, council elections in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland Assembly elections.
The Government believe that the voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens living here must be considered alongside those of citizens of the UK living in EU member states. The Government’s approach is a sensible one of recognising established rights, while moving to new bilateral agreements with individual nation states in the EU. That ensures we are protecting the rights of British citizens living in EU countries.
To give effect to that intention, the clause and the associated schedule will grant local voting and candidacy rights only to those EU citizens legally resident in the UK who are from countries with which the UK has a voting and candidacy rights treaty. Such treaties will ensure the preservation of voting and candidacy rights for citizens of the UK living in EU member states with which such a treaty has been agreed. We have four such treaties, and we remain open to negotiating with other EU countries.
Over and above that, provisions are included to honour our commitment to respect the rights of those EU citizens who chose to make their home in the UK before our departure from the EU. The relevant provisions preserve the rights of all EU citizens who were resident in the UK at the end of the implementation period and have lawful immigration status to vote and stand in local elections. In line with Home Office policy, specific and limited exceptions are included in the provisions, which relate to the operation of the grace period regulations and the EU settlement scheme.
I draw Members’ attention to part 4 of the schedule, which gives effect to the Government’s public commitment that persons elected to office before the measures come into effect will be enabled to serve their full term in office. Additionally, the Government have tabled minor and technical amendments that do not change the intended scope or effect of the provisions but ensure that they will operate as intended. The Government therefore urge hon. Members to accept the amendments, and to agree that clause 11 stand part and that schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Cat Smith
The Labour party strongly believes that all those who are subject to local laws and politics have a claim to political representation. Essentially, anyone who lives in a local area and uses public services should have a say in how they are run. That fits with our arguments on overseas electors. Anyone who has lived outside a country for a substantial amount of time can no longer claim to have such a close connection.
Although the Labour party welcomes efforts to ensure that some UK residents from the EU will retain their voting rights, we do not think that the provisions go far enough. At present, citizens of European Union member states resident in England and Northern Ireland are automatically granted voting and candidacy rights in local elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections and police and crime commissioner elections by virtue of being EU citizens. The rights granted to EU citizens in the United Kingdom were reciprocated, so that UK citizens living in EU member states were also granted local voting and candidacy rights in their respective countries.
Now that the UK has left the European Union, and with the ending of free movement, the basis for an automatic grant of voting and candidacy rights to a European citizen of course no longer exists. Correspondingly, individual EU member states are now able to set their own rules for local voting rights with reference to resident UK citizens. I put on record that the Labour party would like to see measures to ensure that citizens from countries that already unilaterally grant local electoral rights to British citizens resident there are granted local electoral rights in England and Northern Ireland, regardless of whether the UK has negotiated a bilateral treaty with that country.
Luxembourg citizens resident in the UK can vote in England and Northern Ireland local elections, whereas Dutch citizens cannot, even though British citizens resident in both Luxembourg and the Netherlands have local electoral rights in those countries. Since the Secretary of State already has the power to remove from the list a country that ceases to be party to the relevant bilateral treaty, they should similarly have the power to remove countries from the list when the local electoral rights of British citizens in that country are unilaterally removed.
Although the Labour party welcomes efforts to ensure that some UK residents from the EU retain their voting rights, we do not think that the provisions go far enough. We emphasise that people who live here, who contribute to society in a broader sense than just through paying taxes, and who stand to be affected by the outcomes of any electoral process, should have the right to vote. That principle is already active in UK electoral law as it relates to overseas voters.
Patrick Grady
It is regrettable that the Government have had to table such a substantial number of technical and drafting amendments. It goes back to the point that we made yesterday about what could have been achieved had there been a comprehensive programme of prelegislative scrutiny and a bit more preparation before we launched this parliamentary phase of scrutiny of the Bill, but there we go. I agree with the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson that the Government could have applied a far more generous approach to the franchise here—the approach being taken in Scotland to next year’s local elections. It is in line with the basic principle that was articulated: if someone lives in an area, is affected by the decisions made by the local authority, and is legally resident, by and large they will have a vote.
Some of that is reflected in the new clauses that we have tabled on UK parliamentary elections, but the Scottish National party has not tabled amendments to the provisions we are considering, because we recognise that they affect local elections in England and Northern Ireland. We respect the devolution settlement. Just as we would not expect the UK Parliament to legislate on matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, though it increasingly does, we do not seek to amend this part of the Bill, because it affects local elections. We are, however, disappointed that the more generous and wider application of the principle of franchise has not been applied. It will be a loss to democracy in this part of the world, and to residents who will be affected by decisions over which they will have no say.
“Section 203A (meaning of ‘qualifying EU citizen’) | |
Section 203B (meaning of ‘EU citizen with retained rights’)”. |
“Schedule 6A (list of countries for purposes of section 203A)”.’—(Kemi Badenoch.) |
The Chair
The decision on Government amendment 7 will be taken when we consider clause 60.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Rebecca Harris.)
Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair and to serve under you, Mr Dowd.
The Government are committed to ensuring that leases reflect the duties and obligations placed on landlords and tenants to keep buildings safe, and that the costs associated with the regime are fair and transparent. Clause 120 implies terms relating to building safety into leases, so that both landlord and tenant have obligations associated with the new regime clearly set out in their leases. This cements the duties set out in other parts of the Bill.
Clause 120 also ensures that the landlord passes costs associated with the new regulatory regime, via the building safety charge, to leaseholders with long leases of seven years or more. The overriding principle behind the building safety charge is to give leaseholders further information about what they are paying for to keep the building safe and assurance that the manager of the building is charging reasonably. Without the building safety charge, many of these costs would be charged via a service charge. We are introducing this separate mechanism to deliver greater protection to leaseholders, ensuring that costs are transparent and reasonable. By introducing the building safety charge, the Government are ensuring that costs are clearly set out to leaseholders and that certain costs, such as the cost of enforcement against an accountable person, can never be recovered from leaseholders. In well-run buildings, leaseholders will likely see costs partially offset by a corresponding reduction in service charge costs.
Schedule 7 will enable the Government to set out certain obligations for the landlord to fulfil, including providing details of the building safety charge together with a summary of their rights and obligations to leaseholders. Schedule 7 will also give leaseholders the right to request further information about the charge, and they will be able make a written request for a summary of the relevant building safety costs. Once a summary has been obtained, the leaseholder can request more detailed accounts.
We expect that the protections included around the building safety charge will provide the necessary transparency to drive competition to reduce costs for leaseholders. Leaseholders will be able to challenge the costs associated with keeping a building safe in the same way as they can challenge the costs of unreasonable service charges—that is, through the first-tier tribunal.
Clause 120 is key to ensuring the smooth implementation of the new regulatory regime. Setting out further requirements in respect of the building safety charge in secondary legislation—for example, on the obligations of landlords, consultation requirements and excluded costs—ensures that the provisions remain relevant and responsive to changes in the duties of the accountable person or broader leasehold reform. Leasehold law is a highly technical policy area, and it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to include it in the Bill.
We wish to make it clear that remedial costs are not included in the building safety charge. This clause does not make leaseholders liable for the costs of remedial works. Whether or not leaseholders are liable for works is governed by the terms of their existing leases. Clause 120 is vital to ensure transparency on the costs of the new regime, empowering leaseholders to interrogate bills and hold their building owner to account.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I have a number of questions. The building safety charge has proved to be somewhat controversial among leaseholders, residents, tenants and cladding campaigners—the UK Cladding Action Group, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the National Leasehold Campaign and so on. The Minister has mentioned that charges will be fair and transparent. What is the definition of fair and transparent? What is the Department’s assessment of what will be fair and transparent? Given that on 17, if not 18, occasions a promise was made not to put charges for historical remediation costs, which we will get on to in a moment, on to the shoulders of leaseholders, there is a real fear that there could be considerable interplay between the building safety charge, historical remediation costs, service charges and so forth. I would like the Minister to expand on that. Of course, many leaseholders over the past two weeks have had massive invoices arrive through the door for remedial costs relating to historical building safety defects. Some are going bankrupt, as I know he and Department officials will know.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the existing service charge system for too many leaseholders is opaque and inconsistent? They never know what they will be charged for and, more important, how much they will be charged in future quarters. Leaseholders need not only an improvement to the current service charge system but to be confident that any new charging system will be far better than the current one.
Mike Amesbury
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and pertinent point, which I am sure the Minister will respond to. I know that it has been a particular issue in shared ownership properties, particularly in London and the south-east. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I and other Members have raised.
Eddie Hughes
The point about fairness and transparency is incredibly important, not least given the comments that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made about the opaqueness or otherwise of the existing service charge system. The reason why we will have two clearly defined separate charging systems is to ensure that everybody—leaseholders, landlords and tenants—understands completely what is being covered within the charging system. We will set out further details in secondary legislation, but it is critical that we know—I am sure the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was not confusing the two—that the charges that will be covered by the system are those that result from the introduction of the Bill, and safety aspects that will be applied going forward. It is not about retrospective remediation. There is a clear delineation between the two, and we will make very clear what is covered.
With regard to what might be considered fair, I genuinely feel that, as the system develops people will be able to see within one building what amount is being charged for a particular service or constituent elements of it, and to make a direct comparison with other buildings, how they are being managed and what charges are being applied. They will then be able to use that as evidence to challenge their own bill in the future. Ensuring that people can challenge their bill and ask for further details will be pivotal to the success of the process.
Ruth Cadbury
With respect, although it is good to know that there may be yet another, possibly complex, mechanism by which leaseholders can challenge, would it not be better if they did not need to challenge, except in exceptional circumstances? If the system were clear, transparent and honest at the outset there would be less need for challenges.
Eddie Hughes
If there was any ambiguity in what I said, I apologise. The expectation is that this will be clear and transparent from the start. We are not setting out in any way to obfuscate; however, it will be reassuring to know that the safety net of challenge exists should it need to be deployed, which I hope will be a rarity.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 121
Provision of building safety information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
We recognise the need to ensure that the building safety regime is compatible with existing legislation, especially when it comes to ensuring that tenants of higher-risk buildings receive important building safety information from their landlords. Clause 121 aligns the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 with the Bill by ensuring that dedicated provisions are in place for tenants of higher-risk buildings, including those who may be subletting from a long leaseholder, to receive relevant building safety information from their landlords. The clause makes it mandatory for the landlord of a dwelling in a higher-risk building to give the tenant a notice containing the relevant building safety information. The clause states that, where a landlord fails to give such notice to a tenant, any rent, service charge, administration charge or building safety charge that is due from the tenant to the landlord is not due before the landlord gives the notice to the tenant.
The clause amends the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 by placing a requirement on landlords to include relevant building safety information when giving a tenant a written demand for payment. If the relevant building safety information is not provided with the written demand, any amount demanded, other than in respect of rent, will not be treated as due until such time as the information is provided. The clause specifies that the relevant building safety information will include information about the higher-risk status of the building, and the name and contact details of each person responsible for building safety in their buildings, including details of the Building Safety Regulator. It also makes an exception to those requirements where a court or tribunal-appointed receiver or manager is in place.
Finally, clause 121 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe additional information that must be included in the notice or the written demand. These are key provisions to ensure that tenants have access to vital building safety information about their building—an important principle of our new reforms, which give residents a more transparent understanding of their building’s safety information.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Amendments to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
Eddie Hughes
In July 2020 the Law Commission published a report on reinvigorating commonhold, and it has made recommendations to make the tenure a workable alternative to leasehold tenure. In partnership with industry and leaseholders, the Government have also established a new commonhold council, which will prepare homeowners and the market for the widespread take-up of commonhold. Although there are no existing commonhold tenure buildings that fall into the scope of the new building safety regime, it is necessary that we ensure that our new building safety regime applies to new, higher-risk commonhold buildings, as they may be developed in the future.
Clause 122 amends the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to ensure that building safety management is adequately considered in higher-risk commonhold buildings. As per clause 69, the commonhold association will be the accountable person and will be subject to the fire and structural safety building regime. Clause 122 makes it mandatory for a commonhold association to include in its commonhold community statement provision to ensure compliance with its duties under part 4 of the Bill. It also makes amendments to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to ensure that the directors of the commonhold association make an annual estimate of the income required to meet the building safety expenses. That must be detailed in the commonhold community statement of a higher-risk commonhold building.
The clause also ensures that each commonhold unit holder makes payments in relation to building safety expenses to meet the building safety expenses income requirement. The amendments made by the clause are necessary to ensure that the commonhold legislation aligns with the Bill’s requirements.
Mike Amesbury
I want to address a couple of points, for clarity. I thank the Minister for the explanation. Her Majesty’s official Opposition support commonholds and have argued for them for a long time. I am pleased to see the emerging consensus as we listen to stakeholders, whether the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the national leaseholder campaign or others in the housing sector. I have one question in relation to the Minister’s opening narrative. In commonhold, are building safety expenses on top of the building safety service charge?
Eddie Hughes
I completely understand. No, that is not separate; it is one of the items that would typically be covered by the building safety charge in other buildings. Exactly the same principle applies.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 123
Interpretation of part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
The clause contains key definitions used in part 4 of the Bill. It also clarifies the fact that the requirements in part 4 do not apply to the Palace of Westminster. For example, the clause refers to clause 59, citing that we have defined a “building safety risk” as
“a risk to the safety of people in or about a building”
due to “the spread of fire” or “structural failure”. We see those definitions as appropriate and considered, and they are an important addition to aid the understanding of the various clauses that refer to those terms. The clause provides for a specific place in part 4 that can act as a helpful index of the defined terms used in said part.
Ruth Cadbury
I am intrigued to know why the Palace of Westminster is included. I do not believe it comes under a definition of a residential building, because I thought only one household lives here. We also know that it is a historic building that is a fire risk and has lots of risks, but it cannot be unique in that, either. Why is it in particular drawn out in the Bill?
Eddie Hughes
On the question of one person officially residing here, it may be that two people end up officially residing here at some point due to historical reasons, so it was worth taking it out, just in case that situation could fluctuate. With regard to other elements of the building’s safety, other legislation applies and ensures safety.
Ruth Cadbury
I realise that the other person who once resided here was Emily Davison, who resided one night in the broom cupboard downstairs. I wonder whether that is the second resident to whom the Minister refers.
Eddie Hughes
I am embarrassed to say that historically I am not completely clear about that.
The Chair
Order. I would appreciate it if Members intervened while the Minister is on his feet. Otherwise, if we are not careful, we will end up with some sort of badminton.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Service charges in respect of remediation works
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Dowd. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about the late Emily Davison, if she is still resident here, she has rather a lot of back council tax to pay because she has been here for 108 years.
The Government are committed to ensuring that landlords exhaust all other avenues of cost recovery before billing leaseholders, and this clause puts that commitment in statute. It places a new legislative requirement on landlords to take reasonable steps to pursue other cost recovery avenues before passing on the cost of remediation works to leaseholders. We know that some building owners are not fully exploring all the cost recovery avenues and are passing costs on to leaseholders as a default. Many are, but too many are not. The clause will help to bring those unfair practices to an end.
The clause will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe the reasonable steps that the landlord must take, and how that landlord can demonstrate to leaseholders that they have taken them. Landlords will need to comply with guidance issued by the Secretary of State, which will provide clarity on the reasonable steps that the landlord must take. The guidance should act as an important resource for all leaseholders and landlords alike, providing clarity and transparency for landlords, and assurances for leaseholders that the requirements have been met.
The clause also requires landlords to provide leaseholders with details of the steps that they are taking and their reasons for their course of action. The Government will be able to prescribe in regulations the information that must be provided to leaseholders. That will mean that leaseholders have sufficient understanding of decisions taken about their building and why any remediation costs have been passed on to them. Landlords will be required to have regard to observations made by leaseholders or a recognised tenants association.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Could the Minister clarify whether the provisions on special measures will apply solely to leasehold blocks, or whether they will apply to rented commonhold blocks as well?
Christopher Pincher
They will apply to all appropriate buildings—my hon. Friend can take it as read that it is a wide definition.
The clause contains a power to define the scope of works that can be classified as remediation works for the purposes of this clause. That will ensure that the Government have sufficient flexibility to make sure that works defined as remediation works are those that are essential for ensuring that buildings are safe. We will define remediation works and relevant buildings in secondary legislation, and that will create scope to amend the regulations at pace, so that they remain relevant and respond to changes in our analysis of risk over time.
The clause is vital to ensuring that all possible avenues for funding remedial works are explored by the landlord and evidenced to the leaseholder before any remediation costs are sought from them. Leaseholders should not have to pay for works when there are other routes for funding. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister raises a pertinent point for many leaseholders in my constituency relating to cases in which builders, companies or developers have folded since they built a building. Those companies may have been originally responsible for remediation costs. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the need in the guidance and any regulations to explore every avenue will cover subsequent builders who took on folded companies or the relevant buildings. Just because the landlord cannot find the original company, or the company no longer exists and so that avenue does not exist, that is not an excuse for bundling the costs on to leaseholders. Those concerns have been raised with me and we need reassurance. I hope we will get that in any regulations and guidance.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South for her contribution.
In principle, the clause seems to be a step forward, but in reality, it will hardwire into the Bill the injustice that thousands—indeed, millions—of people are familiar with: they are trapped in their properties, and the Bill will ensure that historical remediation falls on the shoulders of leaseholders. The Ministers and the Department have been in a difficult position because it looks as though the Treasury’s door has been closed to any further financial progress.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Let me read out something to put in context what my hon. Friend says about hardwiring and what the clause does. Darren Matthews says:
“I am ruined. Shared owner (50% for £63,000) and in May was billed £101,500 for remedial works. Block 13.5m tall so doesn’t qualify for BSF but possibly new loan scheme that’ll take 161 years to repay. Madness!”
That is a perfect example of what we are talking about. The clause hardwires unfairness into the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South has just mentioned, many leaseholders will be in the same position as Mr Matthews. How can that be fair?
Mike Amesbury
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful and insightful intervention. He mentions the case study of somebody who is trapped in this nightmare, which the Ministers and the Department are very familiar with. I will give the Minister another example from social media; it is 47 minutes old. Lucy Brown is a leaseholder trapped in this nightmare that we are, hopefully, collectively trying to resolve. She wrote:
“15 months in the BSF”—
that is, the building safety fund—
“application process. Our managing agent/FH”—
that is, the freeholder—
“won’t agree to the BSF terms (likely those requiring the FH guarantee the works be done to an acceptable standard). The joys of the leasehold system—you own nothing, you control nothing + you pay everything.”
How will the clause solve the problem when that particular landlord—the freeholder in this case—has already decided that they have exhausted the process? The levy is thousands and thousands of pounds, and people are going bankrupt in the current climate. How will this move things forward?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for the questions that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Luton South asked. I will try to address them in toto.
The Government have already committed a significant amount of public money to the remediation of unsafe tall buildings—£5.1 billion—and I am sure we will discuss these matters further when we come to the new clauses tabled by various members of the Committee, so there will be several opportunities to come back to this point.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Will statutory guidance be issued to landlords on what constitutes “reasonable steps”? If not, what engagement work will the Department do to ensure that landlords properly understand their regulatory duties under the clause?
Christopher Pincher
Yes, we will produce statutory guidance, and will consult on it. We will certainly make sure that we consult not only landlords but leaseholders on the guidance, so that leaseholders have input on what constitutes “reasonable steps”. I appreciate that not all leaseholders are legally savvy, so we will make that guidance as plain as possible, to allow them as much power as possible to seek redress when they need to.
Daisy Cooper
Does the Minister recognise that throughout the Bill, leaseholders are not only being left to pick up the tab for these enormous costs, but are having to become lawyers to navigate complex statutory instruments that have not even been published, so that they can get their head around what “reasonable steps” might be? Once that guidance is published—it has not been published yet—there will be reams and reams of litigation, which can drag and drag, because there may well be a disagreement about what constitutes reasonable steps. Does he honestly think it is fair that leaseholders, who are entirely innocent and have done everything absolutely right, are being left to pick up the tab, and are having to become lawyers in order to understand the guidance and the clause?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady for that point; I understand it, and the passion that she brings to the issue. We need to get this right, and to make the process as transparent and digestible as possible. She refers to reams and reams of litigation; if we get the guidance right by consulting the right people, including leaseholders and their groups, we can make it as simple, clear and effective as possible. As for applying to the first-tier tribunal, there is plenty of case law already, and the tribunal has experience of working expeditiously; we will try to make sure that that continues.
I am grateful to Committee members for their questions. Clause 124 is key to making certain that the landlord explores and evidences to the leaseholder—that is very important—all possible avenues for funding remedial works before any remediation costs are sought from the leaseholder. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before we come to clause 125, for the smooth running of the sitting, may I exhort Members to intervene when the Minister, shadow spokesperson or whoever is speaking is still on their feet? Secondly, may I also exhort Members to be clear if they want to intervene, especially if they are sitting behind the person they want to intervene on? It is the person speaking who decides whether to allow the intervention, not me. Thirdly, when Members intervene, can they keep it as short and sharp as possible? Otherwise, they should make a more substantive intervention in due course. I hope that is clear. Thank you.
Clause 125
Duties relating to work to dwellings etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
To aid Committee members in making interventions, I will try to sit down slowly, so that I am standing for as long as possible. In conjunction with clause 126, which is to come shortly, clause 125 makes changes to the operation of the Defective Premises Act 1972. That Act creates a right to bring a claim for compensation where a dwelling is not “fit for habituation” on completion of that dwelling. The Act currently applies only in relation to the provision of a dwelling, mainly when a property was built defectively in the first place. It does not apply to work done to a dwelling beyond its initial completion—not even to major or complex refurbishment works, such as the cladding of a block, which is what Grenfell Tower underwent. The clause seeks to remedy that.
The clause expands the Defective Premises Act by inserting proposed new section 2A into it. The new section will create a duty to ensure that any work done to a dwelling does not render that dwelling unfit for habitation. It will cover subsequent works done to the building after construction. The clause applies where a person takes on work in relation to any part of a relevant building in the course of a business. That means that it does not apply, for example, to homeowners doing work on their own properties. As in the case of the 1972 Act, the person to whom the duty is owed—the person who has the right to bring a claim—is the person for whom the work is done and any person who holds or subsequently acquires a legal or equitable interest in a dwelling in the building. That includes the freeholder of a block of flats as well as leaseholders.
The “fit for habitation” test is the same test used in the 1972 Act. Subcontractors also owe the same duty for the work that they take on. The clause applies to any relevant building defined as a building consisting of or containing one or more dwellings. The new provision will apply to work completed after the clause comes into force. Clause 126 will provide for a 15-year limitation period in relation to this clause.
Ian Byrne
On the ability of a leaseholder to bring a civil claim against a contractor, there is a real fear about the ability of David to challenge Goliath. In our discussions on the Bill, we have talked a lot about cultural change and historical problems and what is required. I am listening to what the Minister says, but once again my great fear is that unless the provisions can be outlined in terms, how can David challenge Goliath? Will leaseholders get legal aid to challenge contractors? Will there be a level playing field for people who want to bring civil cases against contractors? Historically, as Opposition Members have outlined, many people have been dragged into the realms of the law, and have basically had to devote their life to challenging unfair decisions.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Legal aid is not available in these cases, but there are various remedies people can take, either individually or collectively. It is not necessarily the case that the leaseholder would be bringing the claim. It could be the landlord or freeholder. With clause 125, we want to define a very strict provision. That means that the appellant does not have to demonstrate that fault or negligence has taken place. All they have to demonstrate is that the building is not fit for habitation under the terms of the 1972 Act, and the case law already develops that. Adding new section 2A into the Act strengthens the provision. We consider clause 125 to be an important additional safeguard for homeowners against shoddy work done to their dwellings.
Ruth Cadbury
Will the Minister clarify the term “fit for habitation”? Does it mean fit for habitation only with a waking watch? I am trying to get to the bottom of the difference between “fit for habitation” and a building at risk in the more general sense. I have mentioned the example of the Paragon many times. Two years after the flammable cladding was removed, all residents—students and shared owners—had to leave with a week’s notice. Clearly, the risk assessment is that it is not fit for habitation. We all have examples of blocks where waking watch is put in or cladding works are planned. Where is the cut-off?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. It gives me the opportunity to remind the Committee that, by altering the 1972 Act, we are not simply specifying these changes to taller buildings. It applies to all premises. That is one of the reasons why a whole range of people might use this legislation. To be clear, it is for a court to decide the facts of a specific case—whether a dwelling is fit for habitation. The existing case law, which may be built up and amplified in future, suggests that, in order for a dwelling to be fit for habitation, it must be capable of occupation for a reasonable time without risk to the health or safety of the occupants and without undue inconvenience or discomfort to the occupants. That is the case law definition that the court would understand. Should an appellant bring action against a developer or provider of a building that is defective, that is the definition the court will look at to see whether they have a case. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and all those who have intervened. Clause 125 is welcome on this side, but it does not go far enough. We welcome the extension to refurbished properties, which we have debated at considerable length with regard to permitted development and additional floors. I know that the Minister will clarify whether the clause captures that scenario in the new building safety regime.
The Minister referred to case law. Others have referred to the nightmare of litigation and the costs in a David and Goliath process. How many claims have been made under the existing regime? The Minister referred to the existing case law, so I am assuming that the Department has made an assessment.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. He asks two questions. The first is on the volume of case law that has been built up. I will have to write to him or inform him at a later point about the specific number of cases. I remind him that the Defective Premises Act 1972 was passed some 49 years ago—many members of the Committee were not born when that Act was passed. The case law is presumably quite voluminous and therefore the courts will be well able to assess any new cases in the light of that established case law of 49 years.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the evidence given eloquently by Justin Bates—I think that was his name; I apologise if I have got that wrong.
Christopher Pincher
Yes. He gave us some eloquent testimony in one of the Committee’s witness sessions. The reason why our court processes work so very well and why there are court actions—sometimes rather voluminous actions such as there may have been under the 1972 Act—is that there is always more than one view. There will be another lawyer countering the arguments made by someone such as Mr Bates, who will say that there are in fact very good chances for an individual to seek redress using this mechanism. I invite those who wish to use the new powers we are giving them to so do, to test the courts and test Mr Bates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 125 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 126
Limitation periods
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 126, page 133, line 1, leave out “15 years” and insert “30 years”.
This amendment changes the period for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Building Act 1984 to 30 years.
Mike Amesbury
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted that most cladded buildings were built in the period between 2000 and 2017. Given that the Bill is likely to become law only in July 2022 or later, the limitation period is likely to capture only buildings completed up to and around July 2007, assuming that the Bill keeps making pace as quickly as it has. By the Government’s own admittance, then, extending the period for claims under the Defective Premises Act by only 15 years would miss a significant number of buildings, which is why our amendment proposes a change to 30 years. That is based on evidence, which I know other Members will bring to the debate today.
It is important that we do not mistake this change to the Defective Premises Act as giving more than some relief to a small number of leaseholders and residents in the current building safety crisis. Many of their building owners have become insolvent, as Ministers know. As has been mentioned, many leaseholders will simply not be able to tie themselves up in lengthy legal battles with wealthy developers. The Government must fund remediation up front. That does not require a Bill—it is a political decision. The polluter pays principle should be used to recoup the costs. That is the only way to address this.
Our time is certainly not wasted in this Committee Room. Over the last few weeks we have discussed some really good, solid, life-changing proposals and clauses, but the Bill does not address the fundamental principle of polluter pays. The amendment would certainly strengthen the clause. We might not believe it, but sometimes people listen to our debates, read Hansard and go through it line by line, so it is important that collectively we show this place at its best, give life to people’s voices and pass the amendment.
Ruth Cadbury
It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Dowd. I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale has said about the number of dwellings that will fall outside the 15-year catch. Obviously, we welcome its being extended from six to 15 years, but a case from my constituency illustrates why 30 years would be more appropriate.
I have had the honour and pleasure to represent Brentford for over 30 years, and a lot of new homes have been developed during that time. My office is keeping tabs on construction issues with blocks of flats, including those in Brentford ward. I can tell which blocks have required no casework during all my years of representation—it is those that were built more than 30 years ago under a regime of good quality construction and in a culture of safety. Those constructed after that were built at a time when standards were starting to fall. The culture of competition and the privatisation of building control meant that there was price competition and a reduction in inspections. There was the demise of the role of the clerk of works, corners were cut, and there was a skills shortage in the construction industry. Taken together, as we have said many times, that created this crisis. My casework shows that well over 25 separate estates in my constituency that were built in the last 20 years—since around 2000—have issues with cladding, lack of compartmentalisation, and shoddy workmanship.
I also picked up casework on damp and safety as a councillor. I will give two examples Even before Grenfell, leaseholders at Holland Gardens, which was built by Barratt, had forced Barratt to replace all the window fixings because they had not been done properly. It was subsequently found that the building had flammable cladding, so scaffolding was put up again. I have already mentioned the Paragon, which was built in about 2003. We do not know what its future is, but it is empty because it is too dangerous to occupy. I absolutely endorse the amendment’s aim of extending the timescale from 15 to 30 years. There is so much evidence. I can see it on my own patch, but we all have evidence.
Rachel Hopkins
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship again, Mr Dowd. I want to add my voice in support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I have similarly seen many developments go up in my home town of Luton, where I live. I am speaking for the leaseholders of Point Red, who have been in touch with me. Point Red was redeveloped in the mid-2000s, and it is touch and go whether the leaseholders would have any recourse under the current 15-year rule, so it is absolutely right that I stand up and support this amendment.
The metaphor of David and Goliath comes to mind. If the Government are committed to supporting leaseholders who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in very difficult situations with regard to their homes, the period of time that we are talking about should be longer. That could have a life-changing effect on people working in our communities—we are talking about social workers and teachers—who may be made bankrupt, and who may therefore lose their professional accreditation and no longer be able to work. As one small step among many that we are trying to take, the Government’s acceptance of this amendment would be life-affirming for so many of our leaseholders. I urge the Government to consider it carefully and adopt the 30-year period.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Weaver Vale, for Brentford and Isleworth and for Luton South for the points that they have raised, and I appreciate that this is an important matter. We are mindful of the challenges faced by leaseholders who are specifically affected by the consequences of the Grenfell tragedy, and I hope that when I have spoken, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Defective Premises Act 1972 applies not simply to the tall buildings that we are addressing primarily through the Building Safety Bill, but to all buildings. This clause extends the limitation period of the 1972 Act, and under section 38 of the Building Act 1984, from six to 15 years. That is a highly unusual retrospective change, which we believe will provide a legal route to redress that previously would not have been possible for hundreds of buildings, benefiting thousands of leaseholders.
Limitation periods serve several important purposes. They give legal and financial security and certainty; they protect defendants from stale claims, which may be difficult to counter—that is important, too, and we must remember that we are talking about all buildings covered by the Defective Premises Act—and they prevent injustice that may arise from the courts being required to decide on past events on the basis of evidence that may have become unreliable because of the passage of time.
Various limitation periods are set in the Limitation Act 1980 for different types of civil claim, of which this would be one. They range from 12 months for defamation or late payment of insurance claims, to six years for claims relating to some types of contracts, and to 15 years for cases involving negligence. That is where this type of case sits.
Shaun Bailey
My right hon. Friend will also be aware that it is possible, in the course of litigation, to make an application for those periods to be disregarded in the event that it can be proven to the tribunal that there are circumstances that make it possible to do so. Notwithstanding the conversations that we have had in Committee on the cost of litigation, does he agree that there are avenues by which that limitation period can, in extreme circumstances, be extended?
Christopher Pincher
I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in terms of the Limitation Act 1980, rather than the Building Safety Bill.
Mike Amesbury
On counter-litigation under the Human Rights Act, will the Minister elaborate on that scenario and the right to private property?
Christopher Pincher
I am not a lawyer and I cannot second-guess why an individual might choose to go to court using one particular Act of Parliament to defend themselves against another. However, we know that the Human Rights Act is cross-cutting. In any legislation that we scrutinise, we see reference to the Human Rights Act in its annexes. All I suggest to the Committee is that the longer the retrospective limitation period, the greater the chance that individuals may choose to go to court and test the legislation under the Human Rights Act.
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to subsection (3), which provides that the clause will be commenced automatically two months after Royal Assent. That will be the date from which the extended limitation period is calculated, including the retrospective period for action under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
The Chair
I apologise, Minister, for my inappropriate limitation on your intervention. As a pre-’69 person, my levels of concentration are not what they should be, I suspect.
Mike Amesbury
I suspect that we will probably come back to this subject on Report, perhaps in a different form of amendment. I thank the Minister for his detailed and considered response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Establishment of the new homes ombudsman scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 128 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 129 stand part.
Eddie Hughes
This is an exciting day for me. I hope that the Committee will indulge me briefly while I refer back to my time as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on excellence in the built environment. Our report seeking better redress for homebuyers came just a year after I became an MP, working with the Government and hoping to enjoin them to create a new homes ombudsman—so, an exciting day.
The Government are committed to improving redress for new build homebuyers and improving the quality of new build homes. The clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that a new homes ombudsman is—finally, I might say—established in England. The clause should be read alongside clause 128, which sets out the conditions that must be met for the new homes ombudsman scheme.
There is no existing provision in legislation for purchasers of new build homes to complain to an ombudsman or redress scheme. The new homes ombudsman is intended to provide clearer and more comprehensive means of redress when problems arise. It will provide a place for new build homebuyers to go with complaints, and it will be able to undertake objective determinations based on its investigations. By creating a trusted independent redress system that is easily accessible, we can drive up performance and create a better housing market.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd? Have the Government considered extending the new homes ombudsman provisions to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Eddie Hughes
Regardless of where in the UK people live, it is important that they have access to the redress that we have set out in the Bill. Discussions are ongoing with the devolved nations, because housing is a devolved matter and so it is for them to determine. Those negotiations seem to be going well, and the feeling seems to be warm, so we may have to return to the matter at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill.
The arrangements are flexible to ensure that the best provider can establish and maintain the service. The scheme will be free for homebuyers and is intended to be funded by fees that are paid by the scheme’s members. However, should it be necessary, the clause provides the power to give financial assistance to a person for the establishment and maintenance of the scheme.
Shaun Bailey
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the provisions will allow the new ombudsman scheme to work effectively with other ombudsmen and redress schemes to maximise its impact for affected residents?
Eddie Hughes
Schedule 8 allows the scheme to include provision about a person exercising functions under the new homes ombudsman scheme, and it allows them to do so jointly with persons exercising functions from other redress schemes. It is important that we make it possible to work collaboratively. That may include the making of joint determinations by the new homes ombudsman and an independent person making determinations under another redress scheme. We are considering whether amendments may be required further to facilitate joint determinations and other forms of co-operation between the new homes ombudsman and other ombudsmen or redress schemes. I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and it is something we are considering.
