House of Commons
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I regret to have to report to the House the death of a friend, Jack Dromey, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. I know hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of our colleague, and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member’s family and friends. I invite all Members to join me in one minute’s silence in memory of Jack.
The House observed a one-minute silence.
Mr Speaker
I also wish to assure the House that there will be an opportunity for all of us to pay tribute to Jack at a later date, to be determined in consultation with the family. Members wishing to send letters of condolence to the family can do so via the Speaker’s Office, who will collate them and pass them on. I am sure we all extend our deepest sympathy to Harriet, a friend of all of us. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
May I open by associating myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington? We express our deepest sympathy to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and their entire family.
Armed forces pay remains competitive. Indeed, in 2021 approximately 35,000 service personnel earning less than £24,000 received a £250 consolidated pay uplift because, despite the public sector pay freeze, we are mindful of protecting the lowest earners in the armed forces during the public sector pay pause.
Carol Monaghan
May I start by offering my condolences to the family of our hon. Friend, Jack Dromey, and in particular to our colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham? Our thoughts are with her at this time.
Since 2010, many armed forces personnel have experienced a dramatic real-terms decrease in pay, some by as much as 6.5%. With the cost of living increasing dramatically and personnel struggling to stay afloat financially, will the Minister now lift the pay freeze and restore pay to at least the levels of a decade ago, when his party came to power?
Leo Docherty
When considering armed forces pay, it is very important to look at it in the round. Service personnel benefit from subsidised food and accommodation, a fantastic non-contributory pension, and allowances on top of basic pay. If I may say, it is a little bit rich getting lessons on armed forces pay from the SNP, given that it has hiked tax on service personnel in Scotland to the tune of £580 per person. It is just as well that the Ministry of Defence is making up the difference.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am very sad about the loss of Jack. I had known him since we both served together—him for the unions, me for the military—in Northern Ireland a long time ago.
Private soldiers, able seamen and aircraftsmen, after six months’ training and in accordance with the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body, get roughly £3,000 to £4,000 less than a policeman who is also trained for about six months. That seems weird and I ask the Minister if he might slightly account for that.
Leo Docherty
As I said, we have to take note of the fact that service personnel benefit very significantly from subsidised food and accommodation, a non-contributory pension and allowances. Many young soldiers are also taking advantage of the opportunity to get on to the property ladder through the Forces Help to Buy scheme, which has been a great success.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for what you said about Jack Dromey; his loss is felt by all of us across the House.
I take on board what the Minister said about pay below £24,000, but being as tough as it is for all those people, we think that that is inadequate. Moreover, is he aware that there are huge pressures in terms of the retention of more senior staff, particularly in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force? The gap between what they can earn in the private sector and what they currently earn in the Navy and Air Force, and how much their skills are in demand, are really affecting the ability to retain important members of staff.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and that is why we offer some technical bonuses. We are also initiating a strategic review of terms and conditions and reward and incentivisation to ensure that we can compete with the private sector.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
May I pay tribute on behalf of the Cabinet and the Government to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey)? We are sorry for his loss and our condolences are with his family. I shall remember Jack with his trademark mac that he often wore—he never changed it—and for his well-crafted arguments often against the Government, but nevertheless making strong and powerful points.
The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics recorded Ministry of Defence support to over 200,000 jobs in UK industry. Further economic growth and prosperity, including jobs, across the Union will be underpinned by £188 billion of investment in defence over four years and this Government’s commitment to a deeper and more strategic relationship with industry, as part of the defence and security industrial strategy.
Dr Davies
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. There is great interest in north Wales in the opportunity that the new medium helicopter programme could bring to the region. Will he provide an update on the progress made by his Department ahead of the launch of a formal competition?
Mr Wallace
Last November, we held a successful market interest day with potential suppliers to discuss requirements for our new medium helicopter programme. Hopefully, by February, we shall start the process of the competition.
Rob Roberts
As my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), mentioned, the new helicopter programme could be significant in north-east Wales and generate around 400 jobs at Airbus directly, should its bid be successful. Will the Secretary of State confirm when the process is scheduled to be completed and when he expects the helicopters to come into service afterwards?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Whoever wins this competition, it is important that they contribute to the prosperity and job opportunities for UK citizens wherever they may be. I am not interested in “here today, gone tomorrow” suppliers for this. We want to enhance British industry and make sure that these helicopters are properly made and put together in this country. Once the competition is complete, we hope to have the medium-lift helicopters in service from the middle of this decade.