Clause 128 relates to the conditions that the new homes ombudsman scheme must meet under clause 127, and it sets out who can make a complaint to the scheme. The clause requires the scheme to be open to all developers to join as members so that qualifying complainants can escalate complaints about the scheme’s members. A qualifying complainant is a person who, at the time of the complaint, is a relevant owner of a new build home in England. The scheme is given the flexibility to set out other persons who can complain about the scheme’s members.
Schedule 8 details the other provisions that the scheme must or may include. This includes provision on which matters may be complained about; how complaints are to be made, investigated, determined and enforced; and complaints about the scheme itself. The scheme must also contain certain provisions required by schedule 8, such as the procedure for developers to become and remain members of the scheme.
To avoid duplication, the scheme may provide that the ombudsman will not be required to investigate and determine complaints that are dealt with under another redress scheme, or complaints that are subject to legal proceedings. The scheme may make provision about working with another redress scheme.
The scheme will require developers to provide complainants with redress if a complaint is well founded. This includes the ombudsman requiring the scheme members to provide compensation, make an apology, provide an explanation or take such other action in the interests of the complainant as the new homes ombudsman may specify. The scheme may also include provision about how the ombudsman’s determination will be enforced. This may include provision for the ombudsman to request a member to take action and, where a developer does not meet its requirements, the scheme may as a last resort include the expulsion of a member from the scheme. In such cases, provision must be made for how they can then rejoin the scheme.
Ian Byrne
I thank the Minister for giving way, and it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The independence of the scheme is critical and the Minister has not really outlined the make-up of the ombudsman, and how people will be able to have confidence in it. I will keep going back to the culture change point because if the ombudsman is seen as reputable and upstanding, people will have confidence in it. Culture change can then derive from the ombudsman. I welcome the scheme, but I would like a bit more clarity on who will sit on the ombudsman. The explanatory notes say that the scheme could also select a third party to be established to run it, so may we have some clarity on that point, too?
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree with the premise of his point, which is that that independence needs to be present in such a way that those making complaints can have confidence in it. The scheme could be set up in a number of ways. For example, it would be possible for it to be done in-house so that the Government have tighter control of it, or it could be done by another party. With the New Homes Quality Board, a shadow version is being constituted at the moment. We will be able to see further details on that, but there is no presumption that the shadow board would become the final board once the Bill is passed into law. We will be able to get some indication of how the scheme will work by looking at the workings of the shadow board, and details are available for that, but as I say it will be for the Secretary of State to determine in what form it continues to ensure that there is the confidence that the hon. Gentleman so rightly says is important.
Ruth Cadbury
May I ask the Minister a question on another aspect of the scheme? It is a voluntary scheme, so I believe that for the developers it is voluntary whether they join or not. Can he clarify that point, and if that is correct, what is the redress for leaseholders and other affected parties in blocks developed by developers that are not voluntary members of the scheme?
Eddie Hughes
I apologise if there was any ambiguity in the point that I was making. Housebuilders will have to be a member of the scheme, so if they do not comply with the scheme requirements and are therefore rejected from it, that will effectively prevent them from developing in the future, and that is why we are making provision for them to rejoin subsequently.
Ruth Cadbury
May I get absolute clarification? Is the default that all developers of defined blocks are members of the ombudsman scheme, unless they are excluded? Is that correct?
Eddie Hughes
The purpose of the ombudsman is not only to resolve complaints but to drive up standards of quality. Therefore, the scheme must include provision for the making of recommendations by the ombudsman to improve widespread or regular unacceptable standards of conduct or quality of work by the scheme’s members. Additionally, the scheme must include provision about the provision of information to the Secretary of State and reports on the operation of the scheme. The clause sets out a comprehensive framework for an effective ombudsman scheme that will afford homebuyers substantially more protection and redress than they currently receive.
The new homes ombudsman scheme will allow new build homebuyers to complain to the new homes ombudsman about a developer for up to two years following the purchase of a home from a developer. Clause 129 provides definitions which determine who may complain to the new homes ombudsman, and a definition of a developer, who the Government can require to belong to the ombudsman scheme. The definition of developer includes those constructing new homes and converting existing buildings into new homes, so that complaints about developers of converted homes under permitted development rights, or those creating additional homes from larger buildings with the intention to dispose, sell or grant them to someone else, can be required to become scheme members and subject to the scheme’s rules under clause 130. I hope that offers the hon. Lady some reassurance. Clause 129 also includes a power to include an additional description of a developer, which could include organisations connected to developers.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for the explanation, and his enthusiasm for the creation of the new homes ombudsman scheme, which by his admittance he has rightly argued for in principle since before coming to this place as a Member of Parliament. In principle, the new homes ombudsman is a good thing, though some Committee members have raised concerns and advocated for ensuring that it will be truly independent. I think new build homes have an average of 157 snags at the moment. We will all be familiar from our casework, regardless of where we represent in Britain, that this is a big and very live issue. I would hope that the ombudsman will change the landscape.
On the New Homes Quality Board, which is operating as a shadow board at the moment, sits Jennie Daly, a group director of Taylor Wimpey. The board has representatives of housebuilders and the finance sector, and the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) is the independent chair. I can think of examples in my constituency of Taylor Wimpey homes that have considerable snags and are what we call leaky homes. The 19 million leaky homes that are not properly insulated have been constructed with gas boilers, fossil fuels and the rest of it. All of them will need to be retrofitted and a number have snags. In fact, there is one such development that will probably go forward in the Sandymoor and Daresbury part of my constituency, on former farmers’ fields, despite all the rhetoric that we hear in this place. I would hope that they will not be leaky homes, full of snags. It is very important that those on the shadow board take things forward in future.
On the reassurance about independence, if someone is part of the club, whether they be Taylor Wimpey or another housebuilder, they are paying for that service. Then the complaint goes from our constituents—our residents—to the ombudsman. I have real concerns about the checks and balances, and the independence. The Minister mentioned that there are various models to take it forward. It could be done in-house or at arm’s length as a Government agency. That would certainly by the Opposition’s preference, via a principle, to ensure that checks and balances are hardwired into the process. In principle, we welcome the new homes ombudsman, which is very much needed, but we already have concerns about the evolution of the process, if we look at the shadow board.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing some of his casework for us to consider. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned the demise of the role of the clerk of works. I started life as a civil engineer but then moved into building site management for housing projects. At that time, we would have had a clerk of works whose job it was solely to monitor the progress of the work and ensure that it complied with the relevant standards. With cost-cutting and other things, we no longer have that, but thanks to the clause and the prospect of the new homes ombudsman, the industry has bought into the concept that quality has to rise and that people will be held more accountable in future.
On the point that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale made regarding the number of snags in a property, we will all have seen that. A comparison that has been made previously is that someone has more rights if they buy a faulty kettle than if they buy a faulty home that has minor problems that do not qualify under the National House Building Council regulation. They do not have something such as subsidence; they just have niggly problems. The developer has taken the money and perhaps trades are no longer on site, and the buyer wants to see those things addressed.
I genuinely think that we will see the industry taking quality much more seriously than they might have previously, particularly with that line of accountability coming back to Parliament. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have reservations about members of the shadow board. We need to draw the sector into the programme and get them bought into the idea that we will raise quality. I do not think that this Secretary of State or any future one would want to be associated with a product that was not delivering for the public, so they will ensure that that confidence remains.
Mike Amesbury
One of the roles that the ombudsman will be charged with will be dealing with rogue builders. What would happen if one of the members of the board seemed to be classed as a rogue builder? How would the checks and balances be assured going forward?
Eddie Hughes
Such a complex question may be outwith the coverage of the Bill; however, it would be beholden on the Secretary of State to ensure that the process was managed appropriately. Given that the scheme allows for builders who are not complying with the code to be ejected from the ability to develop, I am sure that the opportunity would be there for us to deal with members of the board appropriately. If we can chuck a builder out of the scheme, I am sure that we can deal with a member of the board.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 10, page 13, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 10, page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
Amendment 90, in clause 10, page 13, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
Amendment 91, in clause 10, page 13, line 19, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
Amendment 92, in clause 10, page 13, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Amendment 93, in clause 10, page 13, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Amendment 94, in clause 10, page 13, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Amendment 95, in clause 10, page 13, line 30, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms McDonagh. I will also speak to the other amendments in the group.
We have now come to one of the most fundamental clauses of one of the most fundamental parts of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East and I set out on Second Reading, we regard both as totally outrageous. In essence, the avowed policy aim is to give the Secretary of State powers to treat certain refugees dreadfully in order to deter others from coming to this country. I find it extraordinary just to be saying that.
Over the course of this debate and the three to follow, we will ask lots of questions in the hope that the Minister will explain a little more what the Government intend to do with these extraordinary powers. We will also challenge the legal policy and, indeed, the ethical basis. We will make the case that in fact the clause will make the asylum system worse, not better. To all intents and purposes, the measure is an attempt to close the asylum system down to a large degree.
There are all sorts of problems with the asylum system: 70,000 asylum applicants were waiting for a decision as of June 2021, more than three quarters of them outstanding for longer than six months. Work has to be done to fix the system, but this measure is not what is required. In fact, as I said, the clause will make it worse.
Most of the broad discussion will take place in the stand part debate; the amendments are designed more to get the Government to flesh out exactly what they want to do with the powers. In doing so, as on Second Reading, I will speak about the implications for a Uyghur asylum seeker, a Syrian asylum seeker and a persecuted Christian seeking asylum, because I want to ensure that the Home Office is tested on its assertion now, and later on Windrush, that it is looking at the face behind the case—it is important to keep in mind who we are talking about. The clause will be particularly disastrous, allowing the Secretary of State almost to punish the individual, to make an example of them, as a form of deterrence.
Of the amendments in the group, amendments 88 and 93 would remove the power to grant so-called group 2 refugees and their families shorter periods of leave to enter or remain. Currently, refugees receive five years’ leave before becoming eligible for settlement. Nothing in the Bill or the explanatory notes tells us what the Government intend to do with the powers. The new plan talks vaguely of no longer than 30 months, with continual assessments thereafter of potential return to a country of origin or of removal to another safe country. My first question is, what is the Government’s proposal? Is it 30 months or, as dreadful as that prospect is, is it worse? Will it be a shorter period?
That is my first question, but the key point is that reducing leave to 30 months or less will have dreadful consequences for our three refugees. Having fled serious persecution, having endured a dreadful journey and having survived six months or more of going through the tortuous inadmissibility procedure—perhaps even an asylum claim—within an accommodation centre, our refugees require stability, a sense of home and the possibility of putting down roots, finding work and rebuilding their lives. All that is being taken away if the powers in the Bill are used as proposed in the new plan.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman describe a person who has come directly to the UK from France as a person escaping persecution? If so, will he describe the sort of persecution that that person might have experienced in France?
Stuart C. McDonald
That point was made repeatedly on Second Reading, but the big problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that the language of the Bill itself recognises that such people are refugees. The Uyghur is clearly fleeing persecution, the Syrian is fleeing persecution by the Assad regime and the persecuted Christian is fleeing persecution. A refugee does not cease to be a refugee because he has gone on to a different country. We will come to a different debate under clause 14 on the circumstances in which it might sometimes be legitimate for a state to say, “Actually, you are in France and it would be appropriate for France to assess your asylum claim.” I am not saying that is never permissible—far from it—but we will have that debate on clause 14.
The people we are talking about here, however, have been through all that. The Home Office has attempted to move them to France or another country, it has not had any success in doing so and they have been recognised as refugees, so the question is how we treat those three people.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that those who purport to demand that France take more asylum seekers need to be mindful of the fact that France already takes three times as many asylum seekers as the UK, and that we need to meet our international obligations rather than seeking to demand that others take more of a share than we are taking?
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly why the Government are embarking on a dangerous slippery slope. If the case is that the UK cannot cope with the number of asylum claims that have been made here, which I do not think can remotely be the case, because it is not a remarkable number in the grand scheme of things over the past 25 or 30 years, and therefore we need to take all these steps, then clearly France and Germany and Italy will all be perfectly entitled by that same logic to do the same thing. When that chain of dominoes finishes up and we get to Lebanon and Pakistan, the countries neighbouring the countries where these people have been persecuted, the whole system of international protection falls apart.
Returning to the point I was making about how reducing the period of leave will be fundamentally detrimental to people’s ability to put down roots, to integrate and to feel part of UK society, I wanted to finish by saying that the VOICES Network, people who know the asylum system first-hand, in their response to the new plan consultation remarked that the proposal would
“perpetuate the insecurity and uncertainty of the lives of these people with damaging implications for their mental health.”
I think they are absolutely right.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. How many people does the Home Office anticipate will fall into this group in the first years of the policy? What impact does he believe the policy will have on the mental health, employment prospects and levels of integration for refugees such as a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian? It seems apparent to me that the measures will undermine all that. What will happen to children? What will the cost implications be for the local authorities and health services that are supporting them?
Similar moves in Australia have had exactly the impact I am talking about. As the Australian Human Rights Commission reported in 2019:
“Uncertainty about their future, the inability to make long-term plans and the stress associated with having to reapply for protection (including the anticipatory distress of potentially being returned to the country from which they had fled) caused significant distress and anxiety amongst TPV holders, hampered their capacity to recover from past trauma and resulted in poorer settlement outcomes.”
The Australian Red Cross said that
“temporary protection institutionalises uncertainty, and often poverty, amplifying pre-existing trauma and suspending the process of settling into a new country.”
I have no reason to think that that will not be the fate of the Uyghur, the Syrian or the persecuted Christian if these provisions are enforced for them. That, unfortunately, appears to be exactly what the Government want to achieve, and that is the shame of the whole policy.
On the other side of the coin, given the record delays and problems in processing asylum claims that the Home Office already faces, why on earth do we want to require the Home Office to process the same cases and applicants over and over again over a 10-year period, adding exponentially to caseworker workloads? Can the Minister confirm what exactly the review process will entail? What will be the targeting for these decisions? What happens to refugees whose 30 months or less have expired while they were waiting? How many additional decisions does the Home Office anticipate it will have to make from the third year onwards, and how many extra staff will that require? This is not only disastrous for asylum seekers, but pretty bad news for Home Office caseworkers.
Amendments 89 and 94 would remove the Secretary of State’s right to punish a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian by denying them indefinite leave to remain on the same basis as other refugees. That settlement provides the ultimate safety and security and is currently available after five years. Again, the Bill does not say what the Government’s intentions are with this power, but it is understood that they propose 10 years of short-term visas before settlement would become available. Can the Minister confirm precisely how the Secretary of State intends to use these powers? What else will be required of a refugee at the 10-year stage? Will there be a fee? What tests will we require to be met? These arguments are similar to those I made for amendments 88 and 93, so I will not repeat them. The key point is the same: instead of offering security, integration and the opportunity to rebuild their lives, the Syrian, the Uyghur and the persecuted Christian have been faced with uncertainty, re-traumatisation, stress and anxiety.
Amendments 90 and 95 are designed to remove the Secretary of State’s power to impoverish these three asylum seeker groups. The power would see universal credit, child benefit and local authority homelessness assistance among the crucial safety nets torn away from them. The explanatory notes say that the power will not be applied in cases of destitution. Minister, if the power must be kept, why not put that in the Bill? Fundamentally, how will it work, and how will it be assessed? Especially after months and years of being excluded from work, refugees will be destitute from the point that they are recognised. Will it happen automatically? How will the Secretary of State review that? How much more work will that entail for Home Office staff?
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these amendments play into the business model of the people smugglers in that they would discourage people from claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach, tempting them to make the hazardous journey in a non-seaworthy craft across the channel, feeding into the organised criminals who prey on those poor vulnerable people?
Stuart C. McDonald
I have absolutely no problem with measures that go after the people smugglers. We all share the goal of disrupting their model. We draw the line at punishing the victims and going after them in an attempt to disrupt and undermine people smuggling. First, I find that morally indefensible. Secondly, as I will come to later, there is no evidence that it will work.
Neil Coyle
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which is twofold? First, the best way to tackle the people smugglers is to provide safe routes, because then they are denied the chance to smuggle people to begin with. Secondly, a Xinjiang Muslim who faces forced sterilisation and forced labour is not going to be aware of UK law and what status they enter under. It is complete nonsense to think that refugees and asylum seekers fleeing persecution and torture are going to be aware of UK law, whatever goes into the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman makes two points. Yes, safe legal routes can and will make an impact. If people have safe legal routes, they do not need to turn to people smugglers. The Government acknowledge this when they speak about the safe legal routes they support.
There are various other measures we have to take. Our intelligence and police and security forces need to do everything they can to interrupt these networks. It is about international co-operation, including with France, as the Minister alluded to at Home Office questions on Monday. We support those measures, but we do not support deliberately impoverishing the Syrian, the Uyghur and the persecuted Christian and denying them universal credit, homelessness assistance or the child benefit that other citizens in this country get if they need it. I will come back to that in the clause stand part debate.
The Home Office knows this. It did research 20 years ago. If it has done any more since, it is not published. There is no evidence to show that people sit down with a nice table comparing family reunion rights and asylum procedures in all the different countries and then say, “Let’s go for that one.” They come here for a whole host of reasons. Many go to other countries for a whole host of reasons—language, family links, the influence of people smugglers, or they may have a friend or colleague here. Perhaps they just identify with the culture. There are myriad reasons why people end up in France or the United Kingdom, but it is not for these reasons. That is why these provisions will not work.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the other reasons people come to the UK is that the payment to the people smugglers is only the deposit and the main payment is through modern slavery, forced labour or other ways in which those people are being exploited when they get here? Often, for example, Vietnamese people coming here are put into prostitution or nail bars and that type of work. That is why they want to get here, because that is the business deal. They come here to work in the black economy.
Stuart C. McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman fairly describes the circumstances that many find themselves in and it is another policy route that I would be fully behind. In this country, we are way behind where we need to be. We have statutes on the book and we will come to modern slavery later, but some of the measures in part 4 of the Bill will undermine the Home Office’s good work on modern slavery from just a few years ago, which the right hon. Gentleman was part of. Even with those statutes on the book, the system for inspection and finding where this is happening is just not up to scratch. The national referral mechanism takes forever to make decisions. The way it has been implemented is not effective at all; in fact, it is a boon to people traffickers and people who undertake exploitation. So yes, I am happy to support any work that addresses those concerns.
Amendments 91 and 92 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to strip the Syrian, Uyghur or persecuted Christian of their right to family reunion—the right of the Secretary of State to keep their families split apart. Under current law, having been recognised as a refugee, they could apply for reunion with their spouse or partner and with children under 18. For years, parliamentarians across the House have been pushing for broader family reunion rights and it is only a few years since Parliament voted in favour of the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) promoted on the subject. It is another crucial building block in allowing refugees to rebuild their lives, as that Bill recognised.
The Government say it is all about safe legal routes, but this is pretty much the only place where the Bill says anything about them, and now it seems the Government intend to reduce family reunion rights. The crucial question for the Government is simply: is that correct? How will they use the power? Will they prevent spouses and partners from being reunited? Are they going to prevent children from reuniting with a parent? Family reunion is probably the most pivotal safe legal route there is to safety in the UK and it is all the more imperative because without the safe legal route, it seems obvious that the most likely people to try to come here via unsafe routes are those who have family members here.
With around 6,000 family reunion visas issued every year over the past five years, let us also be clear that around 90% are issued to women and children. The real danger is that any restrictions will ultimately mean that many more women and children end up on the boats in the channel or taking other unsafe routes. The danger here is that the Government do the opposite of what they say they intend, and drive people into the arms of the smugglers the Bill is designed to foil.
Again, that is what the Australian experience tends to show us. The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law notes that after temporary protection visas were introduced,
“there was an increase in the number of women and children who arrived in Australia by boat. According to personal accounts, this was because the TPV regime precluded family reunion. The ineffectiveness of TPVs is the very reason that they were abolished by the Rudd Government.”
Instead, we should do what my hon. Friend’s Bill would have done: expand rules to allow adult children and siblings up to 25 and make other changes. That would reduce the numbers in boats.
In conclusion, all the examples of discrimination in the Bill are just that: examples. The Bill is drafted so as to leave the Secretary of State’s power to discriminate completely and utterly unconstrained. That is pretty shocking. While the amendments test the Government on their intentions in relation to those particular subjects, it is also important to know that the Secretary of State could plan all sorts of other forms of discrimination. Can the Minister clarify what other methods of discrimination the Secretary of State is contemplating?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everybody. The Government say they are introducing this Bill because they want people who need our protection to use safe and legal routes, but where are those routes? Where in the world and where in the Bill are they? On several occasions, the Minister has made it sound as if this Bill is all about those safe and legal routes, but it is not, because there is no provision for them and they are barely even mentioned.
I have heard those of us who oppose what the Bill does characterised as wanting people to make those dangerous journeys. Of course we do not want that. Our solution is the safe and legal routes that we keep hearing about but not have. They need to be set up and promoted, and people need to be able to use them. One of the safer legal routes that does exist, and is the most likely to be used, is the family reunion route, but this Bill takes that away from people who do not arrive by the mode of transport or in the way that the Government want them to.
Turning to amendment 91, I want to use the example of somebody from Afghanistan, which will also speak to amendment 15. I am using the examples of people, or their family members or friends, who I represent—I know that we were all inundated with requests from people in our constituencies who needed help for people in Afghanistan.
Mr L worked for a British charity in a programme funded by the UK Government around preventing violence against women. He has made an application for relocation, but he has heard absolutely nothing and I cannot get him any information. He and his wife had to go into hiding because his family was being targeted. The Taliban have already made threats against his wife, who, like him, is just 22 years old. The Taliban got messages to her that she will be raped multiple times if they can find her. His father has already been kidnapped by the Taliban and has been tortured by them. Who knows what will become of him?
Mr L’s wife has had such a severe mental breakdown that he had to make the decision to send her to what he hopes is a safe house in Afghanistan, as he thinks he has more chance of securing relocation for him and his wife if at least one of them can get out of Afghanistan. He is now paying illegal traffickers to get him out because he is so desperate to get this situation resolved and is hearing nothing, and weeks and months have gone by. Of course the traffickers are wrong, but is he wrong? Is he wrong to pay them? If he is wrong, what should he do instead? What options have we given him? I do not want him to do this. As an MP, I am not in a position to give him any kind of legal advice, and I know this is not safe for him to do. Does the Minister want me to go back to him and say that, despite all the promises we made to the people of Afghanistan, I do not have options to offer him?
I want to quote a couple of things that were said by Conservative MPs in August, when everything escalated in Afghanistan. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) said:
“There is something we can do right now: cut through bureaucracy and ensure that we look after every single Afghani who took risks for themselves and their families because they believed in a better future and trusted us to deliver it.”—[Official Report, 18 August 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1307.]
I am sure we all agreed with that at the time. The right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) said:
“Like the Home Secretary, let me just say that, as the son of a refugee, I am deeply proud that this Government are continuing the big-hearted tradition of the British people in offering safe haven to those fleeing persecution.”—[Official Report, 18 August 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1370.]
The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby gave a welcome from the Scarborough community and talked about
“refugees who had left, in many cases with nothing more than the shirts on their backs. They will have gone through a very traumatic process to even get to the airport and now they have arrived in Scarborough. For many people, the consequences of not getting out of the country would be certain death.”
So, I know he completely understands the trauma that people are going through and their desperation.
That was in August and we are now in October. The people I am talking about are no less desperate—they are more desperate—and I do not know what to say to them. I will have to tell Mr L that if he somehow manages to have his wife looked after, while she tries to recover her mental health, and he manages to get here, he could be offshored, sent away or jailed. He may never see his wife again because we will take away the right to family reunion. That cannot be right.
The people of Afghanistan are desperate—I have read out only a few of the quotes, but I know that all members of the Committee understand that. Time is just not on their side, so we must remove the provision—I would remove all of it. I ask the Committee to support amendment 15, at least to remove those consequences for the people coming from Afghanistan, to whom we absolutely owe safe refuge.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Lady accept that the 242 Afghan refugees who are temporarily in Scarborough before being relocated around the country came here by safe and legal routes? I am sure that when the Minister responds, he will explain how we can set up different, and better, legal routes to get some of those vulnerable people here. That must not be done by feeding into the people-smuggling industry.
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely endorse the ambition for everyone to be able to get here by safe and legal routes, but nothing in the Bill will set up any safe and legal routes. In fact, they will be taken away from some people.
We should be doing that, but we will never be in a position where everybody is able to access safe and legal routes. We will never be in a position where everybody who is entitled to claim asylum can access it, and we should not be punishing them if they cannot. Right now, there are 242 people in Scarborough, but how many thousands more are there in Afghanistan? They need to get out. If they feel that their lives are at risk and they cannot stay any longer, but they can only get here by their own means—I would rather they came by the Government’s means, but nothing is happening there—I could not say to them, hand on heart, that they should just stay where they are.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
To respond to the earlier intervention, does the hon. Lady recognise that people from Afghanistan are currently one of the four largest national groups risking their lives on channel crossings?
Anne McLaughlin
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. For me, it is wider than that: Afghanistan just showed us what is happening throughout the world. It may have been escalated and was very intense at the time, but things like that happen throughout the world. Right now, people from Afghanistan are coming over by boat, and honestly—I am looking at the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, but I should really be looking at the Minister—I do not think that anyone can morally justify telling those people that they face jail or offshoring, and that they may never see their families again because of new rules that we are introducing.
Mr Goodwill
Nobody doubts anyone in this Parliament on their compassion or their feeling for people who are in very vulnerable situations. We should not agree, however, on the route that the hon. Lady is almost advocating—using people smugglers—which is, in effect, means-testing the refugee process so that only those who have the money to pay the people smugglers can come, not the people who are perhaps most vulnerable and most likely to be suffering persecution. Indeed, the gender balance favours men, who seem to be the ones who get here by illegal routes, and not women, who are the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan.
Anne McLaughlin
I do not know where to start with that. I take real exception to what the right hon. Gentleman said about my endorsement of people smugglers and those routes. I have been very clear that we do not want anyone to use people smugglers. I have given the Committee an example of somebody’s experience, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me what that man should do. His wife is seriously ill and is being looked after following a mental breakdown, because the Taliban told her that many of them will rape her multiple times if they catch her. How desperate would any of us be in that situation? I am not endorsing people smugglers in any way, and I wish he would take back that remark, because it is very unfair.
Another thing I want to mention, as I have a number of times in this place, is the gender balance. To say that men are not vulnerable is just not true. Often, men seek asylum because they would otherwise be conscripted into the army or tortured. I know many male asylum seekers who faced torture or conscription and had to flee. The other reason that more men come over is that they are coming to safety so they can then send for their family. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, all the measure will achieve is that women and children will come with the men and make that dangerous journey as well. He said something else that, if I remember, I will come back to later
Mr Goodwill
I was not suggesting that the hon. Lady was advocating people smuggling, but unfortunately the law of unintended consequences comes into play. Taking Syrian families under our vulnerable persons resettlement scheme was the right way to proceed. None of the people I visited in refugee camps in Jordan had the means to pay people smugglers. In many ways, it is a means-tested operation if the route used by people smugglers is perceived to be of equal standing to legal and lawful routes, like those by which we took people from Afghanistan and took the people chosen by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in refugee camps in Syria.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I remind the hon. Lady of the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier point. Unfortunately, the abhorrent models of people smuggling result in people coming to this country who are locked into debt relating to their journey. It is not as simple as saying it is means tested. There are lots of unfortunate arrangements in that model, which we all want to end, but safe and legal routes will be how we achieve that.
Anne McLaughlin
Exactly. I thank the hon. Member for saying that. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby argues that those who have money are not vulnerable or in danger of persecution. In the case of the 22-year-old I was talking about, I have no idea how much money the couple have. They may be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams, but that does not stop her being under threat of multiple rapes by the Taliban. The money is a bit of a red herring.
Often, a vulnerable young man will pay the people smugglers with money gathered by the wider family selling property, because they need somebody to get out and get help for the whole family. We cannot assume that they have the money in the first place, or that they are not clocking up a debt that they will have to pay back, or that the fact of having money will make any difference to their safety.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the effect of my opposition to the proposal leads to people not using safe and legal routes. He says that he is not saying that I am endorsing the people smugglers, but equally, I could say that his refusal to push his Government to set up safe and legal routes before bringing in any other legislation is a case of him endorsing people smugglers. What other option do people have? Now, I am not saying that, but I hope he takes my point.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The hon. Lady is misrepresenting the point my right hon. Friend made. He was not in any way suggesting that those with wealth cannot be vulnerable, but it cannot possibly sit comfortably with people who describe themselves as socialist to suggest that there should be channels that are, in effect, available only to those with substantial wealth, on a scale different from much of the rest of the vulnerable population.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to intervene, but I think we have to stop reinterpreting what the last person to speak said. We are all quite clear that no one in this room supports people traffickers. We should move on.
Anne McLaughlin
Thank you, Ms McDonagh. That was a rather ridiculous intervention, so I was unsure whether to reply to it.
Neil Coyle
As UK law stands, an Afghan who had dared to work for and with the UK, protect the UK, in the past 20 years or so—perhaps as a guard at the embassy in Kabul—and who feared the threat to their family of the Taliban takeover so much that they gave their child to the US to evacuate from the country, cannot come into the UK under the family reunion visa. Perhaps one thing that we can agree on, and that the Minister could include in the Bill, is an extension of the family reunion visa beyond spouses and dependants.
Anne McLaughlin
I would absolutely support that. I had no intention of speaking for any more than five minutes, but Members keep on interrupting and goading me. I want to make two more little points, if I may. The Bill is being brought in because there is a mistaken belief that asylum seekers across the world are desperate to get to the UK. I am not sure why they would be if they ever watch parliamentlive.tv, but the fact is that most people coming to Europe as a whole think that Europe is one homogenous place. They do not think in terms of countries. This is not anecdotal; studies have been done on people who come to live here. Similarly, people often think that Africa is a country, when it is more than 50 countries.
Asylum seekers are not looking to go to a particular country. If they choose to come to the UK, it is perhaps because they have family or friends here, which is hugely important, or because they speak the language. They do not speak French or German, but they do speak English and do have family here. Imagine the turmoil when people’s city is bombed. They do not recognise the streets any more, and they do not know where their family are. They know that they could be raped, tortured or murdered at any moment. Imagine the trauma from that. People know that they have to get away. Of course they do not want to leave, but they have to do so. We should all think about that happening to us. We are so lucky that it will probably never happen to us. If it did, we would want to be with people who made us feel safe. If someone has family or friends in the UK, they should be able to join them. Yes, that is a pull factor, as is the language. There is also a mistaken belief that the great British empire was all-welcoming, all-democratic and all-supportive of human rights, which is another reason why people come to the UK.
The truth is that most people who arrive by boat have not decided that they are coming here; the smugglers have decided it. As my Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, we should be targeting the smugglers, not their victims. We should take away their market, and the only way to do that is to provide the safe and legal routes on which we apparently all agree. But where are they?
I will make one more point, which is about France. We have established that, under the international legislation that the UK played a major role in developing, there is no requirement to claim asylum in the first so-called safe country that somebody arrives in. However, it is important to understand why someone fleeing persecution, and probably suffering from mental health impacts such as post-traumatic stress disorder, might not want to claim asylum in France—I am using France as an example. Why would an asylum seeker choose to make a dangerous crossing? As I said, most people are not choosing; the people smugglers are choosing. Why might they choose to make a dangerous channel crossing, when they could claim asylum in France? I have spoken about the fact that people do not choose their route, but it is well established that the asylum system in France has a reputation for being harsh. I know there are Members present who like the idea of harshness, but we do not.
A 2020 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights condemned France for inhumane living conditions for asylum seekers. Having spent a few days with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in the jungle in Calais a few years ago, I saw exactly what the court meant. France might take in many more people than we do in the UK—I believe that we do not treat asylum seekers as well as we should do when they arrive here, and we certainly will not do so if the Bill passes—but France is not where I would want to be if I needed international protection, especially if I had to recover from trauma.
Even during the pandemic last year, when we all agreed that there should be a break in evictions and that everyone should have a roof over their head, asylum seekers sleeping in tents in France where thrown out of their tents and tear-gassed, no doubt triggering terrible memories for many of them. When I was in the jungle, parents there told me that their children no longer played in the little playpark nearby because far-right activists set off fireworks to terrify them, and terrify them it did, as these kids fled, thinking that they were being bombed again.
In addition, the housing situation for asylum seekers in France has only got worse, with asylum seekers such as Hussain, interviewed by the New Humanitarian in April, being forced to sleep rough on the streets of Paris over a year after he submitted his application. The French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights went so far as to say:
“It is true that the conditions in France make people want to leave”.
Nicolas De Sa-Pallix, a French asylum lawyer, condemned the French Government’s approach, and his words should act as a warning for Government Members:
“They talk about being both humane and tough in migration policies, but these don’t go together…You can’t have both.”
I agree, so why not just respond to the plight of these people, facing things that none of us will ever have to face, with humanity?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
We have heard two excellent speeches, and the Opposition totally support the position of the Scottish National party.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for all their hard work in this area, and for their engaging speeches. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of their contributions. Nobody should be in any doubt about the sincerity of the deeply felt views expressed by all Members of this House, who I genuinely believe want to see appropriate action to tackle dangerous channel crossings. I wanted to make that point at the outset, because it is important to remember that in the context of today’s debate.
As hon. Members will know, the clauses that they seek to amend are crucial to the Government’s intention to uphold the first safe country of asylum principle. In that respect, the clauses are designed to deter dangerous journeys across Europe by no longer treating migrants who come directly to the UK and claim without delay in the same way as those who do not. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must do everything in our power to stop people putting their lives in the hands of smugglers and making extremely perilous journeys across the channel.
Stuart C. McDonald
I echo what the Minister says: everybody present wants to see an end to such crossings. He used the word “migrants” a couple of times, but as the Bill reflects we are talking about people who have gone through the refugee process. They are refugees, and it is very important that in this debate we speak about the fact that this is happening to refugees—hence the term “group 2 refugee”.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I will take amendments 88 to 95 in one go, as they individually seek to remove key constituent parts of clause 10 in order to prevent the exercise of the powers to differentiate. That is not the effect of the amendments as drafted, but I shall none the less assume that the intent is as I just set out. Hon. Members are no doubt familiar by now with the way in which the policy is proposed to operate. For the avoidance of doubt, though, clause 10 provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of where differential treatment may be applied to group 2 refugees—in other words, those who do not meet the requirements set out in clause 10, which are based on criteria set out in article 31 of the refugee convention. That includes in relation to the length of leave issued, requirements to achieve settlement, recourse to public funds and family reunion rights.
As mentioned, the clause is extremely important because it acts on our commitment to do everything that we can to deter people from making dangerous journeys to the UK at the hands of smugglers, when they could claim asylum in a safe third country. I will pick up on a number of important points that were made, as it is right to provide clarification on them.
First, the question was raised of how the Secretary of State intends to use these powers. As we talked about in relation to the earlier provisions in the Bill, this will be set out in the normal way in the immigration rules and guidance in due course.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is seeking to reintroduce a system that the UK has used before. In the 1930s, German Jews who had reached these shores were, in some cases, sent back if they had been through other countries. Famously, in one case, Jewish brothers who were deported back to Belgium went on to be murdered by the Nazis. Why are the Government seeking to turn back the clock with such potentially disastrous consequences? Why is the Minister not more proud of the British tradition and of the British contribution to creating the refugee convention?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. What I am proud of is this country’s long-standing tradition of doing right by those fleeing persecution from around the world. That is a proud tradition in this country, and something that I think Members on both sides of this House can agree on. It is something that this Government remain absolutely committed to. We are very clear that people should come here utilising safe and legal routes. That is the right way to come into this country.
Tom Pursglove
Let me just make this point, because I am conscious of the comparisons that the hon. Member sought to draw to the 1930s. We are, again, very clear—I say this for the record—that we do not return people to countries where they would be in danger.
Tom Pursglove
I have not accepted the intervention. I would like to finish the point that I was making. We are very clear that we do not return people to countries where their return would put them in danger. Of course, we also look at cases on a case-by-case basis.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way, but I have made this point, and I am very clear about it.
Neil Coyle
The Minister can say it as clearly as he wants. The reality is that I have constituents whose casework—correspondence from the Home Office—tells me that it was safe for them to be sent back to Afghanistan in June, when the Taliban were marching across Afghanistan and beginning to take over the country! There is a big difference between the nonsense and rhetoric we get and the reality—the dangers and risk that this Government are putting people in.
Tom Pursglove
In response to the specifics that the hon. Member is raising on Afghanistan, I would make the point that returns to Afghanistan have been ceased, given the current circumstances, given the circumstances there at the moment. That takes into full account the considerations around the circumstances on the ground at any given point in time, and the Government have rightly been responsive to that ever-changing situation. I am not able to comment on the detail of the individual cases that the hon. Member is referencing, but I would ask him to please write to me with that detail so that I can take that away and look at it.
Neil Coyle
I think Members will be somewhat sceptical of the invitation to write, given that we were writing about hundreds of cases in Afghanistan in emails that were not even opened by the Foreign Office, the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence. I will write. I will take that opportunity. I still have hundreds of cases, including four Brits who are still in Afghanistan because they were abandoned by this Government. The Minister says he is proud of our tradition and proud that we offer safe and legal routes, but where in this Bill do we extend the ability to access safe and legal routes that avoid the need to use human traffickers and people smugglers?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further contribution. I look forward to receiving the correspondence from him—it was a genuine offer made in the right spirit and I look forward to him taking it up.
As I say, this Government have a strong track record of providing safe and legal routes. This country has a proud record of providing safe and legal routes. It does not escape me that overall since 2015 we have settled more than any EU member state. That is something this country can be incredibly proud of. Various examples of safe and legal routes that people may avail themselves of include the UK resettlement scheme, the mandate resettlement scheme and the community sponsorship scheme. I am keen for communities to participate in that sponsorship scheme.
Neil Coyle
I welcome the Minister’s generosity and I am grateful for it, as I am sure Afghans will be if he can tell us when the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme will actually open, given that it has been two months since Kabul fell.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate some of the genuine difficulties for people in trying to leave Afghanistan—[Interruption]—and doing so in the safest way possible—[Interruption.] He keeps interrupting from a sedentary position. Will he let me finish the point that I am trying to make?
The bottom line is that we are firmly committed to that resettlement scheme. We will announce details of it as quickly as possible, having taken proper account of the very real difficulties that exist in getting people safely, as far as that is possible, out of Afghanistan. Ministers and officials are working tirelessly to work that up in an appropriate manner.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as well, because I want to be generous and to hear what he has to say.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is being generous. I want to push things back to some of the questions—
Stuart C. McDonald
Great, because the purpose of the amendments is to probe exactly how these very broad powers will be used. It will be useful if he could talk about some of what the Government intend.
Tom Pursglove
I am keen to do just that. I have made the point about safe and legal routes. There are many examples in the past and that are still active.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way, but I am keen to move on to answer some of the questions.
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He talked again about the UK’s leading role in accepting refugees. Does he not accept that the most recent data from the UNHCR on refugees in Europe—from 2019—has Germany resettling more than three times as many refugees as the UK, or 9,640 compared with 3,507? Also, smaller countries such as Sweden and Norway accepted more than the UK.
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier point.
I want to move on to the points made by various members of the Committee about a number of areas related to the amendments. In answer to the question about section 95 asylum support, those who are already in receipt of such support will not face any condition restricting access to public funds. The power to differentiate in respect of public funds is flexible and there is no obligation to use it in inappropriate cases. Again, detail will be set out in the guidance and rules to follow. The House will have the opportunity to scrutinise those in the normal way.
A number of points were made about family reunion. It is wrong to say that the Bill will remove family reunion rights. Family reunion will be protected in line with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Bill will allow us to take steps to disincentivise people from taking risky, life-threatening journeys. There is, I suppose, a philosophical debate about this: I think we all agree that we need to end those dangerous journeys, but how we achieve that is the area of dispute.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister is right to say that we all agree on the objective and that the dispute is about the effectiveness of the Government strategy. Is he not even a little unsettled by the fact that the Government’s own impact assessment states that their strategy is unlikely to work? It states that
“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited.”
Tom Pursglove
It is right that we break the business model of these evil criminal gangs and take steps that help to achieve that endeavour. The point the hon. Gentleman has made, which runs through the Bill, is that people should come here by safe and legal routes and that we should take steps as appropriate to break that business model. I am confident that the steps we are taking in the Bill will achieve exactly that.
Paul Blomfield
So the Minister is saying that the Government’s impact assessment is wrong.
Tom Pursglove
I genuinely believe that the policy we are pursuing through the Bill will make a significant difference in deterring dangerous channel crossings, where people pay evil people smugglers to try and get to the United Kingdom. It is right that we prioritise safe and legal routes and make it very clear that they are the way to arrive in this country, and that we deter people from making those very dangerous, irregular journeys. I am confident that the Bill will make a significant difference in tackling that challenge.
Mr Goodwill
When I was in Nigeria I heard from the Nigerian Home Secretary that the system often contributed to family break-up rather than reunion. The people smugglers perpetuated the lie that people who could get a teenage child to the UK would be able to follow. In fact, it has always been the principle of family reunion that children must travel to where their families are and not the other way round.
Tom Pursglove
In terms of the deceit and the appalling treatment of so many people, I have heard heartbreaking stories of the way that individuals have been treated by these evil people smugglers. That has only redoubled my determination to render their business model redundant.
This point goes to the heart of the intervention a moment ago from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central: the measures in the Bill do not just stand alone—it is not just about these measures. Tackling the problem requires a strong and co-ordinated response that also involves our international partners. For example, the collaboration through the arrangement we have with the French is very important contextually in tackling this issue. Clearly, supporting French law enforcement to try and stop some of the crossings happening in the first place is crucial, and the evidence is clear that that support is having a positive effect in achieving that goal.
Our international diplomacy is also important, because we want to send out a clear message that human rights must be respected and upheld across the world. The measures in the Bill, as important as they are, are not the only element in responding to these huge challenges. That international collaboration is very important as well, as is our diplomatic work.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous. It is extraordinary to hear a Minister trash their own department’s equality impact assessment and point out its inadequacies.
Neil Coyle
That is exactly what the Minister did. However, my question is around family reunion visas, which he mentioned. The number of family reunion visas granted in the UK fell by nearly 10% in the last year for which numbers were available. Will he agree to a review of the system to look at some of the issues around entitlements for those other than dependants or spouses?
Tom Pursglove
I will take that away to look at it. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous point in trying to address the matter of family reunion. I am conscious that in his earlier remarks he raised the particular case of an Afghan family. I will also go away and speak about that to the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, who is the Minister responsible for Operation Warm Welcome and our refugee policy in relation to Afghanistan. I undertake to take that point away and ensure that my hon. Friend is aware of it. It is very important and I will do that. It is crucial that that happens. I ask that the hon. Gentleman leave that with me, and that will happen later today.
To finish on this point, the powers under clause 10 enable the Secretary of State to differentiate in respect of family reunion. It is important to recognise that the power is flexible and will not be used where a refusal of family reunion would breach our international obligations. The policy will be set out, again, in guidance and in rules, but I thought it was important to get that point on the record. Suffice it to say that of course this Government will always act in accordance with our international obligations and the law.
With all that in mind, I ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am slightly frustrated—actually, pretty frustrated—that we have not managed to tease out more about what the Government intend. We will no doubt come back to the point about article 31 justifying the provision.
We are being asked to hand hugely significant and broad powers to the Home Secretary, and we are being told, “Well, everything will be set out in immigration rules and guidance,” when we all know that scrutiny and opportunities to amend such provisions are incredibly limited. Let me ask the Minister this: what more do I know now about the Government’s intentions than I knew before half-past 11 this morning? Not very much. I am not sure I even understand the answer in relation to no recourse to public funds. I do not see how a person who is a refugee would still be on section 95 support; having been recognised as a refugee, such a person would obviously move on. At least I get the sense that there would be some sort of automatic decision not to put an NRPF condition on them, but I am none the wiser about how some of the other powers will be used.
Tom Pursglove
As I have said previously, I am very keen to be helpful to the Committee, so if I may, I will study Hansard to look back at the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed on this matter. I will gladly write to him to clarify the position and try to provide further detail.
Stuart C. McDonald
It would be hugely helpful for Members of this House, ahead of Report, and for Members of the other place, who will be wanting to scrutinise the Government’s intentions, to be told more about that support and about precisely how the clauses on family reunion can be consistent with article 8, and the answers to my questions about leave. That was the purpose of tabling the amendments, so if the Minister undertakes to do that, there is no reason to put anything to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 10, page 13, line 34, at end insert—
“(7A) An Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution by the Taliban is not to be treated as a Group 2 refugee and in particular—
(a) must not face a restriction on their leave to enter compared to group 1 refugees;
(b) must have access to indefinite leave to remain on the same basis as group 1 refugees;
(c) must not have no recourse to public funds conditions attached to any leave to enter or remain given to them; and
(d) must have access to family reunion on the same basis as group 1 refugees.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from treating Afghan refugees at risk of persecution by the Taliban as Group 2 refugees.
I can be brief, because a lot of the territory in relation to Afghanistan was covered in the previous debate. Again, Members across this House have been forceful, powerful advocates. Whatever our views on the manner of the withdrawal, its timing and so on, I do not doubt for a minute that every Member of the House intended to ensure the UK did what could be done to assist the people of Afghanistan. The problem with this Bill, as far as I can see, is that that generosity of spirit, that determination to help, seems to come to a shuddering halt should a person from Afghanistan end up claiming asylum in this country.
The amendment confronts hon. Members with, to use a Home Office expression, a face behind the case. We are talking about creating an exemption where the Home Office has assessed a person’s case and accepted that they are at risk of persecution from the Taliban in Afghanistan, such that it will not be permissible for the Secretary of State to discriminate against them—to make them subject to no recourse to public funds, to deny them family reunion, to refuse to give them settlement after five years and to perpetrate all the other discriminations that the clause allows. In a sense, it would be nonsensical to create an exception only for such people, but the amendment is designed simply to confront hon. Members with the fact that that is who we are talking about. Those discriminations will apply to these people, whom we have all been championing, just as they would to any other asylum seeker. I do not need to say any more than that, but I will press the amendment to a Division.
Tom Pursglove
I do not think it would be appropriate for clause 10 to include an exemption from group 2 refugee conditions for Afghan national refugees. Although I have great sympathy for the plight of Afghan citizens who are fleeing the brutal reign of the Taliban, a blanket exemption for Afghan citizens who are recognised as refugees would be inappropriate for two reasons.
First, we cannot exempt any particular nationality, because situations of conflict and repression are fluid. There may come a time when that country is no longer unsafe and those from it who claim asylum are no longer genuinely in need of protection; I am sure that is something that we all wish to see. If there were still an exemption for them in primary legislation, it would serve as a huge pull factor to the UK for migrants seeking to claim asylum in order to work or otherwise make a new life in the UK.
Secondly, any blanket exemption would inevitably lead to people posing as Afghans in an attempt to benefit from the hon. Gentleman’s very principled generosity. That would, perversely, prevent us from protecting Afghans who were genuinely in need. I am sure hon. Members agree that that would be in no one’s interest.
Anne McLaughlin
I wonder whether the Minister agrees or disagrees with the Conservative former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who said in August:
“There are times and places where we should be strict with asylum applications. Afghanistan today is the exact opposite. We should take anyone who can make a case”.
Tom Pursglove
I simply cannot in all conscience support anyone of any nationality putting their lives in the hands of evil people-smuggling gangs, and I think that that would be the unintended consequence of what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve. I do not doubt the generosity of spirit behind the amendment, but I do not think that putting it into the Bill is the right thing to do. It is right that we continue to develop the safe and legal route as quickly as possible, and make sure that people are able to come here. I cannot, in all good conscience, support an amendment that would simply afford opportunity to evil criminal gangs. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw it.
Bambos Charalambous
The Afghan resettlement scheme would have a cap of 5,000 per year. If that 5,000 limit had been met, anyone who came here via other routes would be deemed to be in one of the group 2 categories, and they would have fewer protections. On guidance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned, the issue around how they would be treated would certainly be in play. They would be treated as group 2, and we must bear in mind that the guidance would say that they could not return to Afghanistan. Does the Minister have any comments on that?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. I think there is a timing issue here. We are debating this Bill in Committee today and we have several more weeks of Committee, and then Report and Third Reading in the Commons, followed by Lords consideration in full, and consideration of any amendments that those in the other place wish to send to us. As a result, we are some way away from this Bill becoming law. By that time, I fully expect that the safe and legal route will have been established and people will be able to avail themselves of it. The overriding point is that all cases are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into proper account all the relevant considerations.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister says that he hopes that, by the time the Bill is enacted, the safe and legal route will be up and running. We are talking about Afghanistan. Does he mean that, by the time it is enacted, all the safe and legal routes that are required in different parts of the world where people need to flee to seek protection will be and up and running, or just the Afghan route?
Tom Pursglove
Amendment 15 is very specifically about Afghanistan. I would not wish to invoke your wrath, Ms McDonagh, by going wider than that, so I must keep my remarks to Afghanistan. The point that I have made stands, and I reiterate that cases are considered on a case-by-case basis, as the hon. Lady would rightly expect.
Neil Coyle
The Minister has been very generous in giving way. I am particularly concerned about this. He is suggesting that a safe route is available, when the Government guidance currently says not to make applications for family reunion for Afghanistan cases. Perhaps he can explore that issue in more detail with his hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, and get back to us—certainly before Report.
Tom Pursglove
I am very happy to reflect the sentiment in my conversations with my ministerial colleague. As I was about to say before I took the intervention from the shadow spokesperson, I urge SNP Members to withdraw their amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central in particular, I do not accept the argument about creating incentives. All we are asking is for Afghan asylum seekers to be treated in a few months’ time precisely in the same way as they are treated now, to be given a fair hearing, and, once they are recognised as refugees, to be treated in the same way as other refugees.
I have a second quick point before I conclude. Towards the end of his speech, the Minister referred a couple of times to things being looked at on a case-by-case basis. It is very important that, when we get to the clause stand part debate, he expands on what exactly he means by that. From what I heard from the Home Secretary, my understanding was that clause 10 would apply to Afghans in precisely the same way as it would to everybody else. The Minister’s reference to a case-by-case basis seems to suggest some sort of discretion, whether between nationalities or between individual cases. He has opened up a whole series of questions about how exactly the scheme is going to operate. Perhaps we can revisit that during the clause stand part debate.
I agree with the Minister that it does not make sense for legislation to carve out a particular nationality. However, what makes even less sense, as I said at the outset, is for all of us to be champions of Afghans so long as they are—
Tom Pursglove
I am keen to clarify that point. The point that I was making was exactly as I alluded to earlier: that, for example, we would not return someone to a country that is fundamentally unsafe.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful for that clarification. I had thought that the Minister was saying that the powers in clause 10 would be applied on a case-by-case basis depending on individual circumstances, rather than what seems to be suggested by the clause: depending on their mode of arrival. He has clarified that what the Home Secretary said was correct: it will apply to Afghans, Uyghurs and everybody else in the same way.
Amendment 15 is not the most perfect or wonderful amendment, but even less perfect are the provisions in the Bill that would see Afghan asylum seekers stripped of public funds, stripped of family reunion rights and treated, frankly, abysmally. I would therefore like to put amendment 15 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 10, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(8A) Immigration rules made under the power in subsection (8) may not apply to any individual who has submitted a claim for protection prior to those rules coming into force.”
This amendment would prevent the differential treatment described in subsections (5) and (6) from applying to anyone who submitted a protection claim prior to the relevant immigration rules coming into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 97, in clause 10, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(8A) Notwithstanding section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, any regulations made under the power in subsection (8) shall be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would mean that any regulations made under the power in subsection (8) could not enter into force until they had been approved by Parliament.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will take the amendments in reverse order. To go back to part of Tuesday’s debate about Parliament, rather than the Executive, taking back control, nobody—regardless of whether they were for or against anything else I have said this morning— could deny that these are sweeping powers, with next to no limits or constraints on how they may be used. In theory, the Secretary of State could put everyone up in palaces or prisons, expand or restrict family reunion rights, and give 50 years’ leave or 50 days’ leave. Because it can all be done by changes to the immigration rules, there might as well be no oversight at all.
The process is even weaker than the negative procedure that we use for some statutory instruments. Not since 2008 has a statement of changes to the rules been properly debated by MPs. Although the other place has a better record of holding debates, 87 changes to the immigration rules have been made since 2008 without the procedure being fully invoked. Even if either House disapproves the changes within 40 days, all that means is that the Home Secretary has to lay further rules, making any changes that she thinks appropriate. In short, these are massive powers that could fundamentally change the asylum system in the UK. More important, they will have a profound impact on hundreds of thousands of people. The powers need proper oversight, which is essentially what amendment 97 supplies.
Amendment 96 is designed to retrieve a sliver of hope from an otherwise horrendous clause. Even if the Government are hellbent on proceeding down this road, by their own logic they surely cannot apply these changes and disincentives retrospectively to somebody who has already claimed asylum. The Minister says that the Bill is about disincentives to stop people crossing, or coming by other dangerous routes. I do not think that that will work, or that it is right, appropriate or ethical to do that. Although the Government take the opposite view, they cannot possible argue that we can disincentivise someone who is already here.
There are 70,000 people in the asylum system, many of whom claimed for refugee status many months ago. It is a source of stress and anxiety, according to organisations that work with refugees, such as the British Red Cross, that the threat of being put into limbo, and of family separation and destitution—all the things that we have just spoken about—will hang over them if the provisions of the Bill apply to them.
Tom Pursglove
I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks in relation to amendment 96. It has never been our intention to apply differentiation retrospectively.
Stuart C. McDonald
That is a hugely welcome assurance, which many people will be very pleased to hear. The Minister can say in his response why he objects to that going in the Bill, but, as I say, it will make a profound difference to 70,000 lives, and to family members further afield.
Tom Pursglove
I reassure the Committee that amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that only asylum claims made after commencement are considered under clause 10, is not needed. For many good reasons, not least for purposes of practicality, we have always intended to apply clause 10 only to asylum claims made after commencement. The position is similar in respect of amendment 97, which seeks to ensure that any regulations required to implement the policy should be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. Clause 10(8) is not a regulation-making power; rather, it is a power to make immigration rules. In any event, the amendment is not needed since the rules are subject to their own parliamentary procedure, set out in section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Parliamentarians may pray against them within a 40-day period. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. After a day and a half of debate, I feel I have achieved one small positive, which is reassurance in relation to retrospective application of clause 10. That is welcome. I have moved millions of amendments to Bills over the years in relation to scrutiny and oversight of immigration legislation, and they have all been rejected, so I am not going to press this to a vote. However, I make the point that if we parliamentarians are serious about scrutinising legislation and profound changes that have an impact on people’s lives, we have to come up with better ways of scrutinising what goes on in the immigration system. I shall leave that debate for another day. Having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for local authorities, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the report must be approved by a substantive vote in both Houses.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the financial implications for the bodies listed in subsection (10);
(b) an assessment of the functions and powers of those bodies that will be affected by this section;
(c) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies, and the outcome of such engagement and consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 10 for local authorities and the devolved administrations, and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 161, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing within the Act or this section authorises any treatment or action which is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”
This amendment seeks to ensure consistency of clause 10 with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
You will be sick of the sound of my voice pretty soon, Ms McDonagh—[Hon. Members: “Never!”] I am reassured by hon. Members. I will speak in opposition to what I regard to be a dreadful clause in the Bill.
Amendment 87 makes an important point in seeking to test how the Government have engaged with other tiers of government for which the clause will have significant implications. It is clear from everything that has been said that there will be implications for health services, housing and welfare services, devolved social security, and the legal aid and justice systems. How have the Government engaged with all the devolved Governments and local authorities on the implications of the Bill? What joint ministerial meetings have there been? What is the outcome of the suggested assessments about the impact on them? Of course, asylum is reserved, but what has been proposed here will have significant implications for all sorts of devolved functions and for the functions of local authorities. Far too often, experience shows us that the Home Office is happy to pursue policies that leave local authorities, in particular, to pick up the pieces with destitute families.
The Minister may say that there was a consultation on the new plan for immigration but, significantly, that consultation period ran, almost to the day, for the entire period of purdah for the recent Scottish and Welsh elections, and for some local government elections. That made it virtually impossible for civil servants and some local authority officials to engage in any work on the matter because it was politically contentious. It is fair to say that the timing of that consultation was, at best, rather thoughtless and it makes it all the more imperative that engagement with other tiers of government happens before the Bill is passed.
Fundamental questions are raised by amendment 161 and clause 10 more broadly. Indeed, amendment 161 takes us to the question of the Bill’s consistency with the refugee convention. What I regard to be inconsistency with the convention is a key reason why I do not believe the clause should stand part of the Bill. The Minister has already answered my intended question about whether he maintains that there is consistency with the refugee convention. The issue was not spoken about at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, but if that is the Government’s position, presumably amendment 161 or an alternative along those lines is entirely unproblematic. All it does is call for everything in the Bill to be construed in accordance with the refugee convention, so if there is no problem with the consistency, presumably the Government do not have any problem with that amendment either.
Some may not be particularly vexed about whether the Bill complies with the requirements of the refugee convention, but we believe that is a fundamentally vital question. It is vital because the 70-year-old convention is crucial, simply as it ensures that some of the most vulnerable people in the world, at risk of persecution in their own countries, have a safe place to go to and appropriate rights.
The convention is crucial to ensuring that responsibility is at least to a degree not entirely dumped on neighbouring countries—we heard on Second Reading about how the overwhelming majority of refugees are situated in developing countries. If one country is able to rip up the refugee convention—in particular, one that was instrumental in drafting the convention, as the UK was—then absolutely nothing stops others following suit.
I said earlier that the UK Government have been saying that too many people are making claims in this country, but if we make that argument, the Governments to follow will be France, Germany and Italy. Everything would fall back on Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Kenya and other countries that have to take significant populations from neighbouring countries.
That matters, too, for the reputation and influence of the United Kingdom. I do not want to repeat all the arguments we have had in recent months about the importance of abiding by international law and not breaking it, even in a “specific and limited way”. The Minister also referred to that being important. The problem, however, is that when a Foreign Secretary is busy telling Pakistan—already home to several million Afghan refugees—to keep borders open and take people in, or the Taliban to abide by international norms, at some point, if the widely accepted view is that the UK is itself busy ignoring or totally contradicting advice from the UNHCR and riding roughshod over the spirit and letter of the convention, that will come home to roost. How can we tell other countries to comply with international obligations if we are, as we are with the Bill, ripping up not only the refugee convention, but the statelessness convention, the trafficking convention, international maritime law and probably the European convention on human rights?
Let us be in no doubt, the UNHCR has said over and over again that the attempt to create two different classes of recognised refugees is inconsistent with the refugee convention and
“has no basis in international law.”
Regardless of what the Minister said earlier, that view requires significant deference and respect. I appreciate that Governments do not like publishing legal advice, but I can find no respected refugee lawyer who disagrees with what the UNHCR said. The Minister has his work cut out to explain how the Government believe the UNHCR to be wrong. The convention contains only one definition of a refugee, and only one set of rights to go with it. For someone to be outside their country of origin because of a risk of persecution for reason of one of the characteristics set out in that convention is all that is required.
Turning to the specific provisions and how they breach the refugee convention, the Minister must explain in particular how he reconciles the clause with article 23 of the refugee convention:
“The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.”
In contrast, the clause expressly authorises one group of refugees to be deprived of recourse to public funds that UK nationals would have. The human rights memorandum to the Bill seems to acknowledge a problem, noting the apparent contradiction, but then blithely states that
“the Department will ensure that the powers in clause 10 are implemented in a way which is compatible with Articles 23 and 24.”
The huge question is, how? I do not accept—neither does the UNHCR—that there is a way in which that can happen. It is completely insufficient as a justification or an explanation. It is a promise to do the impossible. Any reasonable person looking at the clause and at article 23 will see that they are completely and utterly incompatible.
Other articles are also contradicted. For reasons I set out earlier, the provisions of the Bill will significantly undermine any possibility of refugees’ integration into society, in contravention of the requirement to facilitate integration and naturalisation under article 34. Going further, the proposals in the Bill and policy documents make it clear that the short periods of leave and the constant reviews are designed to lead to the expulsion of those refugees, regardless of the question of whether they are still refugees and in need of international protection. That is in contravention of article 32 of the convention, which prohibits expulsion except on the grounds of national security or public order.
The principle of family reunion is not in the body of the refugee convention itself, but the conference of plenipotentiaries at which the convention was adopted affirmed that
“the unity of the family, the natural and fundamental group unit of society, is an essential right of the refugee”.
Furthermore, as we heard, article 8 of the European convention on human rights enshrines the right to respect of family life. Given the insurmountable obstacles that those recognised refugees will face—they cannot enjoy that family life in their home country—and that, if they have got to this stage, clearly no other country will accept them, then it is impossible to see how the UK will not be breaching the convention routinely if it does not allow for family reunion.
As the Minister alluded to earlier, the clause is drafted to circumvent such clear breaches by cutting and pasting certain words and expressions from article 31 of the refugee convention into a completely different context. That article was meant to apply to refugees who are lawfully settled in another country, who have found protection there and who have then moved onwards irregularly for reasons unconnected to their need for international protection. In those restricted circumstances, administrative penalties for unlawful entry or presence are permissible. The article is clear that one condition for its applicability is that the person has an unauthorised presence in the country. This measure in the Bill includes no such restriction so, again, it is not compliant with the article.
Article 31 is also clear that, even when it is available to a state, the penalties that are permissible to put in place cannot breach other parts of the refugee convention, which is what the clause does. It also breaches international human rights law on family unity. The clause breaches the convention by applying unlawful penalties to an unlawful range of people. In coming days, we will address further breaches by new offences under clause 37, which will criminalise refugees, and clause 34, which will limit certain defences.
In short, for all the reasons I have given in the earlier debates, the clause will not work. It will not achieve what the Government want it to achieve. It is morally repugnant—it is completely unethical to treatment victims like this—and illegal, so the whole idea should be ditched and clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Elections Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 12, page 20, line 42, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not designate the statement under section 4A unless the Scottish Parliament has, before the end of the 40-day period, passed a motion of the form ‘That the Parliament approves the draft Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved Scottish functions’.”
This amendment would require the Scottish Parliament to approve an Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved Scottish functions before the strategy could have effect.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 75, in clause 12, page 20, line 42, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not designate the statement under section 4A unless the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru have each, before the end of the 40-day period, passed a motion in the form ‘That this Parliament approves the draft Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved functions.’”
This amendment would require the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru each to approve an Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved functions before the strategy could have effect.
Patrick Grady
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Edward.
Anyone who has dealt with similar clauses in other Bills, through which the UK Government have sought to legislate in ways that would affect Scotland or devolved matters, will not be surprised to learn that here, the SNP is seeking is introduce the principle of consent rather than just consultation. The Electoral Commission has oversight across the United Kingdom, including of areas that are regulated by the devolved Administrations, and our position is always that laws and regulations affecting Scotland should be made in Scotland, or at the very least approved or consented to by the Scottish legislature.
Amendment 61 and Labour’s amendment 75, which we would be happy to support in lieu of amendment 61, provide for the Scottish Parliament’s scrutiny of, and agreement to, sections of the Electoral Commission’s statement, but only in so far as they relate to devolved functions; we are not asking for a UK-wide veto. We will get on to the merits or otherwise of the statement, and its existential point, later.
We will take an active interest in the parts of the statement that affect Scotland. Amendment 61 may end up being a little-used power, because in the Government’s draft statement, which is very high level, I can see only one mention of Scotland and devolved matters: paragraph 18 on the principles, on page 8, refers to the Crown Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. I doubt anyone particularly objects to that.
I suspect that we will hear from the Minister that the amendment is unnecessary and bureaucratic. [Interruption.] I have pre-empted her; we could have just the one contribution in this debate. We could write each other’s speeches. The amendment, however, goes to the point and function of the devolution settlement. Unfortunately, we see the Government riding roughshod over it, not just in the Bill, but across the piece. We saw that in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We see the Government routinely ignore the legislative consent motion process and legislating without the consent of the devolved Administrations, when previously a lack of consent would have been respected. Unfortunately, I suspect that this legislation will end up being another example of that.
The amendment also speaks to a point that I have made several times on Second Reading and in Committee about divergence north and south of the border. That is not a huge problem for those of us on the SNP benches, but it is something that people who want to make the case for a strong and stable Union really need to think about.
Debate on the point of the statement will follow when we come to the clause stand part debate; we have significant concerns about the existence of a statement guiding the Electoral Commission, certainly in the way that is proposed, but if we are to have that statement, the devolved Administrations’ consent should be required to the parts of it that apply to them.
I accept that a Government Bill requires consultation, but as we often see, consultation does not necessarily mean that consensus or any kind of agreement can be achieved. Our amendment 61—and the Labour amendment, which requires consent from Senedd Cymru as well, and which we would be happy to support—would strengthen the requirements of the Bill and respect the devolution settlement. I would be happy to withdraw amendment 61 in favour of amendment 75, but we want to hear from the Minister first.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Sir Edward, given that we are taking amendments 61 and 75 together, I would like to speak to the amendment that appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
I thought the hon. Member for Glasgow North made the case strongly, and I agree with him, although we come at it from slightly different positions. While he would like to see Scotland separate from the United Kingdom, I would very much like to see the United Kingdom strengthened and I support the Union.
On those grounds, there is a strong Unionist case for amendment 75, which is about respect for the devolved nations. When the Conservative Government continue to treat the Senedd Cymru and the Scottish Parliament with such disrespect, particularly regarding the strategy and policy document, it threatens the Union. From one Unionist to another, I implore my colleagues on the Government side of the House to look again at how deeply disrespectful the Government’s approach to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd is.
While I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the reasons that we have come to this view, his amendment is very good, although I think ours is slightly better on the grounds that it also includes the Senedd Cymru.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
As Opposition Members will probably have guessed, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary, for two reasons. First, the provisions for the introduction of the strategy and policy statement, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North said in his speech, already provide a mechanism that will take into account the views of Welsh and Scottish Ministers where the statement relates to the Electoral Commission’s devolved functions.
Under proposed new section 4C(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Welsh and Scottish Ministers are specifically listed as statutory consultees, which means that they will be consulted before the statement is subject to the approval of the UK Parliament. It would be both impractical and unnecessarily burdensome for the UK Government to be required to put the statement to the approval of the devolved Parliaments as well. It will be for the Scottish and Welsh Governments to determine their own processes for coming to a view on whether to suggest any changes to the statement.
Secondly, and very importantly, the Committee is no doubt aware that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have already recommended that the devolved Parliaments do not grant legislative consent to this measure. This Government’s view is that a statement applying to both the reserved and devolved functions of the Commission would ensure greater consistency across the UK for the Commission and all those involved in elections. It is regrettable that that was the decision they reached. However, I am keen to continue to engage with my Scottish and Welsh counterparts to mitigate any unintended consequences, and as such I am considering what amendments we may need to make to these provisions in relation to devolved matters.
Based on those considerations, an amendment of this kind would become redundant. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to oppose the amendments.
Patrick Grady
To respond briefly to the Minister, I still think the point about consent is important. I welcome whatever reassurances she is giving, and we look forward to seeing what they turn out to be. However, the Government are proposing further amendments, which they should not have to do at this stage of the Bill’s passage. This could have been dealt with at a previous stage; they could have consulted the Scottish Government and Welsh Ministers in advance of bringing this measure forward in the first place. Purely on the basis that SNP amendment 61 covers only the Scottish Parliament, and I think we should test this for both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood wish to propose amendment 75 formally?
Cat Smith
I do wish to push the amendment to a vote. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I hope she might consider further. She referred to the fact that the legislative consent motions from both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd are not likely to be given. Does she not recognise that this is a deeply worrying trend, which strengthens the arguments of separatists who want to break up our United Kingdom? The amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends seeks to strengthen the Union. I am deeply disappointed by her Government’s attitude to the Union—for a Conservative and Unionist party, they are doing a fairly shoddy job at the moment.
Amendment proposed: 75, in clause 12, page 20, line 42, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not designate the statement under section 4A unless the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru have each, before the end of the 40-day period, passed a motion in the form ‘That this Parliament approves the draft Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved functions.’”—(Cat Smith.)