Andrew Bridgen
I was pleased to read last week of a new five-year, £460 million logistics contract that has been issued which should deliver the MOD £54 million of efficiency savings a year. Will the Secretary of State outline what the new logistics information system will mean for jobs in the UK, and specifically, jobs in the east midlands?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend highlights an important part of the capability in which we need to invest. Our logistics information system contract will support vital services for another five years and ensure that the UK can rapidly deploy military personnel and equipment globally. He will be pleased to hear that the contract will sustain 675 jobs across the UK supply chain and benefit the whole country, including through jobs at companies with a presence in the east midlands, such as IBM in Nottingham.
Mark Pawsey
As joint chair of the all-party group on manufacturing, I know that Jack Dromey would have appreciated the emphasis today on manufacturing and UK jobs. The national shipbuilding strategy sets out an ambition to support UK manufacturing by boosting innovation, skills, jobs and productivity across the UK, in addition to ensuring the construction of ships’ hulls in British shipyards using British-sourced steel. Will the Secretary of State confirm that every encouragement will be given to UK-based companies to add to the UK content of these new vessels by supplying the systems and equipment that go hand in hand with them?
Mr Wallace
The 2017 national shipbuilding strategy has been highly successful at supporting our UK naval shipbuilding industry. I wish to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are working hard to ensure that the UK producers of steel, and the wider UK shipbuilding supply chain, have the best possible chance of competing for contracts—including General Electric, from his constituency. The refresh of the national shipbuilding strategy is due for publication—we hope that this will be by the end of this month.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Can I bring the Secretary of State back to planet Earth—or planet MOD? He has just mentioned GE at Rugby, but the MOD took no interest when its American parent company in Philadelphia wanted to move production to France; similarly, there was no interest in ensuring that the fleet solid support ships are built in the UK using British steel. Every other major industrial country and major defence country looks after their own industry. Why will he not throw off the blinkers and actually do the same here in the UK?
Mr Wallace
Oh dear. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not even read the defence industrial strategy, where it is very clear that we have committed to enhancing sovereignty. He will know, because he has watched the solid support ship contract with great interest, that we have also classified those ships as warships and started that competition. It is incredibly important that we recognise that, first and foremost, this Government are going to do more, and have done more, to enhance British shipbuilding than any other Government for many, many years, including the one he was a member of.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Defence Secretary and you, Mr Speaker, for the words about Jack Dromey? On this side, we mourn deeply his very sad and sudden death. He touched everyone he worked with—everyone has a proud or affectionate Jack Dromey story—and our House and our politics are the poorer without him this week.
Turning to the question, there are indeed 300,000 UK defence jobs, many linked to MOD contracts. Why have the National Audit Office and the MOD’s own accounts officially confirmed 67 cases of overspends, write-offs, contract cancellations, unplanned extensions and admin errors since 2010, costing at least £13 billion in taxpayers’ money wasted since 2010? Those are only the published data—they are the tip of the iceberg—so will the Secretary of State now commission the NAO to conduct an across-the-board audit of MOD waste, as Labour in government would from day one?
Mr Wallace
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the contents of Labour’s dodgy dossier on defence procurement, which are a fascinating read. They include allocating the loss on Nimrod, which the Labour party had governed for 13 years, to a Conservative Government and the fact that the Labour party had estimated that aircraft carriers would cost only £2.7 billion when in fact they cost over £6 billion. Considerable amounts of the so-called “waste” in the dossier show a breathtaking misunderstanding of both accountancy and how things operate when it comes to procurement. Retiring an aircraft last year that was due to retire in 2015—the Sentinel—does not make it a write-off or a waste; it is getting rid of a piece of equipment that is no longer value for money in delivering what we need to deliver. If he wishes to become the future Defence Secretary, I suggest he takes a course in accountancy first.
John Healey
The Sentinel was, of course, retired before the replacement E-7 Wedgetails were ready, so the MOD rightly accounted for £147 million in constructive loss in its accounts. However, £4 billion has been wasted since 2019 alone, since the Secretary of State has been in post, and the National Audit Office has judged the MOD’s accounts for the defence equipment plan “unaffordable” every year for the last four years. It has said that there is a budget black hole of up to £17 billion. The Secretary of State has taken no serious action to deal with these deep-seated problems. He is failing British forces, and failing British taxpayers.
Mr Wallace
Desperate!
Let us start with the first point. The Sentinel is not an early-warning radar, which the E-7 Wedgetail is. If we are going to say that I retired one platform capability and replaced it with another, let us try to make sure that we replace it with the right type of capability, otherwise someone will be flying the wrong plane in the wrong place at the wrong time—but then I suppose we should not really be very surprised by Labour.
I entirely understand the NAO’s observations. There are, absolutely, a great many things to put right, and in putting them right, yes, we cancel programmes that we cannot afford, yes, we retire capabilities that should have been retired previously, because that is called putting your house in order. Otherwise, we end up with an NAO ruling that
“The MoD has a multi-billion-pound budgetary black hole which it is trying to fix with a ‘save now, pay later’ approach.”
That was the NAO’s report on the Labour Government in 2009, and the “pay later” is what we are now living with.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I endorse everything that both Front Benchers said about Jack Dromey, but not everything that followed.
The Secretary of State and I have crossed swords before about procurement. As he knows, the Public Accounts Committee said that the system was broken. He kindly offered me a meeting last time we discussed this in the House, and he kept his word: he generously gave me an hour of his time, and we discussed it in detail. Following that, is there anything he would like to say to the House today about his plans to reform procurement in the Ministry of Defence?
Mr Wallace
As I have said, there are observations about defence procurement in all the NAO reports and also in those of Select Committees of both Houses, and it has been a running sore for many years. We have to fix some of those issues. The Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), has come to the House time and again to talk about and expose the issues relating to Ajax, and has been honest and clear about the problems that we need to put right. I discussed with my right hon. Friend the need to ensure that our pricing estimates and the quality of our contracts are correct, so that risk is held in the right place. Both those issues are incredibly important. We also need a change in the culture of optimism bias: sometimes people want to gold-plate things when the good will do, rather than the perfect.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Dave Doogan.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
In 2010, when this Government came to power, there were three main RAF bases in Scotland, at Kinloss, Lossiemouth and Leuchars. Now there is only one. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many jobs were lost to Scotland as a result of the RAF draw-downs inflicted on it by Westminster, and, two years on from the Government’s own target of 12,500 personnel to be stationed in Scotland by 2020, will he also tell us how much that target has been missed by, as of today?
Mr Wallace
It is correct that there is one RAF base now—in Lossiemouth. However, we are increasing the footprint up there, because we will base the E-7 there alongside the P-8, and it is home to some Typhoon aircraft as well. So there have been increases in some areas. We have replaced the RAF base at Leuchars with Army units, and we will put another unit there as well. Overall, the proportion of the Army that is based in Scotland has increased since “Army 2030”.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Devonport is the UK’s premier naval base and dockyard. Will the Secretary of State present plans to recycle the 13 rotting nuclear submarines that are tied up alongside it? That would not only be good for the environment but good for Devonport, freeing up dock space, and good for jobs as well.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the importance of Plymouth. I have asked our Submarine Delivery Agency and, indeed, the Navy to present plans for investing in its infrastructure, which has suffered for too many decades from a lack of investment because people want the more “sexy” show capabilities rather than the things that underpin keeping our forces ready and fit for battle.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s Department has announced that the Alanbrooke barracks in my constituency, which proudly hosts the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, will close in 2031. Can my right hon. Friend identify any possible other military uses for that base? Alternatively, will he work urgently with the local authority to ensure that the obvious redevelopment opportunities are taken up as quickly as possible?
Mr Wallace
I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss all opportunities to make use of that space.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
As reported by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority in July 2021, the budgeted cost of Ajax is £6.354 billion to manufacture the vehicle and bring it to full operating capability and for its first period of service. Forecasts are updated twice yearly and our current forecast is that we will deliver under budget at £5.915 billion, though that is subject to change. That includes our £5.5 billion firm contract with General Dynamics.
Nick Smith
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the short tribute to our comrade Jack Dromey.