This amendment would require the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru each to approve an Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved functions before the strategy could have effect.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kemi Badenoch
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 12, page 23, line 13, leave out—
“and (3) (consultation requirements) do”
and insert
“(consultation requirements) does”.
This amendment makes it clear that only the consultation requirements under new section 4C(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 may be disapplied under new section 4E(4) (and not the requirement to lay a draft strategy and policy statement before Parliament).
Kemi Badenoch
I now turn to clause 12, and the measures in the Bill that concern the Electoral Commission. Members of the Committee will agree that it is vital that we have an independent regulator that commands trust across the political spectrum. The public rightly expect efficient and independent regulation of the electoral system. The purpose of the clause is to make provision for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement that sets out guidance that the Electoral Commission must have regard to in the discharge of its functions. The commission will be required to report to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission on what consideration it has given to the statement in the exercise of its functions within 12 months of a statement being designated, and every 12 months thereafter.
The clause sets out clearly the type of guidance the statement may contain, which includes Government strategic priorities relating to elections, referendums and other matters in respect of which the commission has functions. As the statement will contain Government guidance, and the Government’s views of the commission’s priorities, it will therefore be drafted and designated by the Secretary of State. However, the statement will be subject to a statutory consultation with the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Electoral Commission itself before being subject to parliamentary approval. That will ensure that the Government must consider Parliament’s views and will allow Parliament to have the final say over whether the statement is designated.
Patrick Grady
Does that mean that Parliament will have the opportunity to amend the statement? Will Opposition Members, or Government Back Benchers, be able to table textual amendments to the Government’s statement, or will it be for the Government to amend a draft statement in the light of consultation responses?
Kemi Badenoch
I do not believe that is the case. We would have to bring in a different statement if Parliament did not allow it, and during a parliamentary debate views could be considered.
The Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers with regard to any guidance relating to the commission’s devolved Scottish and Welsh functions. To ensure that the statement remains relevant, the clause requires that at least once every five years since the previous statutory consultation, the Secretary of State must review and determine whether to revise or withdraw the existing statement. The Secretary of State must then consult the statutory consultees previously listed before laying a revised or unamended draft statement before Parliament for approval.
It is important for the Government to be able to make swift changes to the statement when needed. That is why the clause provides that, within the five-year period, the Government may on their own initiative or at the request of the commission, review the content of the statement from time to time. When doing so, the Secretary of State must inform the statutory consultees of any proposed changes and consult the Speaker’s Committee on whether those changes require a statutory consultation. Should the Secretary of State disagree with the Speaker’s Committee’s opinion, they may proceed with laying the draft statement before Parliament for approval only after issuing a ministerial statement outlining the reasons for disagreeing with the Committee’s opinion.
On Government amendment 1, it was always our intention that any revisions to the strategy and policy statement, apart from typographical or clerical errors, should be submitted for parliamentary approval, both within the five-year period and at the five-year review point. However, since introduction, we have identified that the wording of proposed new section 4E(4) to PPERA could unintentionally enable the Secretary of State to determine that, following a revision to the statement within the five-year period, the obligation to lay the draft statement before Parliament does not apply. That could have the unintended consequence of allowing the Secretary of State to bypass the requirement to submit the statement for parliamentary approval. That was never our intention, and the Government are clear that the strategy and policy statement must be subject to appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny. For that reason, we have tabled Government amendment 1, which clarifies that new section 4E(4) does not disapply the requirement on the Secretary of State to submit the revised statement for parliamentary approval.
Cat Smith
Part 3 of the Bill, and clause 12 in particular, represent a deeply worrying step for our democracy, and I do not say that lightly. It is not fair on any Government. It might be the Minister’s party in government today, but we legislate for future Governments that could be of other parties, including parties not represented in this room. It is not for any Government to dictate the priorities of an independent watchdog, and yet these proposals allow the Government of the day to set the agenda for the Electoral Commission.
Kemi Badenoch
Strategy and policy statements are not unique to this regulator. We have had them for other independent regulators. We had one for Ofgem, and it is also mentioned in the energy White Paper, so why is it fine for other regulators, but not this one?
Cat Smith
I am very clear about this. I will come to it later in my remarks in more detail, but, roughly speaking, regulation of the Electoral Commission regulates elections in which Governments are elected. There is a difference between the regulation of democracy in elections and the regulation of water companies, for example. There are distinct reasons why it is important that an Electoral Commission in particular has independence from the Government of the day. Indeed, that can be seen in examples from similar democracies. New Zealand, Australia and Canada are three democracies that we look to and that, for historical reasons, have structures similar to our own. It very much looks as though the Government are trying to rig democracy in their favour by directing the strategy and policy of the Electoral Commission, and that is very different from other regulators.
The existence of an independent regulator is fundamental to maintaining confidence in our electoral systems and, therefore, confidence in our democracy. That is particularly important when the laws that govern elections are made by a small subset of the parties that stand in elections. Many parties that stand in elections in our country do not have Members of Parliament elected, and much of the legislating on this will be done in secondary legislation. We have only three political parties represented in this room. We have more than that elected to this House, and there are many more parties that the Electoral Commission regulates that do not have any Members of Parliament on the green Benches. I stress that having a very small subset of participants in a process making decisions on the regulation of an independent regulator is deeply troubling.
The commission’s independence needs to be clear for voters and campaigners to see. The commission needs to be seen to be fair and impartial. If we see this measure alongside previous calls by some Government Members on the green Benches—although I do not think by anyone in this room today—to abolish the Electoral Commission in its entirety, it does strike me as a worrying trend. I have been looking at similar democracies—the three obvious ones are Canada, New Zealand and Australia—where there is a complete separation between the Governments and their electoral commissions. A country where the Electoral Commission is told what to do by the Executive is not a country with free or fair elections. The regulator of our elections needs to be independent and impartial and must not be subject to political control.
I have tried to think of other examples. I am a football fan and this is like being able to decide who the referee is and whether they grant a penalty. We would all like to see our clubs do well, but it would be deeply unfair to the teams that we play, so we would not go along with it. We would not allow a gang of criminals to decide whether the police could investigate a crime, and nor should the governing party decide the political strategy of the supposedly independent—this raises that question—Electoral Commission.
Far from increasing the powers of independent electoral regulators, and giving them the powers they need to defend and protect our democracy, it looks like the Government are intent on stripping the Electoral Commission of its ability to do its job in this field. These proposals threaten to end the commission’s independence and put control of how elections are run in the hands of those who have won them, which seems intrinsically unfair. These are the actions of a Government that fear scrutiny, as we have seen in other recent legislation.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the evidence sessions held by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where we heard from Helen Mountfield QC. She said that the Bill arguably breaches international law and that
“the removal of the independence of the Electoral Commission is potentially legally problematic”
and breaches the UK’s constitutional standards. I feel that clause 12 should be removed in its entirety.
I finish by responding in more detail to the Minister’s previous intervention. The ministerial powers to specify statements for Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat do not include giving guidance about specific matters or functions for which those regulators are responsible. That is a completely out-of-the-ordinary and inappropriate abuse of power. The example strategy and policy statement that was published last month illustrates the scope of this power and how it could be applied in reality.
The breadth of the example statement strayed, I would argue, from the scrutiny of the commission and into decision making and directing how decisions are made. Some of the content would have an impact on the commission’s independence, for example by specifying considerations to which it must have regard when carrying out its enforcement work. I do not believe that this clause should stand part of the Bill and we would like to vote against it.
Patrick Grady
The Minister said in her opening remarks that it is important that we have independent regulation, so that the public can have confidence in our elections. The implication of that is that we do not currently have independent or impartial regulation of elections. It implied that somehow the Electoral Commission, as currently constituted, is fundamentally flawed and failing in its duty. That is a substantial claim and none of the evidence we heard, or any of the debates about this Bill, suggests that that is the case. That is perhaps why the Government are coming at this with a slightly different motivation, as alluded to by my colleague on the Labour Front Bench.
The Electoral Commission itself has said in briefings about this Bill that, as currently drafted, the provisions of part 3 are not consistent with the Electoral Commission operating as an independent regulator. It has said that the scope of ministerial powers to specify statements for Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat, which was the example given by the Minister, does not include giving guidance about specific matters or functions for which those regulators are responsible. Therefore, this is in effect a power grab by the UK Government, which is consistent with their approach in a whole range of areas.
The Electoral Commission is already accountable to the House through the Speaker’s committee. We have regular questions in the Chamber, precisely to provide some of that accountability. The members of that committee, on behalf of the whole House, scrutinise the operation of the commission. There are also procedures at Holyrood and in the Senedd Cymru to ensure that the Electoral Commission self-accounts for its operations in those parts of the United Kingdom.
The Minister herself said, in response to my intervention, that there will be no ability for this House to amend the statement. It would be for the Government, if they were defeated, to withdraw the statement and bring something back in its entirety. The Government are taking and retaining control of the entire process: taking away accountability from this House and handing power to the Secretary of State.
In the future, if Back Benchers have questions about the operation and actions of the Electoral Commission and what it has done, to whom will they ask the questions? Will the questions be on the Floor of the House at commissioners questions or will they be for whichever Department happens to have responsibility for the operation of the Electoral Commission at any given time? That is not particularly clear. I appreciate the Minister is here from the levelling-up Department, but a completely different Department was leading on this Bill when it was introduced.
At some point when we are discussing regulations in any Committee like this, someone will ask, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—I hope my Latin gets some brownie points from you, Sir Edward. “Who is watching the watchers?” is the philosophical question at the heart of the clause and what the Government are trying to do to the Electoral Commission. We as politicians—as elected parliamentarians, which was an important point from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood—have an active and vested interest in the regulation of elections; even more so a Government who have been elected and want to stay elected. However, the clause allows the Government to mark their own homework—an often-favoured phrase of Ministers—and direct the body that oversees what is supposed to be an impartial process.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I compliment the hon. Member on his Latin. In the Pickles report, Lord Pickles says:
“The current system of oversight of the Electoral Commission—by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission—does not provide an effective third-party check on its performance…The Electoral Commission continues act to as a commentator and lobbyist on both policy and law. Yet government should not be lobbying government.”
Should we not ask the same question of the Electoral Commission that he asks of this Committee?
Patrick Grady
In that case, I hope the hon. Member will support the amendment to provide for lay membership of the Speaker’s committee to enhance that level of scrutiny and indeed to ensure that there is not a Government majority on that committee. No one is saying we should not expand scrutiny of the Electoral Commission’s operations; we are saying that the clause will reduce scrutiny and put more control in the Government’s hands. It is not good enough to say that statements can be consulted on and indeed might change between Governments as Governments change. In fact, that is more dangerous and would lead to inconsistency, which would really start to diminish the commission’s impartiality.
No one can say, “Well, this is a bland and harmless overall statement of principles that people have already agreed to,” when it provides directives and powers to give directives that are not found elsewhere either in UK regulators or in comparable commissions in the Commonwealth such as those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Conservative Members in particular are generally so proud that people in those countries look to the mother of Parliaments for their inspiration and to this glorious United Kingdom as an example of democracy that others should aspire to. Those countries have done that—well, they may have done that—and they have independent regulators that are accountable to their Parliaments and legislatures, not to their Executives. The SNP opposes this power grab and will oppose the clause.
Kemi Badenoch
It is pretty obvious that Opposition Members are making a mountain out of a molehill. It is well established for a Government to provide policy guidance to independent regulators via policy statements such as with Ofgem and Ofwat, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. It is also entirely appropriate for a Government to provide a steer on electoral policy and ensure that their reforms on electoral law are properly implemented. That does not fetter operational enforcement decisions on individual cases or change the Electoral Commission’s statutory duties.
The fact is, the Electoral Commission is created in law and the strategy and policy statement does not supersede the legislation. That is not the intention, and the measures in the Bill do not do that. If there were a conflict, the commission would have to defer to the law and not to a statement.
On who can amend a statement, there are multiple ways for Parliament to indicate its intention if it does not like the content of a statement. That does not need to be specifically through an amendment—there are other ways in which procedurally we as parliamentarians can let our views be known.
At present, the Electoral Commission is not properly accountable to anyone. As a result, its failings such as on electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets have never been addressed. The Speaker’s committee has not provided enough robust scrutiny on such issues.
Cat Smith
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point, because I am the only member of the Committee who is also a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I agree that that committee is not as effective as it should be. Is she minded to support amendments to strengthen the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, perhaps by ensuring that no one party has overall control? That would strengthen the committee and scrutiny of the Electoral Commission, which we all want.
Kemi Badenoch
I will answer more fully on those amendments when we come to that part of the debate.
The Pickles review on electoral fraud recommended such reforms to improve accountability, and that the Government put in place a stronger emphasis on and remit for preventing electoral fraud.
There is something more concerning in the statements that I have heard from Members on the other side of the Committee, however. The Electoral Commission does not regulate politicians; it regulates the electoral process. Parliament is sovereign; we are the ones who make the rules. If anything, Opposition Members’ statements almost sound as though they think the Electoral Commission is there to assist the Opposition in holding the Government to account, which is just another type of bias.
Kemi Badenoch
That is what it sounds like. If, as they believe, and as we believe, the Electoral Commission is truly independent, a strategy and policy statement that all of Parliament votes on should be sufficient. On that point, I stress that Her Majesty’s Government and Ministers are separate from political parties, which the Electoral Commission regulates. Ministers act in line with the public interest and the provisions of the “Ministerial Code”. The points that those Members are making are well outside the scope of what the Electoral Commission should be doing. This is not a worry about accountability, and a good strategy and policy statement will not affect the commission’s ability to do its work.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission is a statutory committee whose existing remit is narrowly restricted to overseeing the commission’s finances and the appointment of Electoral Commissions. The purpose of the clause is to expand that remit.
That expansion will contribute to improving the parliamentary accountability of the Electoral Commission by giving the UK Parliament the tools that it needs to effectively hold the commission accountable. The clause will expand the role of the Speaker’s committee and empower it to examine the commission’s performance in its duty to give regard to the strategy and policy statement. That will enable the committee to perform a scrutiny function similar to that of parliamentary Select Committees in that it will be able to retrospectively examine the commission’s activities in the light of the regulator’s duty to give regard to the strategy and policy statement.
That new power will sit alongside the committee’s existing statutory duties, which we are not amending. To be clear, under the clause, the committee will not be able to proactively direct the commission’s decision making either. The commission will remain fully operationally independent and will continue to be governed by the electoral commissioners. To support that expanded scrutiny function, the clause also gives the committee powers to request relevant information from the commission in such forms as the committee may reasonably require—oral or written evidence, for instance.
To protect the integrity of the commission’s enforcement function, the provisions will ensure that it is not required to disclose information that might adversely affect any current investigation or contravene data protection legislation. The clause also makes provisions for the protection of witnesses against defamation claims, and for any evidence given by a witness not to be used in civil, disciplinary or criminal proceedings against the witness, unless the evidence was given in bad faith. That is necessary to afford a degree of protection to witnesses.
For the reasons I have set out, the clause will improve the accountability of the commission to the UK Parliament while respecting the regulator’s independence and enforcement proceedings. I therefore urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Cat Smith
The Opposition broadly support the principle of expanding scrutiny of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. However, we have some issues with the membership, which we will come to when we debate a subsequent clause, so I will hold back some of my remarks until then.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Membership of the Speaker’s Committee
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 14, page 25, line 12, at the beginning insert—
“(A1) In section 2 of PPERA (Speaker’s Committee), after subsection (2)(d) insert—
‘(e) two lay members appointed to membership of the Committee by the Speaker of the House of Commons.’”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 65, in clause 14, page 25, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 2 of PPERA (Speaker’s Committee), at the end of subsection (4) insert—
‘and the Speaker shall ensure that the governing party does not have a majority on the Committee.’”
Cat Smith
Amendment 65 prevents a situation in which the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission can have a majority from the governing party in the House of Commons. The committee currently has a Government majority, and the Bill seeks to strengthen and increase that majority. If we saw that happening in any other democracy around the world, I do not think that we would be sitting back and not saying anything.
As the primary mechanism through which the Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament, we are concerned that, for the first time, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission in the current Parliament has been composed of a majority of MPs from the governing party. This would have been a good opportunity for the Government to be able to correct what I think was an inadvertent error of circumstances.
Although it is normal for Committees to have a governing party majority, it is especially important in the case of the Electoral Commission that oversight is balanced, given that it is responsible for electoral law, including making decisions that may be perceived to have been against a political party that may have membership on the committee. The Bill involves many attempts by the Government to dodge scrutiny, which seems to be a theme running not only through this legislation but through others, so I encourage Members to prevent a situation whereby the Executive has a majority on a committee that aims to scrutinise our democracy.
Amendment 66 proposes to include laypersons on the Speaker’s committee. The voice of voters and major stakeholders in the Electoral Commission’s work is absent from oversight of the regulator. Including laypersons on the committee would enhance non-partisan scrutiny and bring a very different perspective. There are precedents for including lay members on committees overseeing issues that should be outside partisan interests. Lay members sit on both the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Committee on Standards. Amendments 66 and 65 are complementary to ensuring that there is no Government majority on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.
Kemi Badenoch
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission is a statutory committee, the membership of which is set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and includes five Back Benchers, who are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and four ex officio members. It is a cross-party committee and chaired impartially by the Speaker. As such, it is expected to work on consensus across party lines, as is the case for all parliamentary committees, regardless of their political majority. There has never been any suggestion that the presence of a Government majority has fettered the Speaker’s committee’s ability to work constructively with the Opposition in holding the Electoral Commission to account.
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission’s composition currently reflects the wider majority in the House of Commons, as is usually the case for parliamentary committees. Contrary to some of the claims made by the Opposition during the debates about the Bill, it does not have an in-built Government majority. The Speaker already has the necessary statutory powers to appoint five Back Benchers of his choosing.
Therefore, the Opposition’s amendment 65, which seeks to ensure that the Government do not have a majority on the Speaker’s committee, is wholly unnecessary as it seeks to resolve a non-existent problem. Also, as I said earlier in the debate on clause 12, it hints at there being a political motive, rather than a desire to strengthen the Speaker’s committee.
Our view is that amendment 66 should also be opposed, as it is inappropriate. As the Committee will know all too well, it is extremely rare for lay members to be appointed to parliamentary Committees. On the rare occasions that it has happened, extensive consideration was given by previous Parliaments to ensure there were strict criteria determining the appointment process, length of mandate and political background of those lay members. This is necessary to ensure that the addition of lay members to parliamentary Committees does not undermine the role of parliamentarians in their scrutiny function.
None of this important reflection work appears to have been done by the Opposition in tabling this amendment, which simply seeks to pander to false claims that the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has an in-built Government majority. The perspective of voters and members of the public is rightly represented on that Committee by its members, as parliamentarians. It would be both highly unusual and unnecessary in this case to appoint lay members to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Parliamentarians should be trusted to duly scrutinise the work of the Electoral Commission while having regard for preserving public confidence in the integrity of our elections.
For these reasons, I urge the Committee to oppose both amendments.
Patrick Grady
If the Minister is saying that the amendment to provide that the Government do not have a majority is fixing a “non-existent problem”, the logic of that is the amendment should not cause a problem either. Also, the Government might want to consider—this may be hard to believe at the moment—that they may not be in power forever. At some point in the future, another party or parties may form a majority in this House and may wish to legislate, regulate and all the rest that flows with the taking of power. At that point, I have a feeling that a Conservative Opposition’s view on all these matters might suddenly change. So the Government might want to think about some of that, in relation not just to this amendment, but other things in the future.
The point about lay membership was very well made by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson. It is not uncommon to find lay members on certain consultative and advisory Committees associated with this House, and indeed in other parts of public life. Given that some of the Minister’s own Back Benchers were asking earlier for increased impartiality in the Speaker’s committee, I would have thought that the presence of lay members, who can bring in outside expertise without worrying about the transition that might happen at an election or whatever, would be quite helpful.
I will be very happy to support any amendments that the Labour party chooses to push to a vote.
Aaron Bell
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North; it is good to hear that the SNP also appreciates that Governments are not forever and the electorate may eventually turn on the Government at any given time, based on their record over a long period. It is good to know that he knows that he, too, is mortal.
The clause will provide more efficiency in Government by allowing somebody to stand in for a Minister on the Speaker’s committee. That makes perfect sense. Having spoken to the previous Minister in charge of this Bill, I am aware that there has been a problem in the past. Therefore, it is a perfectly sensible clause and it is disappointing, as the Minister said, that the Opposition have chosen to insert what looks like something born of political motivation into its amendment.
I have the utmost faith in Mr Speaker’s ability to determine the membership of the Speaker’s committee as he sees fit and I have the utmost faith in that Committee’s capability to consider any questions that come before it in a cross-party, consensual way, as the Minister said. Therefore, in common with the Minister, I urge everybody on this Committee to reject these amendments.
Cat Smith
I have to say, as a Member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, that I do not think there is any risk of the Government losing a vote on that Committee, given the imbalance of the numbers.
The Minister is right that it is rare to have lay members on parliamentary Committees, but it is not unheard of, and I think that it is a jolly good idea and would like to push it to a vote.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We are all talking about the Speaker’s committee and we have heard from the Minister that the Speaker himself has the power to appoint up to five members from the Back Benches, which demonstrates that there is no Government majority built in to that Committee, save in one situation, where it would require the connivance of the Speaker to create a majority for whichever Government were in power at the time. From my perspective, that is vanishingly unlikely. I have great respect for the position of Speaker, and I am prepared to rely on his good judgment to ensure that the proper balance is maintained in this Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kemi Badenoch
Clause 14 will facilitate Government participation in proceedings of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. That is necessary because, given wider commitments, it has not always been possible for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to attend the Speaker’s committee meetings, despite the fact that they are an ex officio member of the Committee under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Only members named in the legislation are entitled to participate in proceedings of the Speaker’s committee. However, in practice, another Minister of the Crown with responsibility for the constitution will generally exercise functions relating to elections and the constitution on behalf of the Minister for the Cabinet Office. This clause will therefore allow concurrent membership for the Minister for the Cabinet Office and a Minister of the Crown with responsibilities in relation to the constitution who is appointed by the Prime Minister.
This clause will also revoke the Transfer of Functions (Speaker’s Committee) Order 2021, which served a similar purpose and allowed a Minister of the Crown in the Cabinet Office with responsibility for the constitution to deputise for the Minister for the Cabinet Office whenever necessary at meetings of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.
I want to state clearly on the record that, in contrast to what some Opposition members have claimed, this clause will not increase the total number of Government members or votes on the Committee. Nor will it allow the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Minister of the Crown to be appointed by the Prime Minister to attend Committee meetings at the same time, or to have two votes. Rather, the clause will merely allow a Minister of the Crown to deputise for the Minister for the Cabinet Office as and when he is unable to attend Committee meetings. There will continue to be only two ex officio Government members, with two votes, in total on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Together, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Minister of the Crown deputising for him amount to only one member and one vote, because they cannot both attend Committee meetings.
Following the recent machinery of government change, a transfer of function order will be laid separately to replace any mention in this provision of the Minister for the Cabinet Office with a reference to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. As Minister of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities with responsibility for local government, it is expected that I will be appointed by the Prime Minister to be the other ex officio Government member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. This clause is necessary to duly facilitate Government participation in proceedings of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Criminal proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
The purpose of clause 15 is to maintain the existing role of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland in bringing prosecutions under electoral law by clarifying the extent of the Electoral Commission’s powers. The Electoral Commission has publicly stated in its 2020-21 to 2024-25 interim corporate plan that its intention is to develop a prosecutorial capability that would allow it to investigate suspected offences and bring them directly before the courts. For the avoidance of doubt, the commission has never brought a criminal prosecution to date. While the commission considers that the current legislation provides scope for it to develop this function, this has never been explicitly agreed by the Government or Parliament, and could risk wasting public money while duplicating the work of the prosecution authorities that are already experts in this domain.
Clause 15 therefore amends the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to expressly remove the potential for the commission to bring criminal prosecutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will not apply in Scotland, where there is already a single prosecutorial authority. This clause will not amend any of the commission’s other existing powers: the commission will continue to have a wide range of investigatory and civil sanctioning powers available to it. It will also remain able to refer criminal matters to the police, as is currently the case.
To reiterate, the purpose of this clause is to maintain the existing role of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Public Prosecution Service in bringing prosecutions under electoral law by clarifying the extent of the Electoral Commission’s powers. The effect of the clause is to amend paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide for expressly removing the potential for the Electoral Commission to bring criminal prosecutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also maintains the existing prohibition on the commission borrowing money, and relocates it to proposed new paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1. As I mentioned earlier, it is not necessary to include similar provisions for Scotland, as it is already clear that the Lord Advocate, acting through the Procurator Fiscal Service, has sole responsibility for criminal prosecution in Scotland. For those reasons, and to bring much-needed clarity to electoral law, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Patrick Grady
As the Minister has said, this clause relates to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It does not really cover Scotland because of the nature of the Crown Prosecution Service, and in olden times, this might have been one of those clauses that was subject to the English votes for English laws procedure. I always like to speak on things that might have been covered by the EVEL procedure.
I want to reflect a little bit on this clause, though, because the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders have expressed concerns about what the Government are trying to do here. The Government giveth a statement, a direction to the Electoral Commission, and then they taketh away, saying that the commission cannot have the powers that it wants in order to be able to do its job right now—to increase its capability to prosecute. Throughout scrutiny of this Bill, we have heard from Government Members about rampant corruption threatening the integrity of the UK system. We have heard that Tower Hamlets was not an isolated case—people were prosecuted in that case, and brought to justice—but that similar cases are happening all over the country; it is just that we do not know about them, and they need to be investigated and prosecuted. Here is an opportunity for prosecution, but the Government are taking it away.
Other regulators have this power, either at an English, a Welsh, or a UK-wide level, including the Financial Conduct Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Food Standards Agency. As such, this goes back to the point I made about some of the earlier clauses in this part of the Bill, about what the Government are trying to do here and the power grab that they are determined to effect. I fully accept that the regulatory and prosecutorial regimes north and south of the border are different, so it is not the SNP’s place to challenge this clause or press it to a vote, but it is important that those points are put on record.
Aaron Bell
It is a pleasure, once again, to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North. I could not disagree more with his point about a power grab. This is a clause that provides welcome clarity. The Electoral Commission has neither the capacity nor the competence to act as a prosecutor; I believe there are too many conflicts of interest. It would end up marking its own homework, because it would be providing advice and guidance on the law first, and then acting as an arbiter and prosecutor over its own decisions. That is clearly a matter for an independent Crown Prosecution Service and for the police, all overseen by the courts.
We can only think about what happened in the EU referendum, in which the Electoral Commission was criticised for the legal advice it gave, for failing to ask for evidence from the accused, for the handling of documents, for its enforcement decisions and, ultimately, its flawed bids for criminal prosecutions against leave groups, which were then thrown out by the police and the courts. It was incredibly embarrassing for the Electoral Commission because Vote Leave had followed the advice that the Electoral Commission had given it on making donations to other campaigns, such as BeLeave. That perfectly illustrates the potential conflicts of interest in this area.
This is not just about the referendum. If we go back some time to 2005, when Labour were last in government, there was a controversy about loans to political parties before the 2005 general election. Again, that was fuelled by questionable advice from the Electoral Commission. If it was then marking its own homework on those loans, after the election, the Labour party would have felt in the same position that the leave campaigners did. It is welcome that the Electoral Commission has never brought prosecutions until now, but given the demand and clamour for that in recent years, I really welcome the fact that this clause makes it clear that that cannot happen in future.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have mentioned Tower Hamlets again. Perhaps another footnote in this is that the Electoral Commission registered a political party, Tower Hamlets First, without checking whether it had a bank account, which it did not. It is perhaps further evidence that giving further powers to the Electoral Commission may not be the best idea, and that they should be given to other bodies instead.
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his point about Tower Hamlets—a case that he knows well. Indeed, the Pickles report said:
“Despite years of warnings on misconduct in Tower Hamlets, the Electoral Commission gave the Borough’s electoral system a gold-star rating for electoral integrity in its inspection reports”
and went on to say that it was a tick-box inspection of town hall electoral registration departments. There are other reasons why we need to have better scrutiny of the Electoral Commission and why we need the clause that we debated previously, but the point about criminal proceedings is the one that I particularly wanted to speak to. I will leave it there and let colleagues come in.
Jerome Mayhew
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I associate myself with all his comments. However, this is, with respect, actually a wider issue than just dealing with the Electoral Commission and the evidence that we have heard about the referendum and Vote Leave.
At the beginning of this process, the Committee heard first-hand oral evidence on the negative impacts of an organisation that provides guidance, sets the rules, and then seeks to prosecute. It is part of a wider problem that we have experienced in just the last couple of years. We only have to look at the Post Office, which is another private prosecuting authority, and its conduct in the Horizon case—the greatest miscarriage of justice that this country has ever experienced—including a sub-postmistress constituent of mine receiving a suspended prison sentence as a result of that miscarriage of justice.
It simply goes to show the issues with these conflicts of interest between investigating and then being a prosecuting authority—or “marking your own homework”, as my colleague just mentioned.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recall that one of heads of the Electoral Commission was found to be highly political in their online posts?
Jerome Mayhew
I was aware of that. I am grateful for that intervention. It highlights the dangers that we tread when we have the Electoral Commission entering into a more politicised role. Furthermore, it is not just the Post Office; I also have a real concern about the Care Quality Commission, which is another private prosecuting authority. It was, to its own surprise—I suspect—given prosecuting powers under health and social care legislation in 2015. Under that legislation, it can prosecute for negligent care that causes harm in a health environment. However, since then, its record has been very poor in the number of prosecutions taken forward. A terrible scandal took place in my constituency over the last two years at the Cawston Park hospital, which was an assessment and treatment unit where, through neglect and at least one case of direct physical abuse, which was caught on CCTV, three patients died over a 27-month period. While I have to be careful what I say, it is certainly the case that currently no prosecution has followed that terrible series of events.
Kemi Badenoch
As I sum up, I would like to add a further point in response to accusations that the clause represents a power grab. I wholeheartedly agree with the excellent points made by my hon. Friends. However, I thought it was also worth reminding the Committee that the Crown Prosecution Service has criticised the Electoral Commission’s suggestion that it should have prosecution powers. The Crown Prosecution Service noted that
“the CPS deals with criminal offences under the RPA and criminal charges under PPERA, while the Electoral Commission has civil powers to deal with PPERA cases. We assess this is an appropriate division. There are important prosecutorial functions that the CPS has vast experience of, and expertise in, including police PACE processes, adherence to CPIA legislation and to disclosure rules.”
It continued:
“In our view, a criminal-civil divide provides a good level of precision… Any unintentional blurring of the lines would be counter-productive.”
Those are the Crown Prosecution Service’s words, which explain why the clause is important. I would also like to remind the Committee that the Electoral Commission has civil sanctioning powers that apply to referendums and elections. More serious matters can be referred to the police and the CPS, and then considered by a court of law. The courts already have the power to levy unlimited fines, but the Electoral Commission still has civil sanctioning powers, which we believe are sufficient.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I am not on now till Wednesday week, so, if you finish before then, may I say it has been an absolute delight to work with you all? If you are still talking about the Bill on Wednesday week, I shall look forward to this Committee with the greatest anticipation.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Rebecca Harris.)
Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. To ensure that the developers of new build homes are accountable for their actions, they will be required to become and remain members of the new homes ombudsman. The principle of requiring organisations to belong to an ombudsman or redress scheme by law is not new. Clause 130 provides the legal basis for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to require developers to become members of the scheme, and to remain members for a specified period. That may extend to when they are no longer developers, which will ensure that they meet their responsibilities to the people to whom they sell homes.
The clause also allows the Secretary of State to require members to inform purchasers of the scheme, which may include requiring members to obtain, display or produce on request a copy of a certificate confirming their membership of the scheme. It also provides for an enforcement framework to be put in place to protect against rogue developers who breach the requirements in the regulations, and that includes the imposition of civil sanctions for breach of the requirements.
The proposal will create a flexible enforcement framework, allowing the Government to task an existing or new regulator or enforcement body with investigating and sanctioning breaches of membership and publicity requirements, and to resource that body accordingly. Proportionate safeguards are attached to the new power. Where provision is made for sanctions to be imposed, there must also be provision for the right to appeal the imposition of a sanction. The clause is vital as the basis for a future-proofed and comprehensive redress, accountability and enforcement framework.
Clause 131 places a requirement on the person who maintains the new homes ombudsman scheme to keep a register of the scheme’s members and make it publicly available. That will help instil more confidence in the transactional process, given that a prospective purchaser will, for example, have greater assurance that issues with their new build home, if they happen to arise, can be resolved via the new homes ombudsman.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. I have a brief question for the Minister about examples of civil breaches and sanctions. He referred previously to the fact that, under current protections, new homeowners have fewer rights than those purchasing a new toaster, so enforcement measures and sanctions will be vital. Will the Minister briefly expand on that?
Eddie Hughes
I think, in terms of the spectrum of powers, that we are better focusing on the ultimate power: that developers could be expelled from the scheme if they do not comply with the ombudsman’s code. That would prevent them from developing in the future, which feels like a heavy stick with which to beat them should they decide not to comply. It is therefore important for that ultimate action to be available, so that people know that a developer not prepared to comply with the code will ultimately be prevented from building homes in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132
Developers’ code of practice
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 132, page 137, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) The code of practice must include measures on the standards of quality of work to promote building safety, including but not limited to, preventing water ingress.”
This amendment requires the developers’ code of practice to include standards relating to the prevention of water ingress.
Mark Logan
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I am speaking to the developers’ code of practice. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned earlier that, right across this country in every one of 650 constituencies, we receive a huge amount of casework. I will talk a little about my own constituents, their issues and how we may rectify matters through further consideration.
My constituents in Holden Mill in Astley Bridge have been considerably let down by the substandard workmanship of P J Livesey, a Cheshire building contractor, and by the insurers, the National House Building Council. Both parties appear to be protecting themselves, rather than the 450 residents of Holden Mill. I am pleased that the Government have already supported my residents with several schemes and through the work of the Building Safety Bill. I hope that we can ensure further protection of such residents and greater accountability.
The residents of Holden Mill have been at the mercy of NHBC and PJ Livesey for far too long. They face the dread of water ingress caused by the slightest downpour, and are surrounded by cladding deemed to be high risk. Every night, a physical waking watch travels through each and every corridor of their building to ensure that they are safe. However, that comes at significant cost, both financially and psychologically.
For example, Anita Brooks, who should be looking forward to welcoming her first child shortly—perhaps today—is in the midst of this unwanted lingering distress, unable to sell her apartment due to the unacceptable workmanship. Similarly, Kirit Raja owns two properties in the Holden Mill, both of which were uninhabitable for several months. He, too, was unable to sell them on the market, because of the historical incompetence of P J Livesey and others.
Rather than peaceful enjoyment or seeing a return on their investments, my residents are being forced to pay out thousands of pounds of their hard-earned money for mistakes for which they are not responsible. I suggest that that is happening up and down the country, which is why it is of paramount importance that we establish a new code of practice for the industry. The code must include measures on the standards of work quality to promote building safety for residents such as Anita and Kirit, ensuring that the industry is held accountable.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I am really interested in this amendment. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentions water ingress, but the amendment says:
“including, but not limited to, preventing water ingress.”
I have had casework that involves water ingress. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are other examples of people living in poor-standard accommodation due to poor workmanship? People have reported windows falling out, gaps in external walls and windows, unacceptable barriers between flats—stud walls where there should be brick walls, so that smoke, noise and fumes pass between—and so on. Does he agree that such examples should be considered, as well as water ingress?
Mark Logan
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I appreciate that she is an expert in this field, having worked in the industry for many years, like my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—apologies if I have given him a promotion. It will come. The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is why I would like to probe the Government even further. Water ingress is one part of this, but further consideration should be given to some of the elements that she has rightly raised.
If this provision had been in place 15 years ago, the likes of NHBC and P J Livesey could have been brought to task instead of my blameless constituents at Holden Mill. I encourage the Government to put more work into considering whether to apply the clause retrospectively to ensure that the residents of Holden Mill in Astley Bridge are protected. Will my hon. Friend the Minister help me by saying whether decompartmentalisation issues will be addressed in the code of practice and whether he is considering applying the code retrospectively?
Mike Amesbury
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this important amendment. It is something that we are familiar with. My good friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth has alluded to the fact that the amendment could be somewhat broader. I am sure that the Minister and the Department will address that in the code of practice. The Opposition are happy to support the amendment.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East for raising this important matter. It is clearly an area of great concern in his constituency. Too many people have been let down, and I am sorry to hear about the terrible experience his constituents have faced. Unfortunately, this is something that happens far too often. When a new home is built or an existing building is converted poorly water ingress is a serious issue and may cause serious distress and detrimental effects to homebuyers and their properties.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue in the wider context of improving the quality and safety of our built environment. Developers and warranty providers must meet their responsibilities and resolve issues quickly and fairly. It is unacceptable that people are stuck in homes through no fault of their own. However, in this case, the Government consider that the amendment is not necessary and that we have already met its intentions elsewhere in our statutory framework.
Developers are already under a legal duty to prevent water ingress. Requirements are set out in building regulations, in particular part C of the Building Regulations 2010, which already include requirements for resistance to contaminants and moisture. That includes ensuring that buildings are protected from ground moisture; precipitation, including wind-driven spray; condensation; and spillage of water. Guidance is available in approved document C on how to comply with this requirement.
In addition, the Building Safety Regulator has a duty in clause 5 to keep under review the safety and standards of all buildings, which would include ensuring that building regulations are fit for purpose and making recommendations if changes are needed. The developers’ code of practice provided for in this clause is about the standards of conduct and standards of quality of work expected of members of the new homes ombudsman’s scheme more generally, and may include developers complying with existing standards and requirements.
The Chair
You should indicate whether you wish to push your amendment to a Division or withdraw it.
Mark Logan
Oh, I see. I look forward to coming back to aspects of this issue in the future. I thank the Minister for his thorough response today, and in the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 133
Construction products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
The Government are committed to ensuring that construction products placed on the United Kingdom’s market are safe. The clause and schedule create a power to make regulations for the marketing and supply of construction products in the UK.
Not all construction products are covered by the existing regulatory framework, which derives from EU law. Schedule 9 contains powers to extend the regulatory framework to cover all construction products available on the UK market. The Government intend to use this power to ensure that construction products are safe before they are placed on the UK market. In addition to this general safety requirement, schedule 9 will give the Secretary of State the power to create a statutory list of safety-critical construction products where their failure as part of a construction would risk causing serious injury or death.
The power will enable the Government to require manufacturers to declare the performance of these products to a specific standard and put in place measures to ensure that this performance is consistently met. This will bring the regulation of safety-critical products in line with those covered by the existing regulatory framework, so that any purchaser or user of a safety-critical product will have reliable information about how it will perform. Schedule 9 will enable the Secretary of State to amend the existing regulatory framework or replace it in Great Britain so that it continues to meet the needs of Great Britain’s market.
We know the importance of claims made in the marketing of products. Schedule 9 will give the Secretary of State power to address false and misleading claims made about the performance of construction products. Dame Judith Hackitt recommended that the Government should ensure a more effective enforcement regime with national oversight to cover construction product safety. That is why schedule 9 paves the way for a national regulator for construction products and enables us to strengthen market surveillance and enforcement powers. It enables the Secretary of State to make provision for the national regulator and local trading standards to issue civil penalties and recover costs from economic operators where appropriate. Setting out regulatory requirements for construction products in secondary legislation will enable us to amend regulations quickly when needed so that they remain appropriate within a continuously changing industry landscape.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for outlining the provisions in this clause, which we support. There is a need to strengthen the regulatory regime, so this regulator is welcome. We have seen the evidence of the building safety scandal. The Grenfell inquiry has shown that companies literally re-engineered—gamed—the system to ensure that their products seemingly met the appropriate standards at the time. This will strengthen that process and ultimately ensure that the building safety landscape is improved in future, and hopefully in the here and now, when the Bill passes through Parliament. [Interruption.] If I start smoking and steam starts coming from me, do excuse me—I seem to be surrounded by radiators. We are happy to support the clause.
Eddie Hughes
I welcome those comments. We have definitely seen during the course of the Grenfell inquiry that products have been either tested or marketed in an inappropriate way, and it is good to see agreement across the House. The clause will strengthen our hand in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 134
Amendment of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Davies. I am pleased to see that you are putting the Government’s heat and buildings strategy into full effect in the Committee.
The Government are committed to strengthening the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in order to better protect people’s safety in all regulated premises. Clause 134 delivers on 10 proposals that received significant support from respondents to the 2020 fire safety consultation, to address weaknesses that were commonly reported by stakeholders and to better align the order to the new building safety regime. New duties on responsible persons, informed by best practice, will support greater compliance with the order and its effective enforcement, mainly through the improved recording and sharing of fire safety information.
For all multi-occupied residential buildings, the owner or manager will be required to provide relevant and comprehensible fire safety information to residents, as will be specified in the order and may be set out in regulation. That will reassure residents that fire safety is effectively managed and will empower them to hold responsible persons to account. For higher-risk buildings, responsible persons will be required to identify the accountable persons and to co-operate with them. The co-operation duties in this clause and clause 118, with which we dealt on Tuesday, will support a co-ordinated approach to safety in higher-risk buildings between those duty holders, subject to either the building or the fire safety regime.
For all regulated premises, responsible persons will be required to record their fire safety risk assessment in full, including measures taken in response to risk. When appointing a person to assist them with making or reviewing a fire risk assessment, they will be required to ensure that that person is competent to do so. We also need to strengthen the existing co-operation duty between responsible persons sharing premises by requiring them to identify themselves to each other, provide United Kingdom contact details, explain the parts of the premises for which they consider themselves to be a responsible person and record that information. Where responsibility for fire safety changes hands, the outgoing responsible person must provide critical information for the incoming responsible person, as will be specified in the order and as may be set out in regulation.
Our amendment to article 50 of the order will enable the courts to consider a responsible person’s failure to follow all statutory guidance issued to support compliance with their duties as tending to establish a breach of the order. We will also increase the maximum financial penalty available to the courts from £1,000, which is level 3, to unlimited fines, level 5, for offences of impersonating an inspector, breaching requirements imposed by an inspector or in relation to the installation of luminous tube signs, which brings the measure in line with the fire safety order.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 134 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 135
Architects: discipline and continuing professional development
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
Clause 135 relates to the competence of architects. It was developed in response to a proposal in the independent review that advised that the Government and the Architects Registration Board should consider the current and future competence of architects on the register of architects. It provides the ARB with the power to specify the practical experience and training requirements for architects. That will enable the ARB to monitor the competence of all architects on the register. It allows the ARB to determine which practical experience or training should be assessed and how the assessment should take place.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Will architects be able to appeal against a decision taken by the Architects Registration Board to remove them from the register for not meeting the new competence requirements?
Eddie Hughes
An architect may appeal to the High Court if they are aggrieved by a decision taken by the Architects Registration Board to remove them from the register for not meeting the new competence requirements, but we will need to consider further how a non-judicial appeal route could be made available for architects to make such challenges in future. The clause sets requirements for the ARB to consult bodies representing architects as well as such other professional and educational bodies as it thinks appropriate. Currently, the Architects Act 1997 does not provide powers for the ARB to scrutinise competence after the initial registration and throughout an architect’s career unless an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct is brought before the ARB. This means that an architect may be practising for a prolonged period without any further proactive regulatory oversight.
Ruth Cadbury
I am interested to know whether “architect” means the individual named person or the company or practice for which they work, or which they are a member of. There is a very famous architect who is responsible for some iconic buildings and structures; some of those failed, notoriously, but that individual managed to avoid any litigation because of the way he structured his relationship with the building or structure that was constructed. That is a risk, and I wonder whether that has been considered in drawing up this clause.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Lady. My understanding is that clause 138 will deal with the point she makes.
To continue with clause 135, this proposal brings the architects’ profession in line with best practice in other professions and gives greater assurance to those procuring and inhabiting buildings. The objective of the clause is to ensure that all registered architects are suitably competent to undertake their work and that their knowledge is up to date.
Clause 136 relates to the list of services for which the Architects Registration Board may charge. Currently, the 1997 Act provides for a small number of services for which the ARB may charge. The costs of all the ARB’s functions are currently met by the annual retention fee, which is charged by the ARB to all registered architects.
However, the ARB offers a number of other services. This clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to expand the list of services for which the ARB may charge a fee on a cost recovery basis, meaning that only those using the services will cover the costs. The aim of this clause is to keep the retention fee low for all of the architects on the register. An example of a potential additional charge would be to charge a fee to international institutions that wish their architectural qualifications to be recognised by the Architects Registration Board in the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 137
Housing complaints made to a housing ombudsman
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 137, page 142, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) after sub-paragraph (1), insert—
‘(1A) He must as part of his investigation consult tenants or bodies representing the interest of tenants.’”
This amendment would ensure the Housing Ombudsman consults tenants as part of complaints made against social housing providers.
Mike Amesbury
The Minister has spoken before about his work on the upcoming social housing reforms. We are grateful to him for his hard work and to all those stakeholders currently involved, and I am glad to be able to add to the debate about reforming the social housing sector, with particular reference to this clause.
Clause 137 is a good clause, implementing something that was raised in the social housing Green Paper from 2018. Getting rid of the democratic filter for complaints from tenants to the housing ombudsman is a good thing, and I am pleased that the Government are using this opportunity to implement those parts of the social housing reforms that they have been saying they will make for some considerable time—since all the way back to Grenfell. We have tabled the amendment because we believe there is one other, related change that can be implemented now as part of the Bill.
The recent television series with ITV journalist Dan Hewitt has highlighted the unacceptable conditions in which some social housing tenants live. People are living in overcrowded, cold homes with mould, damp and holes in the ceiling, and some have considerable rodent problems—the kinds of issues that no Member present would tolerate for a single day. Thanks to the excellent investigation by Dan Hewitt and “ITV News”, we recently saw shocking examples of tenants not being listened to by housing providers. “Surviving Squalor” was an appalling reminder not only of the conditions in which some people are forced to live, but of the fact that such conditions continue because their pleas are ignored by social housing providers.
Ruth Cadbury
I gave examples earlier of the two blocks built in the early 2000s in my then ward, which is now in my constituency. As a councillor, I received complaints from tenants and leaseholders about damp, repairs and so forth. They were dealt with, or not dealt with, individually by the housing managers. Tenants and leaseholders were not listened to, and they were treated as individual complaints. Had the residents been listened to—they were meeting collectively—it would have been picked up a lot earlier that the individual problems were caused by systemic building faults in those blocks of flats. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is exactly why a voice for tenants is absolutely essential?
Mike Amesbury
I definitely agree with my hon. Friend—I wouldn’t dare not—and this cannot be allowed to continue.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
On Monday I met the National Housing Federation, and a point was made about tenant engagement. Sometimes the risk is that those who do not speak up have the most serious issues and are not being heard. As part of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which is very interesting, how does he feel that, operationally, we can ensure that tenants who often do not make complaints are actually heard? Quite often it is the same people time and again, which is great, but those from whom we do not hear often have serious issues. How does he feel that we could do that?
Mike Amesbury
I think it is about ensuring that the voice of tenants, residents and leaseholders is central to the new process—it is about bringing that to life. Throughout the Bill’s journey so far, Members from across the House have spoken eloquently about that, regardless of their political affiliation.
The programme that I refer to, and the issues it raises, brought shame on the country’s housing system and those involved in the neglect shown on ITV. It also highlights how the Government have defunded, diminished and undervalued social housing, and how little progress has been made since 2017 to bring in full social housing reform. The amendment brings us back to the reason the Bill was introduced: the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. Survivors of the fire at Grenfell are very clear that they were let down by the process. As tenants, they had no voice. They, more than anyone, support tenants having a voice and being heard.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. We are back to the point about a change of culture. The amendment would hardwire into the Bill a requirement to hear the voices of tenants. In the evidence sessions, we heard many examples of tenants feeling that their voice was not listened to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth said, tragedies would have been averted if their voices had been listened to. The amendment hardwires into the Bill a change of culture, and fairness. It would ensure that everyone here strives to move forward. I would really like the Minister to consider it.
Mike Amesbury
I thank my hon. Friend and not-far neighbour for that powerful intervention. Many scenarios were highlighted this summer by ITV, following a segment on the failings of a large housing provider, Clarion, which has, over years, failed to listen to what tenants said about collapsed ceilings, damp, mould, and rats. An investigation was opened, but just as the housing associations have ignored tenants, so did the social housing watchdog. In its investigation, it did not speak to a single resident on the estate in question. In its defence, I suppose, it is not in the social housing regulator’s remit to seek out residents’ views on the housing provider. That is absolutely crazy. We need to strengthen the legislation, and the amendment would certainly help with that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. In the health service, the patient’s voice is at the heart of everything. It is absolutely right that residents’ voices should be at the heart of housing issues.
Mike Amesbury
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and for reiterating the point about residents’ voices. Clarion was cleared, despite the fact that hundreds of repairs took place once the television segment was aired, which demonstrates the depth of the issues that developed in homes. People from across the Committee and beyond have seen that programme. On Clarion’s board is a former Housing Minister, so it does have insight at a senior level.
Clearly, the amendment is only part of the reform needed to ensure that our social housing sector provides safe housing and listens to the needs of tenants. To reaffirm what the hon. Member for West Bromwich West said, tenants must be heard at all times, not just when issues develop to such an extent that tenants complain. There should be engagement over a period of time—and not just with, let us say, the usual suspects.
We have an opportunity to make a difference today. I urge the Government to strengthen the laws and support the amendment.
Eddie Hughes
It is unfortunate that my prescribed speech starts with the statement, “The Government are not able to accept the amendment.” However, context is important. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government had defunded and diminished social housing, and said that gave rise to the problems. However, in the same speech he also pointed out that one of the housing providers that was shown to be at fault during the programme that he referred to manages approximately 140,000 houses. This is an organisation with substantial resources—millions and millions of pounds in the bank—so clearly defunding was not the problem at play. There was a structural problem with regard to the organisation and its ability to communicate appropriately with residents.
Mike Amesbury
Surely, going forward, if complaints from tenants are going to the new regulator of social housing, and a systemic problem is picked up—as with, for example, Clarion housing and that particular estate—it is just common sense that engagement with tenants will be part of the remit.
Eddie Hughes
I have heard it often said that one of the problems with common sense is that it is neither common nor sensible sometimes, and so it proves to be in this case, because a different organisation is meant to take that duty: the housing ombudsman. Through this process, the removal of the democratic filter will mean that people who want to complain do not have to go to a councillor or their local MP; they will be able to escalate the complaint themselves directly.
We are trying to ensure that residents know how to complain and that the system is fair, easily navigated and, hopefully, brings clarity to the situation. Although I have seen the programme that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I completely sympathise with his intentions, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. I must point out our concern about the unintended effect that it would have. I assume that the amendment seeks to ensure that wider issues arising from or relating to an individual complaint, and which may affect multiple tenants, are picked up and addressed. However, the approach to which the amendment would give effect raises issues of privacy and data protection. Under the amendment, a resident making a complaint about their landlord would face the prospect of having information that they submitted to an ombudsman—personal and perhaps highly sensitive information—disclosed to third parties.
It would not be appropriate to require the housing ombudsman to consult unrelated third parties as part of its investigation into an individual’s personal issue. Cases that enter the housing ombudsman’s formal remit may be resolved through early resolution. The housing ombudsman works with complainants and landlords to try to agree a negotiated solution, within a time limit. The housing ombudsman’s approach to investigations into individual complaints is inquisitorial; evidence is sought from both the resident and landlord. There is engagement with the resident at different stages of the process to determine the scope of the complaint, the outcome being sought and the evidence. This engagement is with the individual resident and their landlord and should not be fettered through consultation with unrelated third parties.
Regarding engagement with residents, landlords and other organisations, the housing ombudsman service regularly engages with and consults residents and landlords on a range of activities relating to the service in a range of ways. Activities include consulting on their three-year strategic plan, their annual business plan, and revisions to the housing ombudsman scheme. The scheme enables residents, and others, to have complaints about members investigated by the housing ombudsman. It sets out, for example, how the service investigates complaints, membership terms and conditions, who may use the scheme, which complaints the housing ombudsman service may or may not investigate, how it will investigate and its powers and functions.
Consultations are open to individual residents and representative bodies and groups, and the housing ombudsman engages proactively with both. The housing ombudsman service has a resident panel that is open to all social housing tenants, and has a membership of over 600 residents. It provides an opportunity for residents to be involved in the development of the housing ombudsman’s service as well as giving direct feedback on their experience of the service, and to engage with many different aspects of the housing ombudsman’s work—for example, providing views on its investigations into sector-wide issues such as damp and mould.
Further engagement work takes place through regular meetings with resident bodies, and quarterly “Meet the ombudsman” events across the country. Issues discussed at these events have included the housing ombudsman’s role in providing advice and assistance while complaints are within the landlord’s process, as well as how it formally investigates once the landlord’s process is complete; the housing ombudsman’s expectation that all landlords should adopt a positive complaint-handling culture and what this means in practice; and how the housing ombudsman works with the regulator of social housing. Another issue discussed has been the learning reports that the housing ombudsman produces for landlords, which are focused on different categories of complaint. These reports identify failings and make recommendations for improvement.
The housing ombudsman service publishes a range of other information to inform and support residents, including all of its determinations on individual cases, anonymised so that residents’ names are not used; annual landlord performance reports; guidance on making and progressing complaints; and insight reports that look at complaints data, individual cases and wider learning points, and that share knowledge and learning from its casework. The housing ombudsman service has agreed a memorandum of understanding with the local government and social care ombudsman and the regulator of social housing, which commits it to sharing information on issues which affect multiple residents.
Earlier this year, the housing ombudsman published a new systemic framework, which set out how it will look beyond individual disputes to identify key issues that affect multiple residents and signal wider issues with landlord services. Again, learning is shared across the sector to promote good practice and support a positive complaint-handling culture. I hope that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will withdraw the amendment.
Turning to clause 137, removing the democratic filter is one of a range of measures the Government are committed to in “The Charter for Social Housing Residents”—the social housing White Paper referred to earlier. It will ensure that landlords provide good services and engage positively with residents, treating them with courtesy and respect, and being accountable and transparent in how they operate. The charter sets out that this includes:
“To have your complaints dealt with promptly and fairly, with access to a strong Ombudsman who will give you swift and fair redress when needed.”
The housing ombudsman service, created in 1996, delivers an independent and impartial service to ensure that disputes are resolved and residents receive redress where appropriate. We are clear that residents should be able to raise concerns without fear, and get swift and effective resolution when they do. Currently, however, social housing residents who wish to seek redress because they believe they have received unsatisfactory service from their landlord have to refer their complaint to a designated person. This can be an MP, councillor or recognised tenant panel. Alternatively, residents have to wait eight weeks from the time that their complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process before they can formally refer their complaint to the housing ombudsman. That is known as the democratic filter.
Clause 137 relates to the removal of the democratic filter stage—a requirement that was introduced by the Localism Act 2011. This gave a role to a designated person in dealing with disputes between social landlords and their tenants or leaseholders. The democratic filter was intended to strengthen the accountability of social landlords, enable housing complaints to be resolved using local knowledge, and help reduce the number of formal investigations by the housing ombudsman. In practice, it has resulted in social housing residents having less direct access to redress rather than consumers accessing other redress schemes.
The Green Paper consultation in 2018 identified this as an issue, which we then tested at consultation. We asked whether we should reduce the eight-week waiting period to four weeks or remove the requirement for the democratic filter stage altogether. Some 5% supported no change, 38% supported the option to reduce the waiting time, but 47% supported the option to remove the democratic filter stage.
Separate consultation undertaken by the housing ombudsman also established that although some designated persons’ arrangements work well, in many cases they do not operate effectively. It also emerged that in some areas tenant panels either do not exist or are not used. During 2019-20, only 6.9% of the cases entering the housing ombudsman’s formal remit were referred by a designated person. Removal of the democratic filter received support from the majority of respondents when the housing ombudsman service consulted on its 2019-22 corporate plan and 2019-20 business pan, with low support for the designated person role.
We all know how important our homes are to us. When things go wrong with our homes, we should expect to be listened to, have repairs carried out quickly, faults rectified, and maintenance work carried out to prevent faults from recurring. We want to know that our homes are safe for us to live in, safe for our families, and fit for purpose. When repairs are required, they should be carried out speedily and efficiently. When we are not listened to, landlords need to rectify issues. It is stressful, worrying and frustrating. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Neither clause 137 nor the explanatory notes mention the voice of residents, tenants or leaseholders. The Minister correctly referred to the current structure of the housing ombudsman and the recommended changes, including the democratic filter. Labour Members agree with that. It is very sensible to speed up the process. I speak regularly to representatives of Grenfell United —I know that Ministers and departmental officials do, too—and their view is crystal clear. They are dissatisfied with the measure because it does not capture or build on the principle of active engagement with residents, tenants and leaseholders. We will not, therefore, withdraw the amendment; we wish to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Christopher Pincher
The purpose of clause 138—rather as clause 39 does for the Building Act 1984—is to make it clear that where individuals who control a corporate body participate in committing criminal offences under parts 2 and 4 of this Bill, they, too, are criminally liable for those offences. Many of the persons who will have duties under the new regime will be corporate bodies—legal persons, as they are known—rather than individuals, who are often known legally as natural persons. Any corporate body operates only through the actions of its employees, controlled by its managers and directors. Therefore, if there is an offence by a corporate body, there is likely to be some measure of personal failure by those in positions of seniority.
This liability is already provided for in a number of other pieces of legislation, including notably the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; the Committee has heard me speak about that in previous sittings. The end result is that directors and managers are just as criminally responsible as the company where either they have made decisions that led directly to the offence being committed, or they have been negligent in allowing the offence to occur.
We have addressed similar points that were raised in debates on previous clauses. If there is one director of a company, it is likely that two prosecutions—for both the company and the director—would be brought, although in practice there would be one case to answer. If the company had dissolved, the company itself would not be liable for prosecution, but that would not prevent a prosecution from coming forward against any one or a number of the managers or directors of the company who were there at the time the offence was committed.
The potential for criminal liability of directors and managers reinforces the duty of those who direct the actions of companies to uphold and promote building safety throughout the operations of their companies—again, inculcating the culture that we want to see. The Government consider that this is a key contributor to our stated purpose of embedding building safety at all levels of the industry, contributing to residents both being and feeling safe in their homes. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I want to draw out a point that the Minister referred to. In the construction sector, as has been mapped out in the journey of the Bill so far, special delivery vehicles or special purpose projects are set up and then dissolved. How would this provision apply to the individuals and directors involved? We welcome this clause, which is a real step forward, but we just want to draw out that point.
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman. In my previous remarks, I may have said, “if a company folds”; what I hope I said was that if and when a company dissolves, the dissolution of the company does not prevent an individual—a senior person, a manager or a director—from being liable for offences if they were there at the time the offence was committed. I hope that that confirms the issue that the hon. Gentleman rightly draws out. We are essentially in agreement, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139
Review of regulatory regime
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
The Government are committed to the continuous improvement of the building regulatory regime and the construction products regulatory regime, including the Building Safety Regulator and the national regulator for construction products. The purpose of the clause is to legislate for the appointment of an independent person to carry out a periodic review of the system of regulation for building safety and standards, and of the system of regulation for construction products. We believe that such a review will act to assure the functioning of the systems and provide independent recommendations for improvement.
The independent review recommended a periodic review of the overall system of building regulation, including accountabilities, responsibilities, guidance and the effectiveness of the regulator. It recommended that the review should be undertaken by an independent person at least once every five years. The clause meets that recommendation and goes further.
The review must consider the Building Safety Regulator and the system of regulation established by parts 2 and 4 of the Bill and by the Building Act 1984. It must also consider the regulation of construction products, including the effectiveness of the national regulator of construction products. However, the independent person is not limited and may review connected matters. The Secretary of State may also indicate areas of specific interest that they would like the reviewer to consider. I stress, however, that the Secretary of State has no ability to limit the remit of the review.
An independent person must be appointed at least once every five years, although the Secretary of State has scope to appoint a person more regularly should they so wish. By ensuring that the report produced by the independent person must be published, the Government have created a system of public accountability in building safety. In seeking to define “independent”, we have struck a balance that discounts those with a clear conflict of interest, without overreaching and excluding everyone with relevant experience. Under that approach, the exemplar for an experienced but independent person is Dame Judith Hackitt, prior to her appointment to the lead the independent review.
The Government have provided a structure to ensure that an independent review of the system of building safety and standards will occur at least once every five years, and we have ensured that the reviewer can operate unfettered. The clause will help to protect the integrity of the system and help to make sure that the system continues to create a safe built environment in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 139 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 140 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 141
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
The clause provides that the Crown is bound by parts 2 and 4 of the Bill, and by the provisions relating to the new homes ombudsman.
The Crown Estate manages an extensive property portfolio on behalf of the Crown, and that portfolio includes a number of in-scope buildings. The Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of Her Majesty, and the Duchy of Cornwall on behalf of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, also manage property portfolios that may include in-scope buildings. Some properties owned and occupied by Government Departments may include permanent accommodation, which could bring them within scope.
It is right that those buildings should be subject to the new regime we are setting up for existing buildings. This clause therefore provides that the Crown is subject to parts 2 and 4 of the Bill. This is in line with the approach taken in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which apply to the Crown. It will mean that the Crown will be an accountable person for in-scope buildings and, as such, will be bound by all the duties placed upon an accountable person. The Crown will also be bound by the provisions of the new homes ombudsman, so any Crown bodies developing new residential properties that are within the scope of that ombudsman may need to join the scheme as required by regulations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North has mentioned in other contexts.
In line with long-standing legal and constitutional principles, the Crown as an entity cannot be subject to criminal sanctions. However, individual Crown servants can be, and that is provided for in clause 141(3) of the Bill.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Bill applies parts 2 and 4 to Crown buildings. Do the Government intend to extend the application of part 3 of the Bill to Crown buildings, too?
Christopher Pincher
Clearly, there should be a consistent approach to the application of all the provisions of the Bill to the Crown. There is an existing power in section 44 of the Building Act 1984 to enable building regulations to be applied to the Crown, although it has not been brought into force. We have been looking at whether we should switch this power, but there are gaps in how it would operate. In particular, as drafted, the power in section 44 of the 1984 Act would not allow us to make regulations setting out the gateway requirements for work carried out by Crown bodies. We are working through the issues and what might be needed by way of new provisions in the hope that we can resolve these matters at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
Ruth Cadbury
I want to be clear that this clause has been included because of the new legal status of the Crown, not because it owns a number of historic buildings that include some residents and that may be within the scope of the Bill. I can think of other owners of historic buildings in which people live that may be within scope, such as the National Trust, English Heritage and museums. If we establish that the Palace of Westminster is a residential building, it appears to be out of scope. I would be grateful if the Minister could help me through that confusion.
Christopher Pincher
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is confused. I appreciate that some of these matters are exceptionally dry and very technical, but none the less, they are extremely important. The Crown has a unique legal position in our country, as I have said. Because of long-standing legal and constitutional principles, it is not an entity subject to criminal sanction, but it does operate a very significant property portfolio, and in that portfolio there are in-scope buildings. That is why this clause has been included in the Bill, for the sake of specificity and clarity.
While the general principle of applying part 2 and 4 of the Bill to Crown buildings is right, we need to recognise that there may be some buildings where, for example, security or other operational considerations mean it would not be appropriate to apply the regime. In the draft statutory instrument on scope, we therefore proposed to exclude military premises, including barracks and buildings occupied solely for the purposes of the armed forces. Those will remain subject to the Ministry of Defence’s existing building and fire safety arrangements, which we believe to be strong ones. Clause 141 therefore ensures that the protections provided by the Bill are available to leaseholders, tenants and users of existing Crown buildings. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
If the Crown commissions a new build above 18 metres or seven storeys, the new regime applies. Can the Minister expand on this scenario? If there is a serious fire that results in deaths, and those acting on behalf of the Crown are found to be culpable, who would be criminally liable? Would the Crown be exempt?
Christopher Pincher
I will try to help the hon. Gentleman as best I can. As I have said, the effect of this clause will be that the Crown is regarded as an accountable person for in-scope buildings. The clause will cover the responsibilities of an accountable person, and it will ensure that they apply to the Crown. The Crown is also responsible for adhering to the provisions of the new homes ombudsman. In the event of a specific fire in a specific place, I imagine that it would be for the prosecuting authorities to determine where culpability lies. A range of measures are set out in the Bill and in existing Acts of Parliament to ensure that those who are culpable for criminality can be charged, tried and, if necessary, brought to justice. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman with his question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 142
Power of Secretary of State to make consequential provision
Christopher Pincher
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 142, page 145, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) Regulations under this section may not make provision that may be made under section 143.”
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may not make consequential provision that may be made by the Welsh Ministers under clause 143.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part and clause 143 stand part.
Christopher Pincher
This is a technical amendment to ensure that the devolution settlement is protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 144
Regulations
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 144, page 146, line 24, at end insert—
“(8) But the Secretary of State may not—
(a) lay before Parliament a statutory instrument under subsection (6), or
(b) make regulations in a statutory instrument under subsection (7)
(9) That condition is that the Secretary of State has consulted—
(a) fire safety experts,
(b) leaseholders and their representatives,
(c) local authorities, and
(d) safety and construction industry bodies”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with stakeholders before making regulations.
Daisy Cooper
I apologise for not being ready—I have some rather urgent constituency things coming in that have consumed my mind for the past few minutes.
There has been a lot of talk about how much detail is in the Bill and how much information is not in it. When we took evidence, a number of people said that they had worked closely with officials in the Department and they were hopeful that that would continue. They also emphasised the importance of scrutinising any legislation that came through via statutory instrument.
I think the purpose of the amendment is fairly obvious. Any statutory instruments that are laid should receive proper democratic scrutiny by Members of this House, the public, leaseholders and everybody in industry. It is self-explanatory. I hope that hon. Members will see it merits and I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that the Government are looking to ensure proper democratic scrutiny of any statutory instruments laid under the Bill.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for tabling the amendment, which we support. This culture change in building safety—making people safe in buildings in the here and now, and in the future—requires consultation with the maximum number of stakeholders to help shape legislation and regulations going forward. This is a very common-sense amendment; it strengthens the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the amendment and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his comments. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with specific stakeholders before making regulations.
I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s intention and I agree with the principle that there should be appropriate consultation on regulations made under the Bill. I hope that, by the time I have concluded my remarks, she will see that the amendment is at best superfluous and at worst could be rather confusing. I will explain why. I do not mean in any way to detract from what she is trying to achieve.
The Government have introduced provisions to ensure appropriate consultation in clause 7, which we debated some little while ago, before the rather long conference recess, in the proposed new section 120B of the Building Act 1984 in schedule 5, and in the specific procedures to ensure appropriate scrutiny of changes to the scope of the higher-risk building regime. I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing those provisions already.
I remind the Committee that we have already said that we will include consultation provisions when making regulations. Those regulations will always be subject to consultation.
Save for certain limited special procedures, the independent Building Safety Regulator may propose regulations to the Secretary of State after consulting on them and drawing on the benefit of its technical expertise and expert committees. Where the Secretary of State initiates proposals, they must first consult with the independent Building Safety Regulator and other persons they consider appropriate before regulations can be made. It pays to stress that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but maintaining the existing provisions in the Bill has three fundamental advantages.
First, on a technical point, the amendment would apply only to regulations made under this Bill and not to regulations made under the Building Act 1984, including under the provisions inserted by part 3. Committee members may remember that I spoke, some might say monotonously, about the 1984 Act in previous sessions. We need a consistent approach to consultation across building safety standards legislation, to make sure that it is simpler and fairer, and I think this approach is preferable.
Secondly, the amendment would create a degree of confusion and duplication, because it would insert an additional consultation provision into the Bill on top of the existing one in clause 7. The practical effect would be some duplication and delay. To give an example, where the Building Safety Regulator has proposed regulations to the Secretary of State after a full and proper consultation under clause 7, the effect of this amendment would be that the Secretary of State was required to conduct a further consultation with the key stakeholders listed in the amendment. We believe that that would create unnecessary delays in tackling important building safety issues.
Thirdly, we believe that the general requirements to consult in the Bill are more likely to support effective consultation than the approach set out in the amendment, which seeks to list a specific set of consultees in primary legislation. That would, as we all know, be much more difficult to unwind and change as the building safety landscape changes.
A wide range of regulations will be made under the Bill. They will range from technical regulations setting out what functions the Building Safety Regulator and the local authorities may share information on, or the form on which certain applications must be made, through to very complex regulations that are necessary to deliver the new national regulator for construction products. We do not think that a one-size-fits-all approach to which parties need to be consulted is appropriate to that range of subject matter. Instead, we believe that the consultation requirements stipulated in clause 7 will support more effective and tailored consultation.
Members of the Committee should be reassured by the fact that the Bill’s approach to making regulations learns from the approach that has successfully been taken in respect of health and safety regulations. The Health and Safety Executive, with the Secretary of State, has taken a proportionate approach to consulting parties before regulations are made, and it has been doing that for more than 40 years.
We understand that expertise will not stop at the door of the Building Safety Regulator, nor, for that matter, the Secretary of State. We agree that consultation on regulations is necessary, but we think that adding this amendment would unintentionally create duplication, confusion and—because of its disapplication from the Building Act 1984—a narrowing of the application of the provision. Given the assurances that I have provided to the Committee, and the fact that the Bill already ensures appropriate consultation mechanisms, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Daisy Cooper
I thank the Minister for his assurances that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment, and I am sure that during proceedings on the Bill, others may look at the scope of the application of this measure. I am grateful for his assurances on the parliamentary record that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment, which is designed to continue the democratic scrutiny of secondary legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 146
Commencement and transitional provision
Amendments made: 20, in clause 146, page 147, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) As regards Part 3 and section 134—
(a) the following provisions come into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint—
(i) section 30 so far as relating to section 120I of the Building Act 1984;
(ii) section 31(3) so far as relating to section 91ZD of that Act;
(iii) section 41 so far as relating to section 58Z2 and 58Z8 of that Act;
(iv) paragraph 56 of Schedule 5 (and section 54 so far as relating to that paragraph);
(v) paragraph 77 of that Schedule so far as relating to section 120C of the Building Act 1984 (and section 54 so far as relating to that section);
(b) the following provisions come into force, in relation to Wales, on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint—
(i) section 31 except subsection (3) of that section;
(ii) section 32 except so far as relating to paragraph 1D(3) of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984;
(iii) sections 33 to 40;
(iv) section 41 except so far as relating to section 58Z2, 58Z7 or 58Z8 of the Building Act 1984;
(v) section 42 and Schedule 4;
(vi) sections 43 to 51;
(vii) section 52 except subsection (1) of that section;
(viii) section 54 and Schedule 5 except—
(a) paragraphs 38, 39 and 86 to 88 of that Schedule (and section 54 so far as relating to those paragraphs);
(b) paragraph 77 of that Schedule so far as relating to section 120B of the Building Act 1984 (and section 54 so far as relating to that section);
(ix) section 55 and Schedule 6 except paragraphs 7 and 29 of that Schedule (and section 55 so far as relating to those paragraphs);
(x) section 56;
(xi) section 134 except subsection (8) of that section so far as relating to Article 22B of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005;
(c) subject to that, Part 3 and section 134 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”
This amendment confers certain powers of commencement on the Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 21, in clause 146, page 147, line 22, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (3A)(a) or (b) may make transitional or saving provision.” —(Christopher Pincher.)
This amendment provides that commencement regulations made by the Welsh Ministers may make transitional or saving provision.
Clause 146, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. May I, perhaps not entirely convincingly, remind you that if you want to take your jackets off, you can? More significantly, could you please ensure that your mobile phones and other devices are turned off? I have checked mine to ensure that it is off as well.
Clause 10
Differential treatment of refugees
Amendment proposed (this day): 87, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for local authorities, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the report must be approved by a substantive vote in both Houses.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the financial implications for the bodies listed in subsection (10);
(b) an assessment of the functions and powers of those bodies that will be affected by this section;
(c) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies, and the outcome of such engagement and consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 10 for local authorities and the devolved administrations, and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 161, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing within the Act or this section authorises any treatment or action which is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”
This amendment seeks to ensure consistency of clause 10 with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Clause stand part.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Opposition strongly oppose the clause. We believe that it contravenes the 1951 refugee convention, that it sets a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tiered system for refugees and that it is deeply inhumane. The clause seeks to dehumanise refugees in many insidious ways, and I believe that it threatens our very sense of who we are as a civilised nation. I will set out all the ways in which the clause does that, but before I begin, I would again like to thank the many organisations from across the refugee and asylum sector for their invaluable help in our scrutiny of the clause.
I will talk first about the differential treatment of refugees in groups 1 and 2. As all members of this Committee will know, at the heart of clause 10 is the creation of two tiers of refugee under UK law. Only those refugees who meet specific additional “requirements” will be considered group 1 refugees and benefit from the rights currently granted to all refugees by the refugee convention. Under clause 10 of the Bill, the requirements for group 1 refugees are that
“they have come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened (in the sense of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention), and…they have presented themselves without delay to the authorities.”
The clause also states:
“Where a refugee has entered or is present in the United Kingdom unlawfully, the additional requirement is that they can show good cause for their unlawful entry or presence.”
Other refugees, who are not deemed to meet the criteria, will be designated as group 2 refugees. The Secretary of State will be empowered to draft rules discriminating against group 2 refugees with regard to the rights to which they are entitled under the refugee convention, as well as the fundamental human right to family unity.
To explain this differentiation between refugee groups further, clause 10 makes provision for different treatment of people recognised as refugees on the basis of how they travelled to the UK and the point at which they presented themselves to authorities. Those who travelled via a third country, do not have documents or did not claim asylum immediately would routinely be designated as group 2 refugees. The clause goes on to set out how the length of limited leave, access to indefinite leave, family reunion and access to public funds are likely to become areas for discriminating against group 2 refugees.
The Opposition strongly argue that such an approach is deeply flawed and fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, the attempt to create two different classes of recognised refugee is inconsistent with the refugee convention and has no basis in international law. The refugee convention contains a single, unitary definition of refugee, which is found in article 1A(2). That defines a refugee solely according to their need for international protection because of feared persecution on the grounds of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Anyone who meets that definition and is not excluded is a refugee and entitled to the protection of the refugee convention. We heard in evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative to the UK that in her opinion this clause and the Bill were inconsistent with the UN convention and international law.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the UNHCR, which is the guardian of the refugee convention. Does he agree with me that on that basis, if we are to listen to anybody’s opinion about this issue, it would be the UNHCR and that should be therefore the final word on it?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. It is not just the UNHCR. It is the custodian of the UN refugee convention, so we should listen to what it says, but many other commentators across the board have commented on how this clause and the Bill breach international law, and we need to heed what they say. I have yet to see the Government’s legal advice that says that they do comply with international law, but hopefully that will be available.
I will set out for the Committee the reasons why the distinction between groups of refugees is so unfair and inhumane. I will start by addressing the issue of distinguishing between refugees on the basis of how they arrived in the UK. By penalising refugees for how they were able to get to the UK, the Bill builds walls against people in need of protection and slams the door shut on many seeking a safe haven. Most refugees have absolutely no choice about how they travel, as people on all sides of the political divide understand.
Do the Government seriously intend to penalise refugees who may have found irregular routes out of Afghanistan? In fact, Government Ministers have been on national news programmes in recent weeks, urging such a course of action for those wishing to flee Afghanistan. Are the Government saying that people are less deserving of our support if they have had to take dangerous journeys? Is an interpreter from Afghanistan who took a dangerous journey to our shores less deserving than a refugee who was lucky enough to make it here on one of the flights out of the country?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that those who fought alongside or were trained by UK forces, or who guarded our diplomatic personnel in Kabul, were betrayed in being left behind and are being doubly betrayed by the provisions in the Bill?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right. People linked to my constituents are Chevening scholars who were told to go to Kabul airport. They got no assistance and are still stuck in Afghanistan, with no way to get out. It is deeply concerning, and they feel let down.
It clearly makes no sense to seek to penalise and, in some cases, even criminalise those who have been forced to take dangerous journeys. In our view, it is an insidious way of dehumanising a group of people who deserve our support—it is victim blaming of the most crass and immoral type. Penalising people for how they have arrived in the UK has particular implications for already vulnerable groups of refugees, such as women and those from LGBT communities. Women are often compelled to take irregular routes to reach safety, as we can see only too clearly in Afghanistan. There are simply no safe and legal routes that exist. Even the Government’s much-vaunted resettlement scheme relies on women escaping from a regime in which they are forbidden to walk around freely in the streets.
In many cases, even if the Government created new safe routes from dangerous parts of the world, they would simply not be available to all those in need of protection. Many women would not be able to safely reach an embassy or cross a border to access a resettlement programme, if those routes did indeed exist. Some women would be able to disclose their need for protection only once they reached a country that they considered safe. Under the proposed changes, however, women who arrive irregularly, including through a safe third country, would be penalised. Furthermore, a woman could be prosecuted, criminalised and imprisoned for one to four years. All these obstacles apply to those from LGBT communities as well. We simply ask the Government: how on earth does this draconian and inhumane treatment of vulnerable groups sit alongside British values of fairness?
Another huge flaw in this part of clause 10 is that many of the journeys facilitated by people smugglers are undoubtedly dangerous. Much attention has been directed by the Home Secretary and certain sectors of the press to the minority of people who enter the UK’s asylum system via boat crossings of the channel. However, that is far from the only dangerous journey that is made to enter the UK; the Home Secretary emphasised that when referring to the tragedy of the 39 Vietnamese people who lost their lives in a container found by Essex police in 2019.
Again, as the Home Secretary identified in her speech, the dangers are not limited to the journeys but are also a feature of the violent and exploitative treatment by people smugglers, traffickers and other abusers. Moreover, many of the people who make dangerous journeys to reach the UK from the continent will already have made dangerous journeys by land and sea, including across the Mediterranean.
The fallacy of the Government’s position in penalising people for making irregular routes to the UK is the same as the fallacy inherent in the stated objective of breaking the business model of people smugglers. Unless the Government can provide safe routes—they plainly have not done so in the case of Afghanistan and elsewhere—penalising people for making unsafe journeys is simply cruel. By not providing safe routes, the Government are also fuelling the business model of people smugglers and then penalising the victims they have a responsibility for creating. Do they not understand or are they simply willing to turn a blind eye? In America in the 1920s, prohibition drove the sale of alcohol underground, and a similar thing will happen here: more people smuggling will take place rather than less. The Government are fuelling the people smuggling business model.
It appears that Ministers and those advising them do not appreciate the compulsion to make these journeys, which is strange because they clearly acknowledge that the journeys are very dangerous and sometimes fatal. They are often highly traumatic, physically and mentally, and generally involve at some point extremely violent and cruelly exploitative people.
To give one example, it has long been documented that there is a practice among the women and girls seeking to cross the Mediterranean from Libya of taking contraceptive medication prior to the journey. That is because those women and girls anticipate that they will be raped. Do Ministers have any idea of the desperation involved in making the decision to take such medication? It is clear that although the women and girls fully understand the danger involved in the journeys, they are still compelled to make them, because the alternative of not doing so is even worse.
If people truly had a reason to believe that they were or would be safe where they are, they would not make the journeys. Simply making the journey more dangerous or the asylum system more unwelcoming will not change that. A salutary lesson ought to be taken from the example in 2014 when pressure from the EU, then including the UK, led to Italy’s decision to abandon its organised search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. The immediate impact over several months before the Government relented was a huge increase in the number of people dead. The need for the journeys had not changed, so the journeys continued. The dangers of the journeys were greatly increased, so hundreds more people lost their lives. Discriminating against refugees obliged to arrive spontaneously will not prevent desperate people from making dangerous journeys. There is strong evidence that a policy focused on closing borders forces migrants and refugees to take more dangerous journeys and leaves them more vulnerable to traffickers.
That brings me to section 2(a) of the clause, which states that group 1 refugees must have
“come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened”.
In other words, the Government are setting an expectation that to be a refugee who is supposedly deserving of the support usually afforded, the UK must be the first safe country in which they have sought asylum. I cannot state strongly enough how requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would undermine the global, humanitarian and co-operative principles on which the refugee system is founded. The UK played a key role in developing those principles 70 years ago when it helped draft the refugee convention, and, together with the other members of the United Nations General Assembly, it recently reaffirmed them in the global compact on refugees.
The proposed clause designed around the maxim that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and can be penalised if they do not, including by being designated as group 2 refugees, will impact not only refugees but fellow host states and the ability to seek global, co-operative solutions to global challenges.
The expectation that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach is also unworkable in practice. The Government are aware that there are 34.4 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide, and the vast majority—73%—are already hosted in countries neighbouring their countries of origin. Some 86% are hosted in developing countries. Low-income countries already host 86% of the world’s refugees compared with the UK, which hosts just 0.5%. To insist that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would impose an even more disproportionate responsibility on the first safe countries both in Europe and further afield, and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to provide protection and long-term solutions. In turn, that would overwhelm the countries’ hosting capacity and encourage onward movement.
It is also worth noting that even within Europe most of the countries that refugees pass through on their way to the UK already host significantly more refugees and asylum seekers per population than the UK does. According to the Home Office’s own statistics, the UK is 17th in terms of the numbers it takes, measured per head of population.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that very few other countries resettle as many refugees as the United Kingdom or take as many through safe channels from United Nations camps in some of the most troubled parts of the world?
Bambos Charalambous
Since Dublin 3 ended, there are very few resettlement routes available. That is one of the problems. Unless there are safe resettlement routes, we are just fuelling dangerous journeys.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is repeatedly asserted that the UK has an exceptional record in terms of resettlement. It has a decent one; it is about mid-ranking in the European Union, in terms of the number it has taken per head of population over the years. Similarly, it is mid-ranking in terms of the number of asylum cases it assesses. It is good, but it is not exceptional and it is not a justification for the measures in this Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Unless safe routes are developed, all that will happen is that there will be an increase in dangerous crossings, because that will be the only way in which people can reach the UK.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
As we have already discussed, the majority of the people who come to our shores come from France. There is a safe route from France. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting we should give these people Eurostar tickets?
Bambos Charalambous
France takes three times more asylum seekers than the UK, as does Germany. As I mentioned, the UK is 17th by population in the number of asylum seekers it takes. The right hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. There are many other countries—Lebanon, for instance, has taken 1.9 million refugees from Syria. Jordan has taken 1 million over the last 10 years. Turkey has taken 4.3 million refugees. We are talking about a tiny fraction of those numbers. I think we need to stand up and take our share of the refugees. These countries will collapse if they are forced to take refugees because they neighbour countries where there is conflict.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of a dichotomy here? People talk up the tradition and reputation of the UK at the same time as presenting legislation that undermines that reputation. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that global Britain seems less compassionate, less generous and less Christian than the Great Britain that proudly helped draft the refugee convention?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The refugee convention was enshrined in UK law in 1954 when Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister. It was one of his beliefs, and that of the Government of the day, that it was a very important part of the UK’s global position in the world. We should not do anything that would trash our reputation, because we will all be diminished by that.
The clause makes no practical or moral sense at all. Global provision for refugees could not function if all refugees claimed asylum in the first safe country they came to. As Members across the political divide know, most refugees are hosted in developing countries and the UK receives fewer asylum applications than most other European countries. Furthermore, it is an important aim of the refugee convention that there should be no penalisation of refugees who arrive irregularly. It is very important to make that point and to repeat the point that the refugee convention does not state that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to; it permits refugees to cross borders irregularly to claim asylum.
Let me give the Committee an example to illustrate why this part of the refugee convention is so vital. This is a real-life scenario that faced a refugee to the UK, who, in this situation, I am going to call Aaron.
Aaron is a refugee who travelled to the UK via other countries. He was a young teenager when he had to leave Eritrea without his family. His father had been conscripted into the country’s brutal military service and came home to see his family. When he left again, he told his family that he was going back to his base, but he never showed up there. The family did not know anything about his whereabouts. The military came to Aaron’s house looking for his father and told Aaron’s mother that they would take her children, including Aaron, if they could not find his father. Aaron had no choice but to leave. He says:
“People really suffer. They don’t want to leave their country but their country forces them because military service in Eritrea is the worst thing. You have to serve the military forever. There is no life, there is nothing.”
He left Eritrea and spent two years looking for safety before arriving in the UK. He travelled via Sudan and Libya, both of which were very dangerous. He then went to Italy, where he felt unsafe sleeping outside under bridges, and to France, where he ended up in the Calais jungle. He explained:
“They didn’t treat us like human beings”,
Aaron came to the UK in the back of a lorry. “I wasn’t expecting anything,” he remembers,
“I just escaped to keep my life, to be safe. That’s the most important thing.”
He was initially refused asylum and had to submit a fresh claim. He was in the UK asylum system for seven years before finally being recognised as a refuge—and as having been one all along. He now plans to study IT.
Under international law, the primary responsibility for identifying refugees and affording international protection rests with the state in which an asylum seeker arrives and seeks that protection. The idea of seeking asylum in the first safe country is unfair, unworkable and illegal in international law.
That brings me on to the suggested strictures on group 2 refugees in clause 10(6), which sets out a non-exhaustive list of ways in which refugees who arrive irregularly may be treated differently, with reduced leave to remain, more limited refugee family reunion rights, and limited access to welfare benefits. The explanatory notes for the Bill state:
“The purpose of this is to discourage asylum seekers from travelling to the UK other than via safe and legal routes. It aims to influence the choices that migrants may make when leaving their countries of origin—encouraging individuals to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach after fleeing persecution, avoiding dangerous journeys across Europe.”
However, the Government have provided no evidence to show that the stated aim will result from the policy.
Evidence from many refugee organisations suggests that refugees seek asylum in the UK for a range of reasons, such as proficiency in English, family links or a common heritage based on past colonial histories. Many sector organisations have told us that refugees do not cite the level of leave granted or other elements of the asylum system as decisive factors. In fact, it seems likely that those are not even details refugees would tend to be aware of.
However, the proposed strictures will certainly result in a refugee population who are less secure, because they have a shorter amount of leave and are less able to integrate because they have reduced access to refugee family reunion. They will punish those who have been recognised, through the legal system, as needing international protection—girls fleeing the Taliban in Afghanistan, Christian converts fleeing theocracy in Iran or Uyghurs fleeing genocide in China.
These strictures are likely to retraumatise people who have already been subjected to horrific abuse. To take one example in more detail, clause 10(5) gives the Home Secretary broad discretion to set the length of any limited period of leave given to group 2 refugees, such that they may be indefinitely liable for removal. Both the new plan for immigration and the Bill’s explanatory notes confirm that group 2 refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution will be given only temporary protection status—no more than 30 months, according to the new plan—after which they will be reassessed for return or removal. The extreme uncertainty that this will cause, along with the inability for people to move forward with their lives, is tantamount to inflicting mental cruelty.
The explanatory notes also state that 62% of asylum claims in the UK up until September 2019 were from people who entered irregularly. This means the policy intention is to impose strictures on the rights and entitlements of the majority of refugees coming to the UK, even though we take fewer than comparable countries, as has been noted.
Furthermore, these strictures would deny recognised refugees rights guaranteed to them under the refugee convention and international law. They would also create a series of significant civil and criminal penalties that would target the majority of refugees who will seek asylum in the UK. Those penalties would target not just those who had entered the UK irregularly or who had made dangerous journeys, but all those who have not come directly to the UK—regularly or irregularly—from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened; those who have delayed claiming asylum or overstayed; and even those who arrive in the UK without entry clearance and who claim asylum immediately.
In short, these strictures can only be seen as cruel and as a way to obstruct integration. Barriers to resettlement in the UK would force refugees to live under the perpetual threat of expulsion, denied a chance to rebuild their lives. Subjecting refugees to no recourse to public funds conditions would leave refugees vulnerable to destitution and exploitation. Meanwhile, reducing family reunion rights interferes with the right to family life, and is cruel. It constitutes a reduction of safe, managed routes for people seeking sanctuary.
I will now look in more depth at the practical consequences of the strictures of group 2 status that have just been outlined. It is worth stating that this clause envisions that group 2 status will be imposed on recognised refugees—people who are at risk of persecution, who have been forcibly separated from their homes, families and livelihoods, and who in many cases have suffered trauma. The mental health challenges they face are well documented, yet this clause will stigmatise them as unworthy and unwelcome, and if the intentions expressed in the explanatory notes were carried out, it would maintain them in a precarious status for 10 years, deny them access to public funds unless they were destitute, and restrict their access to family reunion. Multiple studies have shown that that precarious status itself is a barrier to integration and employment, yet despite these challenges, the Bill would specifically empower the Secretary of State to attach a no recourse to public funds condition to the grant of leave to group 2 refugees, and according to the explanatory notes their status
“may only allow recourse to public funds in cases of destitution.”
The adverse consequences of no recourse to public funds conditions will fall not only on the refugees themselves, but on their families, including children who travel with them, who are able to join them later or who are born in the UK. Those consequences have been documented in numerous studies, as well as in the context of litigation. They include difficulty accessing shelters for victims of domestic violence; denial of free school meals where those are linked to the parents’ benefit entitlement; and de facto exclusion from the job market for single parents, largely women, who have limited access to Government-subsidised childcare, as well as significant risks of food poverty, severe debt, substandard accommodation and homelessness. These consequences in turn hinder integration and increase the financial cost to local authorities, which in many cases have statutory obligations towards children and adults. The Home Office’s own indicators of integration framework identifies secured immigration status as a key outcome indicator for stability, which is
“necessary for sustainable engagement with employment or education and other services.”
It is also worth noting that among the public relief measures defined as public funds in this context are those specifically intended to support children, such as child benefit, and the particularly vulnerable, such as carer’s allowance and personal independence payments. Moreover, children born to group 2 refugees in the UK normally have no right to British nationality for 10 years, or until their parents are granted settlement; given that refugees may put their status and perhaps their security at risk were they to approach the embassy of their country of origin to register their children, many would have no effective nationality at all. With the possibility of applying for family reunion foreclosed, more women and children are likely to attempt dangerous journeys, either at the same time as the men who might previously have sponsored them under current laws, or joining them afterwards. That risk has been recognised by the Council of Europe, among others, and has been borne out in Australia, where the abolition of family reunion rights for holders of temporary protection visas was followed by a threefold increase in the percentage of refugees trying to reach Australia who are women and children.
I will now turn in more detail to how clause 10 contravenes the refugee convention. As a party to the convention, the UK has a binding legal obligation towards all refugees under its jurisdiction that must be reflected in domestic law, regardless of the refugee’s mode of travel or the timing of their asylum claim. The obligations in the convention are set out in articles 3 to 34. They include, but are not limited to, the following obligations that are directly undermined by clause 10: providing refugees who are lawfully staying in the country with public relief on the same terms as nationals, which is article 23, and facilitating all refugees’ integration and naturalisation, which is article 34.
The Bill is inconsistent with those obligations in at least three significant ways. First, it targets group 2 refugees, not only for unlawful entry or presence but for their perceived failure to claim asylum elsewhere or to claim asylum promptly, even if they entered and are present in the UK lawfully. Secondly, it would empower the Secretary of State to impose a type of penalty for belonging to group 2 that is at variance with the refugee convention: namely, the denial of rights specifically and unambiguously guaranteed by the convention to recognise refugees. Thirdly, it would empower the Secretary of State to impose a penalty on group 2 refugees that would be inconsistent with international human rights law: namely, restrictions on their rights to family unity. There are many other ways in which the Bill as a whole contravenes the refugee convention in clauses other than clause 10, as we will discuss in later debates.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, once again, the Government will extend the number of people in the UK subject to no recourse to public funds conditions, requiring emergency support from councils and creating a new burden for local authorities of every political colour up and down the country, which will have to provide millions more pounds in support, when people could be supporting themselves and moving on with their lives?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The burden will fall on all local authorities looking after asylum seekers and their families; they will have no choice but to provide that service. The Government have stayed silent on what provisions they will make for local authorities. I am not sure how far they have even consulted local authorities as to whether they accept what has been proposed.
Clause 10(6) would give the Secretary of State the same power to discriminate against family members of group 2 refugees. At present, the Secretary of State’s powers in that regard are constrained by section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which states:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention”,
which would appear to preclude the adoption of some of the immigration rules set out in the explanatory notes.
It is worth restating that nothing in the refugee convention defines a refugee or their entitlements under the convention according to their route of travel, choice of country of asylum or the timing of their asylum claim. The Bill is based on the premise that
“people should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in”.
That principle is not found in the refugee convention, and there is no history of it in the convention.
Mike Wood
The shadow Minister says that there is no history of distinguishing between refugees depending on their route into the country, but that was not the approach taken by the previous Labour Government with the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Baroness Scotland said:
“When a person leaves their country through fear, we consider that, as a general principle, such a person should seek protection in the first safe country where they have the chance to do so. It has been said that nowhere in international law is such a requirement imposed. There may not be such a law, but that does not dilute the argument that a person who is in genuine fear should seek shelter at the earliest opportunity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1683.]
She was right, wasn’t she?
Bambos Charalambous
I do not know the context in which Baroness Scotland said that, but I disagree with her. I very much believe that that would have been breaching international law, as I have stated throughout my speech.
Neil Coyle
Perhaps Government Members would have greater standing on the issue if they were not betraying their own manifesto and cutting aid to countries where people might be able to seek support or stay longer if UK support was not retracted.
Mr Goodwill
Just for the record, did the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate just say that the last Labour Government was breaking international law?
Bambos Charalambous
Nice try. No, I did not say that.
The clause represents a fundamental change to the principle of refugee protection in the UK, introducing a two-tier system where any refugee reaching the country who has not benefited from a place on a resettlement programme may have their claim deemed inadmissible and be expelled to another country, or eventually granted temporary status with restricted rights to family reunification and financial support.
It is worth pointing out here that the UNHCR, the guardian of the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, tells us that the core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. That is now considered a rule of customary international law. Clause 10 therefore represents the shameful undoing of the commitment to the refugee convention and the British values that led to that commitment in the first place.
Anne McLaughlin
It is clear to all on the Opposition Benches that if this goes ahead, we will be breaching our international legal obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in doing so, the damage done both to the UK’s reputation as a global legal centre and to its trade strategy will be immense, at a time when we really need to find new trading partners?
Bambos Charalambous
I very much share those concerns. It is clear that some countries wishing to trade with the UK may also insist on certain measures in relation to visas and access, and in some of the new clauses tabled by the Government more recently there is a suggestion that they would be willing to withdraw visas to some countries. I do not know who they have discussed it with, but that seems contrary to the intention of trading with other nations.
There is no doubt, therefore, that the clause stands in clear contravention of the refugee convention—no small thing, given that the convention, sometimes known as the Geneva convention of 1951, anchors the status of refugees in international law. Around the most desperate and terrorised people on earth, the convention throws the shield of international protection. Since the horrors of the second world war, it has been an article of faith for every decent society, as required today as it was 70 years ago by all those fleeing war, torture and persecution of all kinds, and by all those women and girls who undertake their journey in the knowledge that they may well be raped en route to finding safety.
The Opposition are clear that accepting this clause would set a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tier system for refugees that is deeply inhumane. Furthermore, we hold that its consequences, intended or not, would undermine our binding legal obligations to all refugees. We oppose it because we believe the 1951 convention and all that goes with it speaks profoundly to the core values of the British people. Given the multiple, deeply negative consequences of the clause—mental ill health, poverty, debt, substandard accommodation and homelessness, to say nothing of the financial costs to local and national Government—it should be removed from the Bill.
In short, group 2 status is not only inconsistent with the refugee convention; it is a recipe for mental and physical ill health, social and economic marginalisation and exploitation. The human cost to refugees and their families, including their children, is obvious enough, and it should shame us that this Bill would actively cause harm if clause 10 is adopted. We will oppose clause 10 stand part.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate on his comprehensive critique of clause 10. I want to add only a few points on what is clearly at the heart of the Government’s approach in this Bill: seeking to create a hostile environment for refugees and splitting them into the two groups of which my hon. Friend spoke.
I was interested to hear the Minister talk earlier about the Bill as just one part of a multifaceted approach to tackling the problem, of which international diplomacy was at the core. I would welcome his reflections, when he comes to make his remarks, on how far he thinks our position in international diplomacy is strengthened by a Bill that the UNHCR, the guardian of the 1951 convention, denounces in clear terms as
“The creation of an unlawful two-tier system in which most refugees are denied rights guaranteed by the Refugee Convention and essential to their integration”.
I think that our position in terms of how we play our cards in international diplomacy will be weakened by setting ourselves against the international community. This proposal appals all organisations that have worked with those coming to our country to flee war, terror and persecution, and Labour shares their view. However, I appreciate that this Government, in contrast with previous Conservative Administrations, revel in setting themselves against the international consensus and are happy tearing up treaties to which they have been signatories.
We should examine the clause in the context of the Government’s own objectives. They say it is part of a deterrent to break the business model of people smugglers by dissuading those seeking asylum from taking what the Government consider to be irregular routes. We are all agreed on the objective of breaking the appalling business model of people smuggling and we all agree that we want to end the situation that leads people to take the most desperate journeys across the channel. As I said earlier, and clearly the Minister struggled to respond to that point, even the Government’s own impact assessment says,
“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited.”
I know that he had a problem with evidence when we were talking about clause 9 under part 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
The hon. Gentleman will get a very nice long letter.
Paul Blomfield
I look forward to the letter, but it would be useful to hear the evidence before the Committee is forced to vote.
As colleagues have pointed out, these plans will punish the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators. The Government’s approach conveniently ignores the reality of seeking asylum—of fleeing persecution, danger, abuse and terror, and taking the extraordinary step of leaving your own country and having to flee because you are not safe in the land where you were born and brought up and where your friends and family live. Irregularity in that context is almost a certainty and with it comes a lot of chaos and unpredictability.
Others have mentioned the countless studies that have demonstrated that the preferred destinations of refugees are not identified solely or even primarily on the basis of migration policies devised by Governments with the explicit aim of reducing arrivals. The Home Office has confirmed that the nationality of those arriving irregularly are overwhelming those for whom the majority of their asylum applications will be upheld either at first instance or on appeal, and that includes those from Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. The clause draws a differentiation between different kinds of asylum seekers. Not only is it inhumane and suggestive of bad faith as regards those taking these desperate journeys from the outset, but it is an approach that will not work and that risks making things worse.
The Conservative-led Foreign Affairs Committee warned in 2019 that
“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups.”
The Government’s own impact assessment warns that increased deterrence in this manner
“could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”
The Minister looks frustrated; perhaps he ought to pay attention to his impact assessment.
Central to the Government’s arguments for the clause is that they want to encourage the use of safe and legal routes. Where are they? It is worth looking at that in context. The Minister talked about his pride in the UK’s generosity to refugees. There was some exchange both ways on that because it does not match up to reality. Anything that this country does to accept those seeking to build a new life in the face of terror, conflict and persecution is welcome, but as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East suggested, we are middle-ranking in this area. Worldwide, as the shadow Minister said, we know that it is those countries on the frontline of conflicts, which are often least equipped to deal with the influx of significant numbers, who take the largest share of refugees, including Turkey, with around 4 million, Colombia, Pakistan and Uganda.
Neil Coyle
It is not only the duplicity of that statement. My constituent’s family member is in Afghanistan and needs their passport to leave the country. Their passport is currently being held by the Home Office in the UK. The Home Office is denying them the opportunity to leave Afghanistan by refusing to be flexible. It could perhaps get that passport, through Qatari friends, to the chargé d’affaires in Doha and out to Afghanistan.
Paul Blomfield
Many of us could tell similar stories of hopes dashed by the mismatch, reflected in some of the Government’s language around this legislation, between their ambition and the reality as it affects people’s lives. We see safe and legal routes in name only, with the Government talking the talk but failing to walk the walk. On its own objectives, the clause will fail. It is a flawed policy. The Minister looks critical of what I say. I would love him to intervene on me to set out the programme of safe and legal routes that will be unfolded, because they are the principle that underpin the strategy in clause 10. Without that, clause 10 cannot stand part of the Bill.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I doubt that what I am about to say on clause 10 will shock Members. It is a fantastic element of the legislation because it will act as a deterrent to one of the many pull factors that the United Kingdom has and why so many people are prepared to make the dangerous journey through mainland Europe—that is not war torn, as some would like to have it seen as—to try to make it here to our United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about the hostile environment, but I remind him that in May 2007 it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the then immigration Minister in a Labour Government, who referred to a hostile environment in his announcement of a consultation document. He said:
“We are trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”
When that comment is added to the remarks of Baroness Scotland—cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South—that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, it does not take much to understand the demise of the Labour party in red wall seats such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. People in my constituency want to see tougher immigration control, and 73% voted for Brexit because they wanted us to take back control of our borders. Clause 10 is one method by which we will take back control, because it will say clearly to people that if they make an illegal entry to this country it will count against them. If people take a safe and legal route, the country will open its arms to them and bring them over here, as we have done for people from Syria and Afghanistan.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Member keeps talking about people coming here illegally to apply for refugee status. Of the 5,000 people who came last year by boat, 98% were deemed by the Home Office to be eligible to apply for asylum. They were “genuine asylum seekers”, to use his words and they were not here illegally. They will only become illegal if the Bill is enacted.
Jonathan Gullis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. What I heard is that 5,000 people made illegal entry into this country, putting money into the hands of people smugglers, which ultimately funds wider criminality here and in mainland Europe. That is obviously negative, because it means that more people will be trapped in misery. Even Opposition parties accept that the system is currently broken and we need to fix it, but they seem to want to make sure that we have even more people come here—I heard the comparison to other European countries—rather than what people voted for this Government to do, which is to deter people from making those journeys so that they use safe and legal routes.
Neil Coyle
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening when my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central outlined that the explanatory notes explain that the Bill will mean that some people are more likely to be forced to use criminal gangs. I am sure that he would not support that.
Jonathan Gullis
I disagree. The clause will not force people to use criminal gangs. It is one strand of a wider idea of deterring people from using dangerous routes, including pushbacks, offshoring and a second status for those who enter the country illegally. All those factors brought together, as part of a wider policy, will act as a deterrent, as we heard from His Excellency the High Commissioner for Australia. This clause is one of those deterrents and will form part of a wider package, which has my full support.
I applaud the Minister for this fantastic piece of work. We will always accept people in this country who take safe, legal routes. We will do our utmost to make sure that those people who are most in need are protected. This country has a fantastic history of looking after such people. Stoke-on-Trent is the fifth highest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme—a Conservative-run authority with three Conservative Members of Parliament. We are proud of our city’s history, but at the same time we also acknowledge that illegal crossings of the Channel are putting people’s lives in danger unnecessarily and causing huge strain on our systems. Such crossings also enable and make profits for the disgusting criminal gangs. The only way to stop that is to stop people wanting to take those journeys. The clause is one part of a wider strategy to ensure that that happens.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way, at least. He seems so determined to stop illegal crossings—not illegal people, illegal crossings—and I agree that no one wants people to take dangerous journeys. What are his thoughts and ideas on how we can expand and develop the safe and legal routes, on which the Bill is apparently based, as an alternative? If we have those routes, people will not have to take dangerous journeys.
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Lady has just promoted me to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office or the Home Office. I would be delighted if the Minister were looking for someone to join him in the Department, but I am sure my Whip would have something to say about that. It is a complicated situation. In Afghanistan, for example, we had a brief window for a safe and legal route to bring people out via the airport. Obviously, we cannot go into Afghanistan tomorrow; we would have to negotiate such an exit route with an Administration that I believe would be hostile to that—I do not believe they have good intentions—so we need to look to neighbouring countries such as Pakistan to see whether we can develop safe and legal entry routes in those other countries. I have full faith that the Government will come about that, but first we need the Bill in place to empower the Government to go forward and create those routes.
Anne McLaughlin
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be more helpful and more humane to have the safe and legal routes before we enact the Bill so that we do not have a gap for however long it takes when people who desperately need our help cannot get it? That could be months or years—it has taken a long time with Afghanistan, which is apparently a priority. Would it not be better to have the routes first before the Government do whatever they want with the Bill?
Jonathan Gullis
The problem is that we are not the only country looking for safe and legal routes from places such as Afghanistan. The world is struggling to come to a solution, and it is a world solution that we need to agree. I hope we will use our position as leader of the G7 for that going forward. However, there are a lot of refugees in mainland European countries such as Greece, Italy and France, which are perfectly safe and nice countries in which to start a new life, and people should absolutely claim asylum in them rather than making the journey to Calais, where they put funds into the hands of criminal gangs to fund criminality and come over here illegally. Remember that 70% are men aged between 18 and 35, which means that women and children—the most vulnerable groups—are being left behind in those countries.
Ultimately, it is more important that we ensure that they are protected and that we get to them, as we did in Afghanistan, rather than the illegal economic migrants who are crossing the Channel to enter the country illegally and putting a huge strain on our local authorities. That is why the clause saying, “If you come to this country illegally, that will count against you in your application” is a fantastic idea. Again, that is one strand of a wider strategy to help combat the shocking scenes we see in those Channel crossings, which are angering the people I represent in Stoke-on-Trent—and, to be quite frank, the nation.
The Bill is therefore long overdue. The Opposition accept that the asylum system is broken. Given that, I do not understand why what we are trying to do is not the right solution. The only thing I hear from the Opposition is, “We should have more people coming over here,” but that would create more pull factors to encourage people to make that dangerous journey.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to follow the model of the Syrian resettlement programme, brought in by David Cameron, in respect of Afghanistan? Indeed, countries such as Canada are considering many more than us, and, because their system is not clogged up with people arriving illegally, they can have much wider scope for the legal settlement schemes.
Jonathan Gullis
My right hon. Friend makes a really good point. I go back to His Excellency the High Commissioner for Australia, who made it clear that Australia would not have been able to take the amount of Syrian refugees it did with public support had it not had control of its borders—and, because it did have that control, public support and empathy was massively increased when it came to helping people in desperate situations. Those people deserve to have some of the biggest and best countries around the world holding them dear and giving them a new life in safety and security.
The public are angry because they see an asylum system that is not working. They want to see control of the borders; then, when we have people from Syria and Afghanistan coming over, there would be much more public empathy.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman talked about the broken asylum system, but we actually have more people working in it and processing fewer cases. May Bulman, the journalist from The Independent, wrote an article recently in which she identified 399 people who have been waiting 10 years for their asylum claim to be processed. How can it be that the system employs more people but is processing fewer claims? How can it be allowed that people are waiting 10 years for their claims to be processed? That is the broken system. If it were a business, it would be bankrupt.
Jonathan Gullis
The issue is that we inherited a ruinous backlog from the Labour Government, and we have gone through a multitude of challenges recently—covid, for example, which brought the very challenging situation of working from home. I understand—I am a constituency MP like everyone else. We all do our bit and write to the Home Office. We get frustrated by the time that certain cases can take to process, but ultimately, we are trying to fix the system. That is one strand, and there are other parts of the Bill that we will examine, such as offshoring, which I support. There are other methods to help to deal with the backlog and speed up the processing of asylum claims.
I am more than happy to welcome genuine asylum seekers; what I am unhappy about is the illegal economic migrants continually crossing our channel, coming to our shores and costing millions of pounds to the British taxpayer, and the lawyers obsessed with taking money out of the British purse to stop people being deported. Let us not forget, there are convicted criminals dragged off the plane at the last minute, leaving the UK taxpayer to pick up the tab. They are criminals who should not be here and rightly should be deported. Sadly, I see too many Labour Members celebrating those lawyers’ work to prevent those people from being deported from our country. It is a very sad state of affairs to see those letters written to the Home Secretary. I hope clause 10 will stay as is and will be a part of a wider strategy to deter.
Tom Pursglove
First, I will deal with the two amendments that we have debated. Amendment 87 seeks to make implementation of the differentiated asylum system contingent on issuing a report on its impact on local authorities and devolved Administrations. The report must also be passed by both Houses. Clearly, immigration is a reserved matter, so it is for Westminster to set policy in that regard. Local authorities and devolved Administrations have not only taken part in the public consultation, where they have shared substantive views, but have been included in targeted, ongoing engagement with the Home Office to discuss issues and implementation. I am afraid I do not see what further value such a report could offer, other than to delay the implementation of this important policy.
Amendment 161 seeks to ensure that nothing in the Bill or this particular section authorises any treatment or action that is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention. This amendment is unnecessary because we are already under an obligation to meet our international obligations and, as I have continually set out, intend to do so in the Bill. Furthermore, section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 prevents us, in implementing this policy, from doing anything in the immigration rules that is contrary to the refugee convention. If we were to include such a provision in the Bill, the effect may be to suggest that in any other legislation where it is not included, the intention is not to comply with such obligations. I am certain hon. Members will agree that is neither desirable nor intended.
Neil Coyle
The Minister has rather blithely dismissed our concern about the potential illegality of the measure. What is it that the Minister knows that UNHCR, Amnesty International, British Red Cross, UN Refugee Agency, Salvation Army, Refugee Council, Children’s Society, Law Society, RAMP or the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project, We Belong, Families Together Coalition, Refugee Law Initiative, British Overseas Territories Citizenship Campaign, Human Trafficking Foundation, Reprieve, Women for Refugee Women, British Association of Social Workers, Trades Union Congress, Mermaids, Stand with Hong Kong, One Strong Voice, Rights Lab, Public Law Project, Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, Migrant Voice, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking or ECPAT UK, Justice and Peace, Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, Statewatch, Say it Loud Club, Logistics UK, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, European Network on Statelessness, National Justice Project, Asylum Seekers Advocacy Group, Helen Bamber Foundation, Modern Slavery Policy Unit, Centre for Social Justice, and Justice do not? They all say it is unlawful—what do they not know? Why does the Minister think they are all wrong?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening again. I will come on to his point substantively when I speak to clause stand part. Meanwhile, I invite the Opposition Members to withdraw the amendments.
I do not intend to give a long stand part speech, because we have had a wide-ranging and substantive debate on the clause. It is fair to say that many views have been expressed. I do not remotely doubt their sincerity, but I hope that that acknowledgement of sincerity is extended to all Members, regardless of their views on the matter. When Members come to this House, at the forefront of their minds is wanting to do what they believe to be right. Members on the Government side have equally strongly and sincerely held views on the matters that we are debating, and we believe that the approach we are advocating is the right one.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am quite happy to say that all Members are doing what we think is right, though of course we might think each other misguided. I am concerned that the Minister is not going to go into detail about the issues—
Stuart C. McDonald
I thought the Minister was suggesting that the debate would no longer go on.
Tom Pursglove
That is precisely the point that I wanted to focus on before concluding deliberation of the clause. Views have been expressed about differentiation in the way that we are proposing and about its compatibility with our international obligations. I do not agree with the assessment expressed by various Opposition Members: I argue that the differentiation policy is in line with our international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Of course, it is for Parliament to determine precisely what is meant by our international obligations, subject only to the principles of treaty interpretation in the Vienna convention. That is precisely what we are doing in the Bill.
I want to say something briefly about people seeking asylum in the first safe country that they reach, the importance of that principle and its relevance in the international context, because there has been a lot of debate on the issue. It is self-evident that those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country that they reach. That is without question the fastest route to safety. The first-safe-country principle is widely recognised internationally, and has been for many years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South alluded to in his intervention on the shadow Minister, who slightly surprised me by being so willing to condemn the approach taken by the last Labour Government on that principle. It is a long-established principle, which successive Governments have had at the forefront of their minds when looking at and legislating on such matters.
Stuart C. McDonald
Where does the Minister find this principle and what is it derived from? The overwhelming majority of refugees do claim asylum in the first safe country that they come to. Where exactly is he deriving the principle from?
Tom Pursglove
One thing that occurred to me throughout the debate was why any Member of this House would feel that it was necessary for anyone to get into a small boat on the French coastline in order to come to the United Kingdom. France is without doubt a safe country, and I like to think that we could recognise that across the House. Those journeys are completely unnecessary against that backdrop. I am staggered that that point is not recognised more widely. Based on some of the remarks we have heard, one might think that that was not the case. In my mind and those of my colleagues, there is absolutely no need for anyone to get into a small boat to try and cross the English channel or to take irregular journeys.
On the point about what this relates to, the principle is fundamental in the common European asylum system. Without enforcement of it, we simply encourage criminal gangs and smugglers to continue to exploit vulnerable people, and I make no apology for my determination, and that of the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole, to bring these evil criminal gangs to justice and to stop the dangerous channel crossings. We have to stop them, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North alluded to. We have a moral obligation to do that, and that is what the measures in the Bill, and the wider package of measures that we talk about very often in the House, are seeking to achieve.
Bambos Charalambous
The clause does no such thing. It actually encourages people to make unsafe journeys and to contact criminal gangs, because there are no safe routes. That is the crux of it. If safe routes were available, fewer people would make the journeys, but nothing that the Government have said creates any safe routes. Since Dublin III ended, there are no safe routes for people to come to the UK to claim asylum.
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that I just do not accept that characterisation. As I have said on several occasions in Committee, we continue to resettle genuine refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability, which has protected 25,000 people in the last six years—more than any other European country. It is central to our policy that we advocate safe and legal routes and put them at the heart of our policy making. I have talked about several of them. Of course, this is something that we keep under constant review as the international situation evolves and as needs require. I have no doubt that that will continue to be the approach that we take—establishing routes that are appropriate to the circumstances that we find ourselves in.
Anne McLaughlin
Earlier today, I asked about safe and legal routes. The Minister said that by the time the Bill is enacted, a safe and legal route from Afghanistan will be up and running. I asked him about the other ones. Did he mean just the one route to which he referred, or did he mean routes across all countries where they might be needed? He said he could not answer at that time because the Chair would be annoyed, as we were talking only about the amendment on Afghanistan. Will he now take the opportunity to tell me whether those safe and legal routes will be available to anyone who requires them, to prevent them from making dangerous journeys, before the Bill is enacted?
Tom Pursglove
I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that there are routes in place that people can avail themselves of in order to seek sanctuary in this country.
Tom Pursglove
We have now debated that with some regularity and in some detail. I do not intend to recover that ground, but of course we continue to offer family reunion, which has seen a further 29,000 people come to the UK over the past six years. As I say, the context in which we are debating these matters in Committee is that people are risking and losing their lives by making dangerous crossings of the channel. I argue that we need to do everything in our power to stop the criminal gangs and to break their business model.
Where people seek to join family or work in the UK, they should make an application via the appropriate safe and legal route. We are committed to safe and legal routes, which are the cornerstone of our immigration policy. They are one part of, but very central to, what we seek to achieve through the Bill, through our direct engagement with the French, and in our wider diplomatic programmes. With that in mind, I ask the Committee to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I would like to respond briefly to the debate, which has been wide-ranging. I have to express some frustration, because the Minister said he would address in detail the reasons he thought the provision is in compliance with the refugee convention. I do not think he said anything at all about that. I appreciate that he has already undertaken to write several letters. Could he write another that explains how article 23 of the refugee convention, which requires equal treatment with nationals in access to social security, can possibly be consistent with a clause allowing the Secretary of State to treat people unequally? All the points we have made about the lawfulness of the Bill have not been addressed. I would be grateful if the Minister would do so.
During the debate we lost sight a couple of times of what we are talking about, which is people who are refugees. Sometimes people refer to genuine refugees, and we are talking about genuine refugees, who, by definition, have been assessed by the Home Office as such. The clause enables the Secretary of State to essentially treat them like trash—to withdraw access to public funds, to leave them in limbo and keep them separate from their families. While we support all reasonable measures to stop the crossings, we draw the line at treating the victims of these people smugglers like trash.
In actual fact, the British public are with us. Public opinion polling shows that people are sympathetic to refugees, and I think they will be upset when they find out that this is how refugees will be treated. I ask the Minister to engage with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the legality of the measures. These are hugely important concerns for a number of reasons, so I hope he will engage with him.
Tom Pursglove
I have a meeting coming up with him in which I fully suspect we will talk about these measures.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have no doubt about it. That is appreciated. On the effectiveness of these measures, reference has been made to how this would disincentivise crossings. Again, there is no Home Office analysis to show that that would be the case. In fact, Home Office analysis is to the contrary. Where is the analysis to show that disincentives will work? We need to see analysis of what the Home Office think the incentives that make people do this are. As we have said, it is things like family, a history with the United Kingdom or speaking the language. None of those will be changed by the Bill. The Secretary of State will not change the incentives that bring people here in the first place.
The numbers are challenging, but in the grand scheme of things the number of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is tiny. Most folk do not claim asylum here. That is not the issue. Yes, we want to stop them making dangerous journeys, because none of us want to see lives put at risk, but what has been proposed here goes way beyond what is acceptable.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 11, page 14, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Establishment of centres), at end insert—
‘(4) For the purposes of this Part, references to ‘persons’ do not include—
(a) children;
(b) women;
(c) individuals with a disability;
(d) individuals who have been referred to the National Referral Mechanism;
(e) survivors of torture;
(f) individuals who identify as LGBTQ+.;
(g) family members of any persons in the groups listed in paragraphs (a) to (f).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘family members’ includes—
(a) dependent children;
(b) partners/spouses;
(c) in relation to children—
(i) their siblings;
(ii) any other individual who is the relevant child’s guardian.’”
This amendment would restrict the use of accommodation centres for accommodating people seeking asylum so that the state groups, and their family members, cannot be accommodated in them.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 99, in clause 11, page 14, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Establishment of centres), at end insert—
‘(2A) Accommodation provided under this section must—
(a) have a capacity of no more than 100 residents, and
(b) provide any unrelated residents at the centre with an individual room for sleeping.’”
This amendment would prevent accommodation centres from accommodating more than 100 people, and would ensure that residents were not required to share sleeping quarters with residents to whom they are not related.
Amendment 100, in clause 11, page 14, line 30, at end insert—
“(4A) After section 17 of that Act, insert—
‘17A Right of appeal for support under section 17
(none) If the Secretary of State decides not to provide support to a person under section 17, or not to continue to provide support to him or her under that section, the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.’”
This amendment would ensure there is a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse or end support provided under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Amendment 104, in clause 11, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
“(22B) Accommodation Centres, whether for supported asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers shall not allow for limitations upon a supported person’s right—
(a) to enter or to leave at any time;
(b) to receive visitors of their choice at any time; or
(c) to use communications equipment such as telephones, computers or video equipment.
(22C) Accommodation Centres shall provide supported persons with access to a complaints procedure and procedures for appealing any decisions that may restrict a supported person’s claim to freedoms not limited by their conditions of bail.
(22D) Persons supported in Accommodation Centres shall be informed of the conditions of their bail in writing, and shall be provided with means of identifying themselves are their place of residence.”
This amendment aims to distinguish Accommodation Centres from places of detention by introducing rights to persons supported at these Centres, and to require persons in Accommodation Centres to be informed of their bail conditions and provided with means of identifying themselves.
Amendment 130, in clause 11, page 15, line 1, leave out from “subsection” to end of line 2 and insert—
“(1) for ‘six months’ substitute ‘90 days’.”
Clause 11(8) currently amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to allow the Secretary of State to increase the maximum length of time someone can be accommodated in an accommodation centre from the existing limit of six months. This amendment would remove that power and instead reduce the maximum stay to ninety days.
Amendment 16, in clause 11, page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment would prevent asylum seekers from being housed in accommodation centres for longer than nine months.
Amendment 17, in clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament each year setting out—
(a) the numbers of asylum seekers in different types of accommodation; and
(b) the steps the Government is taking to maximise the number of asylum seekers in dispersed community accommodation, including provision of financial support to local authorities.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the accommodation provided to asylum seekers.
Amendment 101, in clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—
“(8A) In section 25 of that Act (length of stay in accommodation centre), in subsection (1), for ‘six months’ substitute ‘90 days’.”
This amendment would reduce the maximum length of time someone can be accommodated in an accommodation centre to 90 days in most cases.
Amendment 102, in clause 11, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(10) In section 38 of that Act (Local authority), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may not make arrangements under section 16 for the provision of premises within the boundary of a local authority unless consent has been given by that local authority.’”
This would amend section 38 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to prevent the Government from opening an accommodation centre within a particular local authority without the prior consent of that local authority.
Amendment 103, in clause 11, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(10) Leave out section 36 of that Act (Education: general).”
Section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prevents most children accommodated in accommodation centres from attending state schools. This amendment would remove that restriction.
Amendment 160, in clause 11, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for local authorities, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the report must be approved by a substantive vote in both Houses.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the financial implications for the bodies listed in subsection (10);
(b) an assessment of the functions and powers of those bodies that will be affected by this section;
(c) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies, and the outcome of such engagement and consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 11 for local authorities and the devolved administrations, and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Sir Roger. I rise to speak in support of amendment 98 and the other amendments in this group, but against the clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 11 brings us to the question of how we accommodate asylum seekers, including, of course, the Uyghur, the persecuted Christian and the Syrian I keep referring to. Precisely how they are accommodated can have a profound impact on them. When I had the pleasure to be co-opted on to the Public Accounts Committee for a day back in October 2020 for an evidence session with the permanent secretary of the Home Office, I asked him whether there was a commitment at the Home Office to return to a reliance on community dispersal and a target to end hotel use by a certain date, and to end the use of military barracks as detention centres. He responded:
“There is not a target date, but we are obviously keen to do those things as soon as possible. Both those measures—the use of hotels and the use of other assets owned by the Government, including by the Ministry of Defence—are temporary, to take account of the surge in demand.”
He went on to outline various measures through which that would happen, including faster decisions and fairer distribution models. When he came before the Home Affairs Committee recently, he maintained that that was still the Department’s intention.
It would be reassuring to hear from the Minister today that he and the Secretary of State intend to commit to that model and that goal. Community dispersal is definitely the best system, although I accept that its current operation is far from ideal, as reports from the Home Affairs Committee have made clear. The system gives local authorities immense responsibilities, but few powers and even less by way of resources with which to fulfil those responsibilities. At the same time, significant problems with inappropriate and poor-quality accommodation have been identified.
We need a Bill that addresses those challenges. If this Bill did so, it would undoubtedly expand the capacity in dispersed accommodation. If it did that, the Bill would have our support and I would stop defending councils that did not participate in dispersal. To that end, amendment 17 calls for the Secretary of State to report each year on the types of institution in which asylum seekers are being housed and the steps that are being taken towards realising the goal of maximising the use of dispersal accommodation, including the financial support being offered to councils. Surely the Minister cannot find anything objectionable in that, if maximising the use of dispersal accommodation is genuinely the Government’s goal.
The problem is that the Bill tends to suggest, as does a lot of other evidence, that the Government are not pursuing that goal and are more interested in taking a different route. The Minister has to explain why this clause exists if the Government want to opt for dispersal accommodation as their central goal. The available evidence tells us that large-scale institutional accommodation centres are, by a distance, a disastrous alternative. That is putting it far too nicely when it comes to what happened at Napier Barracks, and yet correspondence from the Home Secretary to the chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and the explanatory memorandum to the special development order that extended Napier’s use, expressly suggests that Napier is supposed to be treated as a model or a pilot for the accommodation centres that feature in the Bill.
That is a truly terrifying path to go down, as the totally inappropriate nature of Napier Barracks is well documented in numerous reports and the High Court judgment, which was described as finding that
“the arrangements and conditions in which asylum seekers were held, posed significant risks that their physical and mental health would be harmed.”
According to the findings, Napier Barracks was overcrowded and felt like a prison. For residents, the environment was reminiscent of previous experiences of detention in places where they were tortured. Dormitory accommodation meant there was no privacy or quiet, and sleep was interrupted repeatedly. Cleaning was poor, and the inadequate shower facilities were frequently broken, unusable, dirty or unsanitary. They were also communal, which was particularly difficult for those with visible scarring from torture.
The all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention has highlighted extensive testimony that backs up the judgment of the High Court. The group has identified problems with poor Home Office identification and safeguarding of vulnerable people, and repeated instances of self-harm and attempted suicide on site —in short,
“profoundly negative impacts…on the mental health of residents, many of whom were already vulnerable.”
That all shows precisely why we should not go down this route, and why this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Most of the remaining amendments in this group challenge the Minister to outline more about what the Home Office has in mind on how these centres will look and operate. Amendment 98 poses a question to the Minister. Can he tell us who will be placed in these accommodation centres? Will it be women and children? Will it be people with physical disabilities? Will it be individuals who are suspected to be survivors of modern slavery or trafficking? Will it be survivors of torture? Will it be LGBT people?
A Home Office policy document suggests that such groups should not be accommodated at Napier, so I hope it will not be difficult for the Government to agree to such an amendment. However, there is a challenge; as I alluded to earlier, there have been multiple examples of where that policy does not appear to have been appropriately adhered to, and we require reassurance that that will be done properly.
Tom Pursglove
I hope I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some clarification at this early juncture. We have no intention to accommodate children in accommodation centres. More broadly, decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, as set out in policy, in relation to other individuals. I hope that gives him the assurance he seeks.
Stuart C. McDonald
It gives me reassurance that children will not be housed in such accommodation, and I think all hon. Members will welcome that. However, we are again being asked, essentially, to legislate blind. As parliamentarians, we are repeatedly told that all sorts of important information will be set out in guidance and in immigration rules, but before we give the Government the power to go ahead, we must least be told what they intend to put in that guidance and those immigration rules.
All sorts of other questions that I have asked—about people with physical or mental health problems, and survivors of modern slavery and trafficking—have yet to be answered. How soon do the Government want to put these people in such accommodation? I want to hear the answers before the Committee is asked to vote on whether the Bill should contain the protection that we propose.
Amendment 103—it is probably redundant in light of the Minister’s welcome reassurance—enables us to ask how, if there were to be children in accommodation centres, those children would be educated. Section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 means that most children in such centres cannot attend state schools. This amendment would remove that restriction, but I am pleased to hear that that question will not arise.
Neil Coyle
The Minister said that it was not the Government’s intention, which does not necessarily mean it will not happen. It was not the Government’s intention to put people in unsafe accommodation, as happened with Napier, or to put people at risk in accommodation in my constituency, where there was an inevitable covid outbreak. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is generous and I am cynical, but I would like something clearer than an intention from the guidance.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Perhaps I am not generous so much as realistic; given my form so far, I suspect I will not be able to win any votes in this place, so I will have to settle for what I can get, which is ministerial assurance. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As we know from our debates on nationality law and registration fees, Parliament’s intention in 1981 was for fees to be a certain price, but that intention has gone out the window because the Home Office was given the power to do something different, which it did. The intentions of the current Government and Minister are good, but that does not mean that we should not ask for these things to be in the Bill. Who knows what another Minister or Secretary of State might want to do in five, 10 or 20 years’ time?
Tom Pursglove
I would like to confirm that that is not relevant, as we are not proposing to accommodate anyone under section 17.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful, because that clarifies the issue. Amendment 104 is in the name of our Labour colleagues, but it has our full support. It makes the point that it is essential that accommodation centres are not de facto detention centres or prisons, in the way that Napier has been, with basic liberties and freedoms more theoretical than real. It raises a crucial question about how we can ensure that such places have accountability and oversight.
The Government will be using sections of the 2002 Act that are not yet in force to implement many of their policy goals, but there is still dubiety about precisely which ones. Section 33 of the Act would have created advisory groups for each accommodation centre, with powers to hear complaints from residents and report to the Home Office. Is that section to be commenced? If not, what alternatives do the Government propose to ensure that such centres are subject to appropriate oversight? I will leave it to the shadow Minister to flesh out that point.
Amendments 102 and 160 take us back to how the Home Office engages—or, rather, does not engage—with other tiers of Government. The Minister was perhaps asleep at the wheel earlier, because his answer was short on detail about engagement with local authorities, and in particular, the devolved Administrations. I accept that asylum is reserved, but these institutions touch on all sorts of powers and services that are the remit of devolved Governments and Parliaments or local authorities, including planning policy and the provision of health, social or other welfare services and education services. In particular, consistent with our championing of local government autonomy and the idea that local government should be seen as a partner rather than an assistant of the Home Office, amendment 102 demands that these centres not be built in a local authority’s territory without consent from that local authority.
The way in which local councils were treated in relation to both Napier and Penally was disgraceful. The Home Office did not even consult Folkestone & Hythe District Council and Kent County Council about the extension of planning permission at Napier because, it said, of urgency, and yet as the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee notes, it must have known for at least 12 months that planning permission would have expired. It had 12 months in which to carry out consultation, but that was still the excuse.
As I said at the outset, we pose all these questions with a view to ascertaining what precisely the Government intend and why there are not greater constraints in the Bill, but ultimately we believe that this is not the right direction of travel. We support community dispersal—improving that system, making it work better, and involving more councils. We hope that the Government come back to that view and make that system work instead.
Bambos Charalambous
I will speak to the three amendments that are in my name and the names of others, but I will start by speaking to amendment 104.
No one on this Committee can fail to have seen the extremely worrying track record of the Government when it comes to accommodation for asylum seekers. The appalling headlines in connection with Napier Barracks cannot have failed to reach anyone who takes any sort of interest in the news. We are deeply concerned, therefore, that in clause 11 there are provisions for creating asylum accommodation centres. The clause suggests a possible wide-scale replication of the type of accommodation seen at Napier Barracks. That is because clause 11 gives the Government powers to house different groups of asylum seekers in undefined accommodation centres. It seems that these centres will involve congregated living in hostel-type accommodation, which has been shown to be unsuitable to house people in the asylum system for long periods. Such a move away from housing in the community is likely to impede integration prospects and will make access to needed support and services more difficult.
Clause 11 also creates new powers to provide different types of housing—namely, accommodation centres—for those at different stages of their asylum claim, including those with “inadmissible” asylum claims. The rationale given in the explanatory notes to the Bill is that that will
“increase efficiencies within the system and increase compliance”,
although again no evidence is given to support that claim.
The term “accommodation centre” is not clearly defined, although the implication is that it will mean that more people seeking asylum will be living in large-scale congregated settings. It is important to state clearly that this represents a wholescale move away from the current dispersal system, whereby people live in homes in the community across the country.
There is therefore a clear indication that the Government are seeking to replicate the kind of inhumane accommodation that we have seen at Napier. As I will set out, this prison-like, isolated and dystopian accommodation provides an extremely poor environment for engaging with asylum claims. There is strong evidence that such accommodation is likely to retraumatise extremely vulnerable people and hinder future integration.
The Government may seek to deny that a punitive approach is part of their agenda, but such a denial would not tally with the actions of the Home Secretary in August, when she visited the notorious reception centre on the Greek island of Samos; campaigners have described it as “prison-like” and “inhumane”. It is shocking that, having visited the Greek reception centres in the summer, the Home Secretary appears to wish to emulate the system whereby more than 7,500 refugees, including 1,700 children, are being detained in refugee camps in unsanitary and inhumane conditions.
However, the evidence that that is indeed the intention seems clear, because in August the Home Secretary also published a prior information notice for the procurement of new accommodation centres, with initial submissions invited by the end of September 2021. The details of the tender are subject to commercial confidentiality and therefore the details are known only to potential contractors who have signed non-disclosure agreements. What is public is that the contract is to be delivered in accordance with part 2 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and it is stated that it is for housing up to 8,000 people for periods of up to six months. The tender raises serious concerns about how that approach will interact with provisions set out in clause 11, given that contracts will be awarded before the Bill receives Royal Assent. There are also clear concerns about how accountability and standards can be maintained in asylum accommodation when there is no public access to these contracts.
It is also worth stating for the record that since April 2020, the Home Office has been using two large-scale accommodation centres for asylum-seeking men who have arrived in the UK by boat—Napier barracks in Kent, and the Penally camp in Wales, which is now closed. A report by the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention noted that, although legally speaking, those are not detention centres, they none the less replicate
“many of the features found in detained settings—including visible security measures, shared living quarters, reduced levels of privacy, and isolation from the wider community”.
Our amendment would take away the detention element of those accommodation centres, as we feel that those de facto detention conditions are completely cruel and wholly inappropriate, and will hinder future integration.
Neil Coyle
It is not just the detention centres. The Government seem to have learned nothing from Napier. Most recently, they put 500 men in a 73-bed hostel in my constituency.
Bambos Charalambous
That is deeply concerning and shows that the Government have not learned any lessons from Napier.
Before I come to the specifics of the amendment, I will first set out exactly why the Government’s record on Napier barracks, alongside the provisions in clause 11, sets such alarm bells ringing. In doing so, I will demonstrate why the amendment is so necessary.
Organisations from the refugee sector that have worked with people held in Napier have identified and documented the following conditions:
“A pattern of spiralling mental health among people placed at Napier. Many people arrive already struggling with self-harm and/ or suicidal ideation, so this is a profoundly harmful context for them.
Chronic sleep deprivation among residents at Napier.
Conditions that are cold and dirty and afford no opportunity for privacy or social distancing.
An isolated and prison-like setting.
A total lack of mental health support onsite; very minimal healthcare onsite, and problems for residents in accessing healthcare in the community.
A sense among residents, in line with HMIP’s observation, of being trapped on site.
Profound vulnerabilities and histories of trauma among residents at Napier are not always obvious on the surface and can be difficult for individuals to disclose in general. Napier is then a very poor context for disclosure, as the prison-like setting is not conducive to building trust. We are therefore concerned that it is not possible to create a screening mechanism for Napier that would pick up all relevant vulnerabilities.
There is very little communication with residents about their asylum case.
Additionally, it is very difficult for individuals to access adequate legal advice, and they frequently go ahead with asylum interviews without having consulted a legal adviser. Virtually no one placed at Napier is able to access face to face meetings with legal advisers, and this seriously obstructs identification and disclosure of trauma.”
Residents of Napier and Penally who have given evidence to the APPG on immigration detention have described the Napier and Penally sites as feeling “prison-like”. Prison conditions have a traumatising effect on people who are already vulnerable as a result of previous experiences that have forced them to seek protection. Ministers must surely be aware that there are bound to be serious concerns about the potential use of such draconian accommodation centres for asylum-seeking men.
Tom Pursglove
I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The accommodation centres that we are proposing are not detention centres. Individuals can leave the centres at any time—they may have obtained accommodation with friends or family, for example.
Bambos Charalambous
I welcome the Minister’s comments, but it would have been helpful if that information had been provided beforehand, because we are still in the dark about what the accommodation centres will be like.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
While acknowledging the Minister’s point, Napier and Penally barracks may not have been detention centres, but a number of freedoms and rights were impeded at those sites, and that is why we need to press this point.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is absolutely right: even if rights are only restricted, that is not acceptable.
Neil Coyle
On a quick point of clarification, I said “500 men in a 73-bed hostel”, but that is certainly not what the Home Office has done in my constituency. They are 73-bed rooms.
The Minister has made a claim that is not the lived reality of the people the Home Office has placed in my constituency, including those 500 men. They have stewards, in effect, who have been telling those people not to leave hotel and hostel accommodation. They were not provided with interpreters; they were not provided with any means of accessing the internet; and the Government have prevented inspectors from going in, including Bishop Paul Butler and the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project, who were promised access to Napier barracks and other accommodation by Ministers. The Government have rescinded that commitment. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why bishops and others are being kept out? What are the Government trying to hide?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is right about those conditions not being conducive to being able to make a claim with any confidence or certainty.
I was talking about asylum-seeking women. As we highlighted in the debate on clause 10, many such women are survivors of rape and other forms of gendered violence, and such large-scale accommodation is characterised by a lack of privacy. The APPG on immigration detention further notes that at Napier and Penally,
“The lack of private space was also forcing residents to hold sensitive discussions, for example with lawyers, within earshot of other residents and/or staff.”
For many asylum-seeking women who have experienced rape and other gender-based violence, disclosure of their previous experience can be very difficult as a result of the shame and stigma they feel. Accommodation centres lacking privacy is likely to have a specific impact on them, and make it particularly difficult for them to get their claims to protection recognised.
Coupled with that, the punitive detention-type elements of the centres as they are currently run are likely to be retraumatising. We are therefore deeply concerned that clause 11 seeks to expand inappropriate large-scale detention-style accommodation centres. In short, it seems like a way of actively inflicting increased harm on already vulnerable people. Our amendment seeks to ameliorate some of those centres’ worst aspects.
Given everything that has been outlined, it is hardly surprising that the High Court made a damning assessment of Napier barracks. Mr Justice Linden ruled on 3 June 2021 that the accommodation at Napier barracks was inadequate, in that it did not meet the minimum standards required by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Both the process for selecting people to be sent to Napier barracks and the process for monitoring its ongoing suitability while those people were there were flawed and unlawful, and from 15 January 2021, the residents were given an order to not leave the site until they were permitted to do so. The claimants were unlawfully detained, both under common law and the European convention on human rights.
Similarly, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons’ report on Napier and Penally raised a number of serious concerns about Napier, including, inter alia, the following: the screening of potential residents for physical and mental health problems was “wholly inadequate”, with all of those interviewed at Napier reporting feeling depressed and a third feeling suicidal, and extremely poor communication with the people accommodated at Napier. Again, we argue that our amendment is necessary to ensure safeguards that will prevent similar future judgments.
Of course, we know why the Government are taking a more draconian approach to asylum accommodation: it is part of the continuing hostile environment ethos that takes a punitive, negative stance on all matters relating to asylum. Their approach is also clearly fuelled by the misguided idea that taking such a punitive stance will act as a deterrent to those seeking asylum. However, as we stated in the debate on clause 10, there is no evidence that that is the case. Desperate people who are determined to make dangerous journeys will not be deterred when their lives are at stake. The idea that the kind of accommodation awaiting them at the other end has any bearing on people seeking refuge is laughable. People escaping for their lives are not weighing up accommodation in the same way that Ministers might weigh up the merits of a Hilton hotel versus a Travelodge. The idea that making accommodation punitive could in any sense act as a deterrent shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why refugees are prepared to risk their lives to find safety.
However, the kind of accommodation that awaits refugees can do extreme damage if it hinders integration and retraumatises vulnerable people. When the accommodation provided—as in the case of Napier—dehumanises people, puts them in danger of covid-19 and is found to be unlawful, that corrodes the values that make us a civilised society, undermines our reputation as a tolerant and welcoming nation, and gives the nod to some of the most undesirable attitudes that would seek to demonise those in need.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about increased criminality by gangs targeting the accommodation to get people involved in criminal activity? That is a direct result of policy from the Department that is meant to oversee law and order.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These are vulnerable people, and they are subject to being exploited if appropriate measures are not taken to prevent that from happening. Having them all in one place allows criminals to prey on them.
I come on to the specifics of amendment 104. As I have set out, we have the gravest doubts about the clause. I find it disturbing. Our amendment seeks to ameliorate some of the worst aspects. I will set out each of its aims in more detail.
Presently, persons held in barracks and hotel accommodation are sometimes prevented from entering or leaving their place of accommodation at certain times and some places of accommodation prevent visitors from entering. The amendment addresses this inappropriately draconian situation by inserting proposed new section 22B into the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It would qualify that the measure—in new section 22A, which relates to accommodation provided under sections 95A and 98A of the 1999 Act—to allow for the provision of accommodation in an accommodation centre, must allow for persons to be supported to enter or leave the accommodation centre at any time.
Although some controls on entry may be required to prevent persons hostile to residents of accommodation centres from entering, we believe that those held in such centres should be allowed to invite their own visitors. They should also not be precluded from communication with the outside world. The amendment would therefore introduce the right for the supported person
“(b) to receive visitors of their choice at any time; or
(c) to use communications equipment such as telephones, computers or video equipment.”
People working with persons supported in accommodation centres report that some persons in accommodation centres are unaware of their conditions of bail and may not have been provided with the conditions of their bail in writing. That places them at risk of arrest and detention for unknowingly breaching those conditions, or being unable to evidence their identity. The amendment would therefore introduce the provision that persons supported in accommodation centres must be provided with a written document setting out any conditions of bail.
Where controls or restrictions on freedom of movement of supported persons or their visitors are in place, a process for submissions by way of a complaints procedure needs to be in place, and the amendment would introduce a complaints procedure relating to the conditions of the accommodation and a procedure for appealing any decisions that may restrict the person’s freedoms, which will not apply to their bail conditions.
As has been argued, legal action taken against the Government over the suitability of Napier barracks for certain vulnerable groups has shown that the existing system has failed to maintain appropriate safeguards. The possibly widespread expansion of the system that the clause seeks to implement is very alarming and should be deeply concerning to any Member of this House.
The move away from community-based housing is poorly defined. Accommodation centres will unquestionably lower living standards for those seeking asylum. That is not an accident—it is the very design of the Bill and the clause. By the same measure, they will impede integration and advance a more draconian, prison-like setting for asylum seekers, who are, by their very definition, already traumatised individuals. If we do not agree our amendment, asylum seekers will find themselves in cold, dirty, isolated conditions, with all but no support services.
Given the widespread denunciations of the Home Office’s decision to house asylum seekers in Napier barracks, not least by the High Court, it is remarkable that the Government now seek to replicate it elsewhere. It should be noted that Mr Justice Linden criticised what he called the “detention-like” setting for the men there. Our amendment seeks to take away the detention element of the accommodation centres. They are de facto detention centres with prison-like conditions, which are cruel, wholly inappropriate and damaging to the individuals concerned. They can do nothing but increase harm and stress on already marginalised and vulnerable people whom we are beholden to protect under our international treaty obligations.
To speak plainly, the Government have got the wrong end of the stick. Clause 11 helps no one. They will find themselves on the wrong side of history with their ever-more draconian and hostile approach to asylum accommodation and, unamended, this clause starkly highlights that point. Amendment 104 should be supported to rectify that situation and ensure safeguards for the future. It would be utterly shameful if the clause, as it stands, enabled a repetition of the appalling situation at Napier barracks.
Without amendment, clause 11 will undermine the UK’s duty to support and protect those making asylum claims. We believe that the current dispersal system, whereby people seeking asylum live in regular housing in the community, is much better for supporting future integration and ensuring that people seeking asylum are able to access services that they need. We would rather see safeguards in place than the kind of appalling situation seen at Napier.
Anne McLaughlin
We heard that the devolved Governments were prevented from taking part in the consultation because it took place during purdah in the run-up to their elections. However, Shona Robison MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government in the Scottish Government, wrote a comprehensive response last month, in which she stated:
“This Government is clear that people should be supported to integrate within our communities from day one of arrival in line with the key principle of our New Scots refugee integration strategy. We are committed to the principle of community based integration for refugees and people seeking asylum. The New Scots approach is not compatible with use of remote and institutionalised camps. Such asylum accommodation will also not fix the underlying issues causing shortages in the asylum estate, which include the fairness, quality and timeliness of the asylum application and decision process.”
The position of the Scottish Government is the complete opposite of that of the UK Government, but their hands are tied. We cannot do what we want to do in Scotland to support our asylum seekers. That cannot be right.
Shona Robison also said:
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s report highlighted significant issues”,
as we have heard,
“with the management of Napier Barracks and Penally, their suitability, safety and the impact this type of accommodation had on people living there. The report also raised concerns about contingency of healthcare if people are moved around the asylum estate. I would add to this contingency of legal representation, essential services and support networks, which must be considered.”
However, we are not talking only about barracks; there are many other types of accommodation that people had to live in. People were taken out of their homes where they were settled and put into Glasgow hostels and hotels last year. The Minister says things like, “This is not our intention.” I do not imagine that it was anyone’s intention for the men I met in the hostel close to where I live to be living in dirty accommodation, but they were, because they had nothing to clean up after themselves with. What most upset them the day I first met them was that they had nothing to clean their toilets with. They were living in tiny rooms, and if they did their washing in the tiny sink in what we will call the en suite—the toilet was in the room—they had to leave their wet clothes on the bed to dry off. I can tell hon. Members that, in Glasgow, that does not happen quickly; our temperatures are slightly different. They said that they could not keep the toilets clean and that there was no support. They were not looking for people to clean up after them, but because their access to finance had been taken from them, they could not even go and buy a toilet brush and bleach. It was a pretty awful situation.
There is also the so-called mother and baby unit that Mears has set up on behalf of the Home Office in Glasgow. I spoke to women who, without any notice, got a visit and were told, “Pack your bags. You and the baby”—or the bump; some were pregnant, some had just given birth—“are moving”. They were settled in communities among friends, they knew where the GP and the shops were and they knew how much things cost, but they were taken out of those communities at almost no notice. Many of them were told that they could take two carrier bags’ worth of goods and no more. These people had babies. I do not know anybody with a baby who can leave the house with fewer than two bags, but they were told by agents acting on behalf of the Government that they could take two carrier bags of stuff.
One of them said, “I was living in Pollok”, on the south side of Glasgow, “and was surrounded by wonderful neighbours. It was my baby’s first Christmas and all the neighbours had come round with Christmas presents.” That is why we want community dispersal. We want people to be part of a community. It benefits not just asylum seekers but everybody in the community—and that community certainly supported that woman and her baby. They took round Christmas presents, but then she was told to leave them behind because there was no room for them in the mother and baby unit. She was devastated because those presents were a symbol of acceptance and love from her community.
Tom Pursglove
May I repeat the point that I made earlier about the policy approach that we intend to adopt in accommodation centres, which is that children will not be accommodated in them?
Anne McLaughlin
I was really glad to hear the Minister say that, but then my cynical friend the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out that this is not about the intention but about making it crystal clear in the legislation—and perhaps the way to do that is to accept amendment 98. I hear what the Minister says, and yet still we have babies accommodated in a mother and baby unit. I have been fighting since January to get them out and have been told, “Okay, we will take them out of there.” There is a fantastic campaign called Freedom to Crawl, which points out that the rooms are so tiny that the development of these tiny babies—some of them becoming toddlers—is stifled because they do not have the freedom or the room to crawl. The Minister can tell me that they are not going to house children in those centres, but that is what is currently happening. If he thinks that is wrong, I would be glad to have his support to put an end to it.
Tom Pursglove
I am talking very specifically about accommodation centres in relation to the clause. If the hon. Lady writes to me with the specifics of the mother and baby unit in her local area, I will take that away and look at it.
Anne McLaughlin
I know that we have said “another letter” a number of times today, but I appreciate that offer. I understand that the Minister might not have heard of the unit because it is in Glasgow—although his predecessor might have known about it—but I would be happy for him to look at it.
Along with Alf Dubs—Lord Dubs—I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. We recently held a meeting to look at types of accommodation centres. We had a guest, a former politician from Belarus, who told us a story about why such accommodation does not work. He had to leave Belarus for political reasons in 2017. He had no choice. He was in serious fear of his and his wife’s safety. He said, “I am very grateful for the help and support that I have had, and I appreciate Britain taking me in.” He was really appreciative and not complaining, but he said now that he is settled he wants to make this point as much as he can so that other people do not go through what he went through when he initially got here.
They arrived in London and were put in shared accommodation in a hostel called Barry House, a big house full of, as he described it, “people like ourselves” who were seeking asylum. The people who lived in the house were from different backgrounds and cultures with different ideas about lots of issues. He said the staff did their best to make it comfortable, but it was not really possible to be comfortable. During the six months he was there, every day started and ended with some sort of scandal or argument. He described it as a powder keg, and we can understand why, because many of those people had post-traumatic stress disorder, and many of them spoke different languages, so we can imagine how stressful that would be. He said, “We tried to keep ourselves to ourselves—I couldn’t always tell what the arguments were about”, but he could feel the stress coming off other people. He said it was difficult for the staff to look after so many people; one thing he mentioned was everyone’s different dietary requirements, due to a number of things, including culture. He said the staff tried their best to provide a neutral menu, which meant that nobody was happy, but of course they did not feel they could complain, because they were grateful that they were no longer in their previous situation.
We have talked about not housing people with disabilities in that kind of accommodation, as mentioned in amendment 98. This gentleman had diabetes and is also a wheelchair user, and he said his health suffered because of the diabetes and he could not get access to the type of food he needs to maintain his insulin levels. He talked about using the toilets and said there was a limited number he could use, and because there were so many people in there, sometimes he had to wait for hours to use the few toilets he was able to get access to. He said it was like daily torture just trying to use the toilet, and a shower became a luxury for him.
This gentleman needed a specialist bed because of his mobility problems, but of course he could not get one because the rooms were so tiny he could not get one in. He said to me, “I knew I couldn’t go home. It wasn’t possible to go home. I thought I was safe, but I began to have suicidal thoughts at the centre. My life was at risk in Belarus, but it felt like my life was just disappearing in the UK.”
At the time, this gentleman said the stress and pressure was just enormous and that, had it not been for the Refugee Council in England, which provided a psychologist who gave him the belief he could get through it, he would not have survived. He said, “It was really difficult. I was a politician at home. I had what was considered a high standing in society, and I came here and I felt like absolutely nobody.” He said he was not underplaying everybody else’s problems; everybody else had serious problems, and when they are housed in accommodation together, the problems multiply. As I said, he described it as a powder keg and said that everybody had had negative experiences and everybody was scared of different things. Somebody is scared of noises, somebody is scared of something they see—people are all frightened, and that is the legacy of what they have been through. If they are put all together, it is extremely difficult.
I am strongly opposed to that type of accommodation, and the sooner people can get into community dispersal, the better. I know the Minister said he would ensure that the accommodation was not detention—or he said it would not be detention—but my question is whether it will feel like it. In the so-called mother and baby unit in Glasgow, for a time they were not allowed to leave without asking permission, and when they came back they were not allowed a key to the door. They had to wait, standing outside with their babies, until somebody came to let them in, which could be quite a while.
It is well documented how bad detention is for people seeking asylum who have mental health issues, which must be most asylum seekers after what they have been through. A lot of good work has been done by Professor Cornelius Katona and the Helen Bamber Foundation on mental health and detention. I am sure the Minister will be aware of the reports they have done.
I visited Dungavel detention centre in Scotland when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I went in there and I felt like a criminal. They took my fingerprints and they walked about with big bunches of keys. Obviously, I was only there for a visit and I knew I was getting out again. The problem with detention is the indefinite nature of it.
The Minister said it is not indefinite accommodation, and if they can arrange other accommodation themselves they can get out, but I want to share the story of a mother and son I visited. The son was 10 years old. They were in detention, but I cannot help wondering whether we are going to find children in these accommodation centres feeling the same. At the age of 10, he said to his mum, “Mum, let’s not do this anymore. Please can we just find a way to let us die.” That is a 10-year-old boy. He is not dead now; things changed and their lives got a whole lot better, although he is very much impacted by his experience there. I am offering anecdotal evidence not to back up my claim, but to illustrate the detailed research that demonstrates that that child is not an isolated case. I know the Minister is saying that the intention is not for children to be placed in such accommodation—and certainly not in detention—but I want a guarantee that no children will be housed in these circumstances. I am sure he will agree with me that nobody wants to put children through what that child went through.
Holly Lynch
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. I rise to speak in support of this group of amendments to clause 11, and I agree with a great number of the points that have already been made. I join colleagues in raising grave concerns about the direction in which the provision of asylum accommodation has moved in recent months, and I fear that the measures in clause 11 will only make matters worse.
I will focus my comments on the increased use of so-called contingency accommodation—specifically, Napier and Penally barracks—to outline why the amendments are necessary if we are to avoid the failures of those centres being repeated with the proposed accommodation centres. In my former role, and along with many colleagues, I sought to raise serious concerns about the rising use of dormitory-style accommodation. The justification for their use was the pressures of the pandemic and increased numbers in the asylum system. However, clause 11 allows the Government to extend that style of institutionalised accommodation through the introduction of new accommodation centres.
Following reports of bad practice, I wrote to the Government back in December 2020 to raise concerns about the situation in initial and contingency asylum accommodation, and I called on them to commission a review of covid safety in all establishments being used for asylum accommodation. Those concerns became a reality in January this year, when there was a significant outbreak of covid in Napier barracks, with nearly 200 cases. In March, the then independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons published their key findings from site visits to Penally camp and Napier barracks in mid-February. They confirmed that, given the cramped communal conditions and unworkable cohorting at Napier, a large-scale outbreak was virtually inevitable. Distressingly, inspectors visiting the site were informed by residents that, at the time of inspection, the barracks were at their best.
I submitted a freedom of information request to various authorities, which brought about the release of the Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report that was carried out at Napier barracks. It confirmed that the site does not facilitate effective social distancing. Every line of the report was devastating. The ICIBI and HMIP also raised serious safeguarding concerns, stating:
“There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed. People at high risk of self-harm were located in a decrepit...‘isolation block’”
that was considered “unfit for habitation.” A survey conducted by the inspectors at Napier barracks found that one in three residents had felt suicidal during their time there.
As hon. Members have said, the report’s findings were further supported by the High Court judgment in June, which found that the Government’s decision to house asylum seekers in such a way was unlawful. It concluded that the condition of the site was inadequate and that it was irrational to house people in dormitory-style accommodation, yet the accommodation remains open and houses over 200 people at any one time. It was deeply concerning that during a recent meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, Home Office officials were unable to confirm how many covid-19 cases there had been since the accommodation reopened in April, yet we know there was another outbreak in August. The Home Office’s continued lack of oversight and engagement at ground level gives me no hope that the Government have learned from their failures, yet they wish to extend and continue that type of accommodation with accommodation centres, as outlined in clause 11.
The ICIBI report on Napier and Penally found that the Home Office did not exercise adequate oversight at either site, where staff were rarely present. It said:
“There were fundamental failures of leadership and planning by the Home Office.”
That is damning, so can the Minister say what assurances we have that things will be any different or any better in accommodation centres? The ability to deliver safe and appropriate asylum accommodation is a duty of any Government, but that just has not been the case in recent months.
The investigation highlights that the advice of Public Health England and the fire authorities was not acted on and was ignored before the sites were opened. The pressures of the pandemic would have presented challenges to any Government having to find solutions to problems at pace. However, we know that the Home Office is planning to extend the use of Napier barracks until 2026. We will be using the breadth of Parliament to challenge that, but I return to the point that the direction of travel in clause 11 is bad. Amendments 100, 104 and 130 are an attempt to ensure that rights and safety obligations are upheld.
Tom Pursglove
We have had an extensive and wide-ranging debate covering a host of areas. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I turn to amendments 16, 17, 98 to 104, 130 and 160.
Amendment 16 seeks to disapply a key part of the clause. As I set out, one of the clause’s aims is to enable wider flexibility so that individuals are supported in accommodation centres for as long as that form of housing and other on-site support and arrangements are appropriate for their individual circumstances. We need flexibility to increase the period of residence in a centre—the current maximum allowed by legislation is nine months—if experience shows it to be too short a period to provide consistent streamlined support. The amendment would prevent that. The Government take seriously our responsibilities to asylum seekers, and I reassure hon. Members that those accommodated in the centres will receive the necessary support to meet their essential living needs.
Stuart C. McDonald
Will the Government not at least consider a maximum time limit on the duration of stay?
Tom Pursglove
There have been references during the debate to detention. As I set out in an intervention previously, the accommodation centres are not detention. It is very important to establish that again. I want to make the point clear: anyone in one of those accommodation centres is able to leave at any time. It is important to re-establish that.
Neil Coyle
On the point about transparency and accountability in the centres and all accommodation used by the Home Office, will the Minister tell us whether the Bishop of Durham and other members of RAMP will be able to visit the centres? Perhaps the Minister will encourage them to be more open to visits by parliamentarians. Perhaps he will visit some of the accommodation used in Southwark, where people were told they should be moving and were not provided with interpreters, which has caused problems for them and for the wider community. Furthermore, covid outbreaks at hotel and hostel accommodation have put those people and the wider community at risk and placed the NHS under greater stress.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have not been in post for long—for just over a month—and the accommodation element of the Government’s work on immigration does not fall directly within my brief. However, I want to visit Napier, to see the situation myself and to understand the nature of the accommodation, and my officials are in the process of organising that. I might have done it sooner had we not had the Bill Committee proceedings over the next few weeks. I assure hon. Gentleman that that is something I very much want and intend to do, and I will certainly do it.
On the bishop visiting, I am not aware of any restrictions that would prevent that from happening. I hate to do this to the hon. Gentleman again, but if he furnishes me with the details of issues that have arisen, I will gladly ensure that that is looked at. As far as I can see, there is no good reason why those sorts of external visits cannot take place, but I would appreciate a little more detail.
Paul Blomfield
May I push the Minister a little further on the issue? He has been at pains to say that the Government’s plan is not for the centres to be where people are detained. Will he therefore put on the record that people are free to come and go as they wish, and to receive visitors as they wish in the centres?
Tom Pursglove
As I have said repeatedly now, my understanding is that people are under no obligation to remain within the accommodation facilities if they do not wish to do so. Of course, one of the reasons why people may be in an accommodation centre is that they are destitute. In such circumstances, we want to ensure that appropriate accommodation is in place for them to be accommodated and properly cared for in the centres. That is the intention behind the policy.
It is worth saying something about future oversight of accommodation centres, which has been alluded to. We will establish advisory groups for each centre. The group will visit the site, hear complaints and report any findings to the Secretary of State. I value the input that the advisory groups will have. It is important that we are responsive to the issues that arise and that where improvements can be made, they are made.
Neil Coyle
On the point about section 33 of the 2002 Act—the advisory groups—will the Minister tell us why such groups have not been established at other existing centres? It is all very well to make a promise about the future, but that section has not been used for existing examples.
Tom Pursglove
There has been a very clear undertaking in Committee to establish those advisory groups, which is welcome. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that various transparency and accountability measures are in place for accommodation within our immigration system more broadly. That is right and proper but, again, where that can be enhanced and where we can bring greater transparency and improvement, we should do that. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment with regard to oversight over the accommodation centres to ensure that there is regular engagement and that a clear channel is established through which to raise and take account of any issues.
Neil Coyle
Who, specifically, will be responsible for bringing forward the advisory group for each centre? Where do the responsibility and duty lie?
Tom Pursglove
We are getting into very granular detail, as we would expect. I will need to take further advice on that specific point, which I will make clear to the Committee. However, our commitment to establish those advisory groups stands; those groups will play an important role in the oversight of the accommodation that we propose to bring about through the measures in the Bill. I give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
Neil Coyle
The Minister may regret that. He is asking us to accept on good will that the advisory groups will exist in the future, but he cannot tell us who will set them up, who will be on them, or why they have not been used in the past, despite being in the 2002 Act.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the people who organise my diary have confirmed that I am set to visit Napier in the not-too-distant future. I have been able to be responsive to that point pretty quickly. I will make some progress on his other point, and I hope to be able to visit it very shortly to provide him with the clarification he requires before concluding my remarks. That is my undertaking to him: I will, for the Committee’s benefit, establish the mechanism that will enact our commitment.
Contrary to what amendment 17 seems to imply, it is not the Government’s intention to maximise the number of supported asylum seekers accommodated in flats and houses in the community. I understand that SNP Members take a different view on the matter, so I appreciate that that will come as a disappointment to them. However, it may be more suitable to house certain cohorts of asylum seekers in accommodation centres, and that is why we are setting them up. Where, for example, their protection claims are likely to be found inadmissible and they can quickly be removed to the appropriate third country, it is likely to be much more efficient to place them in an accommodation centre so that the practical arrangements for facilitating their departure, such as dealing with the necessary travel documentation, can take place at the site. That efficiency benefits the individuals as well as the overall asylum system.
One point that has been overlooked during the debate is that the Government’s whole intention around the policy we are seeking to establish is to deal with cases in a much quicker, speedier and—I would argue—more humane way. I think being able to give people certainty sooner is a good thing, and I would like to think that, whatever the outcome of individual cases, spending less time in any form of temporary accommodation can only be a good thing. It is important to recognise that the whole intention of the policy we are trying to develop is to get on with adjudicating on cases sooner.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is not the type of accommodation that has led waiting times to spiral out of control. Only three years ago, there was a regular six-month target time—that was all within the dispersal system as well. Putting folk in the accommodation centres has no real impact on decision times. On the contrary, the Minister will know that since January, when the inadmissibility procedures came into place, virtually nobody has ended up being removed. It has just added six months to the waiting time; it has not accelerated anything. It is just a six-month block—that is it—so I do not understand where he is coming from.
Tom Pursglove
In the context of the Bill and in the course of our debates, we will revisit the various challenges in our asylum system many times. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made the point earlier that the system is broken, and there is a wide acceptance of that. Undoubtedly, that means that people are left in a state of uncertainty around their circumstances for longer than any of us in this House wish to see.
I can provide clarity to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on his point about the duty to appoint the group. The answer is that section 33 of the 2002 Act requires the Secretary of State to establish advisory groups for accommodation centres. Napier has not been deemed an accommodation centre at the moment. It is contingency accommodation to manage the high demand for housing that we are undoubtably seeing as a result of the pressures in the system that are a direct consequence of the channel crossings. However, he has that certainty on that particular mechanism.
Holly Lynch
Given the merits of these advisory committees which the Minister has set out, and given that, in relation to Napier and Penally Barracks, the Home Office ignored advice from Public Health England in a pandemic, the weight that the advisory committee would carry really does matter. He said that Napier Barracks is still contingency accommodation rather than an accommodation centre. Would he consider setting up an advisory committee for Napier Barracks?
Tom Pursglove
I will certainly take away the hon. Lady’s suggestion and feed that through to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who shares responsibility for immigration with me at the Home Office.
Neil Coyle
At what point is a centre of accommodation such as Napier deemed an accommodation centre by the Home Office in order to get an advisory group set up? How long will Napier be used before it is acknowledged that it is an accommodation centre?
Tom Pursglove
I dispute that interpretation of the situation at Napier, because Napier does not have the same wrap-around services that we envisage for accommodation centres. For example, the accommodation centres that we will seek to deliver will have significant caseworking functions built within them. That is a marked difference to Napier. Again, I am visiting Napier in a few weeks’ time and I will be interested to hear from the people there and to talk to the officials managing the accommodation to listen to their experiences. As I have said, and I think this is an important point, there is always a need to reflect on the appropriateness of the provisions in place and on whether governance and oversight arrangements remain adequate. That is something that we keep under constant review. I note with interest the suggestions that have been alluded to, and I will happily feed them back more broadly at the Home Office.
I want to make some progress, because I am conscious that time is marching on. The numbers of asylum seekers in different types of accommodation—if that is of interest to parliamentarians—can be obtained through existing channels, such as correspondence or parliamentary questions, so an annual report setting this information out is unnecessary. Amendment 98 is also unnecessary because there are no plans to place those with children in accommodation centres, and all other cases will only be placed in a centre following an individual assessment that the centre is suitable for them and that they will be safe.
Whether or not groups with the characteristics listed in the amendment are suitable to be supported at a particular accommodation centre will depend on a number of factors. These include their personal circumstances and vulnerabilities, and the facilities available at the particular site or in the particular area. It is not sensible to rule out large cohorts of cases from ever being placed in an accommodated centre in any circumstance, especially if their asylum case is more likely to be resolved quickly in a centre, which of course is in their best interests. I re-emphasise that our intention remains to get to a place where cases are processed quicker than they are at the moment, and that is something that we all should welcome.
Stuart C. McDonald
Where is the evidence that doing this in accommodation centres speeds things up? We have had dispersal systems for years and on some recent occasions the waiting times have been absolutely outrageous, but a few years back they were perfectly acceptable. We can have fast decision making and we all support that, but that does not require these terrible accommodation centres to be set up.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member and I fundamentally disagree on this point. I think that there is value in having accommodation centres that provide accommodation but also ensure that caseworking facilities are available alongside. That aids in the processing of cases more quickly. That is a sensible step forward, and something that I endorse. I think it is the right thing to do in these circumstances.
Amendment 99 would also undermine a key objective that we are trying to achieve through setting up accommodation centres, which is to resolve asylum cases more quickly by putting casework and other services on site. This speaks to the point that I have been making; there is therefore no rationale for restricting the number of people who will benefit from these improvements to 100 individuals per site.
Additionally, there is no reason why unrelated asylum seekers cannot share sleeping quarters, provided that they are the same sex. This is already allowed for in the asylum accommodation system. Those in flats or houses, for example, may be required to share bedrooms. Some asylum seekers might require their own room—for example, the current policy provides that those receiving treatment from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture should generally not share sleeping quarters with strangers—but that is because of their individual circumstances. I re-emphasise that appropriate decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis and, where circumstances require, appropriate arrangements should be made.
Amendment 100 seems to be based on a misunder-standing—I intervened on the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on this point earlier. We are not proposing to accommodate anyone in the centres under the powers in section 17 of the 2002 Act. Asylum seekers will be accommodated in the centres under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or section 98 of the 1999 Act, pending consideration of an application for section 95 support. If the application is refused, there will be a right of appeal in the normal way.
Amendments 101 and 130 are both similar in theme to amendment 16. I disagree that the normal period of residence in an accommodation centre should be no more than three months. It may be that a three month period is appropriate in some cases, either because of the individual circumstances of the asylum seeker or the nature of the facilities at the site. However, as I have explained, we need the flexibility to increase the period of residence in a centre if experience shows this period is too short to provide consistent, streamlined support.
Amendment 102 would effectively give local authorities a veto on any proposals to set up accommodation centres in their areas. That is not appropriate. It is right, of course, that local authorities are fully consulted about such proposals and their views about local impacts and other matters given considerable weight.
Anne McLaughlin
I agree that it is right that local authorities are consulted, so the Minister will forgive me for being a little cynical that that will happen. When asylum seekers were put into a hotel in Falkirk a couple of weeks ago, Falkirk Council knew absolutely nothing about it and were not able to support them. He will forgive me for being a bit cynical about that pledge.
Tom Pursglove
I think it is absolutely essential that there is an open dialogue with local authorities about any measures that are proposed in their areas, and that those local views are properly taken into consideration and reflected in the decisions that are reached. That is a commitment that we make, and is already a feature of the current system.
Neil Coyle
On that point, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East says she is a little cynical. I am afraid that I am a lot cynical. In Southwark’s example, the local authority was given absolutely no notice of a total of—I think—more than 700 asylum seekers being placed in hotel and hostel accommodation. That was just in my constituency. There were others in other parts of Southwark. When I asked the Home Office what resources were being allocated to local authorities to ensure that they could manage such a significant number, it replied that it had provided some small resource to the clinical commissioning group.
Tom Pursglove
I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. However, as a general principle, I think it is right and proper—as I think all Members of this House would expect—for local authorities to be properly consulted.
Mr Goodwill
Let me reassure the Minister that when the Afghans came to Scarborough recently, not only was the local authority fully engaged with the process, but the local community was too.
Tom Pursglove
The interesting thing is that my right hon. Friend’s experience in Yorkshire accords with the experience that I think the local authorities in Northamptonshire, where I am proud to be a constituency MP, have had.
There has been that consultation in relation to the Afghan scheme and the Government’s intentions around delivery of that important work. Although not required to do so by legislation, our accommodation providers consult local authorities on any proposals to use accommodation that has not previously been used to house supported asylum seekers. But it is not realistic to assume that that consultation will always result in agreement.
Amendment 103 is unnecessary because asylum seekers with children will not be placed in accommodation centres at any stage of the asylum process and unaccompanied children are supported by local authorities under different arrangements. Both groups of children will therefore be educated under normal arrangements in the same way as a British child. As we are not proposing to use the power in section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, there is no need to amend it.
Amendment 104 is unnecessary also. Individuals supported in accommodation centres will be expected to live at the centre as a condition of their support and be subject to a range of other conditions attached to the provision of their support that are set out in writing—for example, that they respect other residents and do not commit antisocial behaviour. This is already part of the normal process and applies whatever accommodation is provided to supported asylum seekers.
Those accommodated in the centres will also be able to receive visitors, to use communications equipment such as telephones or computers and to leave the site for personal reasons or because they have found alternative accommodation. I hope that that gives the hon. Member for Sheffield Central the reassurance that he sought. It builds on the earlier point that I made about the fact that people would be able to leave if that was what they wanted to do.
There is already a complaints procedure administered by Migrant Help, a voluntary sector organisation that also provides advice on individuals’ entitlements and how the immigration system works. Asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers are currently issued with written information about their bail conditions. They are also issued with an asylum registration card, which is used for identification purposes.
Amendment 160 is also unnecessary. Sections 40 to 42 of the 2002 Act already prevent the Government from making arrangements for the provision of accommodation centres in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, unless they have consulted Ministers in the devolved Administrations. That consultation would include discussion of any financial or other impacts of introducing accommodation centres.
There are a few points that I have picked up in my main remarks but about which I want to say a few words in response to the questions that were put. In relation to Napier specifically, there have been extensive improvements to Napier since the High Court judgment. For example, all residents are offered a covid vaccination. Free travel is in place for them to get to medical appointments. There is a commitment to the availability of sports and recreation. A programme of works to improve the infrastructure is under way; that is along with weekly meetings to identify and act on any concerns that arise. Again, it is important to be responsive to issues that arise and to ensure that improvements are put in place. What I have referred to demonstrates that some of the issues that were raised previously have been taken very seriously and improvements have been made.
The judgment on Napier was reached on the basis of the conditions on the site prior to the significant improvement works that have taken place. The High Court did not make any findings that accommodation centres were not suitable for providing support.
Generally speaking, in the course of the debate on clause 11, we have talked about the difference that we hope accommodation centres will provide. I just want to restate the policy, which is to increase accommodation capacity, to try to get away from using hotels, which has been very, very challenging—I think everybody would accept that—and to achieve casework efficiency, for the reasons that I have previously set out. We think that co-locating services will be helpful in that regard, to try to process cases more quickly and try to give people the certainty that they are seeking. That is particularly beneficial to genuine refugees. Our policy is grounded in that basis.
A question was also asked about conditions in hotels and full-board centres. Full support is provided to meet essential needs, which includes food, toiletries and the means to communicate. Also, asylum seekers in full-board accommodation have access to legal aid, which pays for reasonable travel costs to see their solicitors.
Holly Lynch
Could the Minister update Members about how many people have been returned to safe third countries since those legal changes came into effect?
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that I do not have those figures to hand, but I will take that request away—very gladly—and I will share that information with the Committee when I have it.
Clause 11 amends section 25 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so that these periods of time may be changed, by order, to allow for longer or shorter periods. The clause will also provide the flexibility to ensure that individuals remain in accommodation centres for as long as that form of housing and the other support and arrangements on site are appropriate to their circumstances. I encourage the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
On this occasion, I certainly cannot complain that I have not had answers; I may absolutely despair about what those answers were, but the Minister has certainly provided the information.
I am genuinely sad that covid and the stress that it has put on the dispersal system means that the Home Office now appears to be abandoning that system altogether when it has not been justified that that is the correct option. I very much fear that in a few years’ time this will come back to cause the Government problems; more importantly, it will be devastating for lots of people who will be placed in this accommodation.
However, I have the answers, so I do not need to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 104, in clause 11, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
“(22B) Accommodation Centres, whether for supported asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers shall not allow for limitations upon a supported person’s right—
(a) to enter or to leave at any time;
(b) to receive visitors of their choice at any time; or
(c) to use communications equipment such as telephones, computers or video equipment.
(22C) Accommodation Centres shall provide supported persons with access to a complaints procedure and procedures for appealing any decisions that may restrict a supported person’s claim to freedoms not limited by their conditions of bail.
(22D) Persons supported in Accommodation Centres shall be informed of the conditions of their bail in writing, and shall be provided with means of identifying themselves are their place of residence.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
This amendment aims to distinguish Accommodation Centres from places of detention by introducing rights to persons supported at these Centres, and to require persons in Accommodation Centres to be informed of their bail conditions and provided with means of identifying themselves.