The latest document on Ajax is enough to make anyone weep. It points to an alphabet soup of accountabilities and a saga of poor procurement, and says that the vehicle thus far is not fit for purpose. And of course it has been a health and safety minefield. This project matters for our military capability and for the 4,000-strong workforce in south Wales and across the UK. In his December statement, the Minister ended on an optimistic note when responding to a question about the workforce from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). Can the Minister give us the expected timeline for fixing these issues?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that I sounded an upbeat note in terms of the jobs in south Wales. We were right to commission the report. It was a thorough report and I believe it was right to publish it so that this House knew exactly where we stood on Ajax. On the question of employment, there are some 4,100 jobs across the country in 230 companies, and the programme is particularly important to south Wales. I was upbeat to the extent that I believe that we must work together with General Dynamics to fix this issue. We have now received a draft report from Millbrook, as I outlined in my last statement, and there is work to be done on that. We may not really get to grips with that until July, but progress is being made. Certainly I believe that the independent work that General Dynamics is doing in Horiba-Mira and elsewhere can resolve these issues. We need to test that very carefully, but we have invested very heavily in this project, it is an important capability and we are determined to make it work if we possibly can.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I would also like to express my condolences on the loss of Jack Dromey, who made his maiden speech the same day that I made mine. I was very fond of him.
I have no doubt that some of the procurement processes that were inherited from the last Labour Government led to some of the flaws in the Ajax programme. I say that because it is emblematic of a catalogue of wasteful decisions such as the selling off of the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar in 2009 for £3 million when it had reportedly been valued at £52 million. Could the Minister please assure me that the MOD’s procurement and disposal decisions, such as that involving Fort Blockhouse at Gosport, will maximise the benefit for the taxpayer and for local communities?
Jeremy Quin
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her elevation; that is good to see. She refers to the approval process for Ajax, which was indeed under the last Labour Administration. I think it passed maingate business approval in March 2010, around the same time that the National Audit Office was pointing out the multi-billion pound black hole that the Labour party was leaving in Defence at the time. I do not believe that Fort Blockhouse will be disposed of until 2023, so there is time to get it right. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend if that is helpful.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I join other voices in expressing my own sadness at the loss of our colleague Jack Dromey. Jack was someone who committed his entire life to improving the lot of others. He was, and is, an example to us all.
Last month, the Government’s own report found that Ministers were in the dark about the serious issues surrounding Ajax for a whole two years before the current Minister was informed in 2020. During that time, soldiers were put in a vehicle that could cause harm. What new measures have been put in place to ensure that Ministers are fully on top of what is going on in their Department?
Jeremy Quin
There is a whole raft of measures. I have met the hon. Gentleman and he is aware from reading the report of what has been set out. We immediately accepted the vast majority of recommendations. There are about two recommendations that need to be worked on, but the intent is there and our intent is to adopt them. One of the most important aspects is to make certain that all people with a view on safety are part of the decision making process, so that everyone with a view has an opportunity to air it and everyone is listened to with respect. We are also putting health and safety input into the highest ranks of the decision making process, so that major decisions cannot be made, either by Ministers or by other parts of the organisation, without that health and safety input right at the top of the organisation. These measures will help to ensure that such a situation does not reoccur.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Clearly the movement of any vulnerable Afghan or British national from Afghanistan to the UK requires the co-operation of a third country. In the UK’s case, this has mostly been through Pakistan and we are very grateful to our friends in Islamabad for working with us. More than 2,000 people have come to the UK since the end of Operation Pitting, and we continue to work with partners in the region to facilitate the exit of more, through more routes.
Dr Lewis
It is worth noting that the last speech Jack made to the House of Commons was on this very subject of standing by our friends in Afghanistan.
Given the unhealthy closeness of ties between parts of the Pakistani state and the Afghan Taliban, what assurances and assistance will the Minister give to Afghans in hiding in Pakistan, who may have been issued with UK visas, that they will not be deported back to Afghanistan by the Pakistani authorities when they present themselves at an airport, instead of being permitted to fly to the United Kingdom?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend will know that we are flirting with operational detail that may be best kept private, but he and all colleagues should reassure those with whom they are in touch that everybody who has arrived in Pakistan with the correct paperwork has been facilitated by the British high commission to leave the country successfully. The challenge, as he might expect, is for those who do not have papers, which is a very live conversation not just with Islamabad but with our friends in other capitals around the region.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
How many ARAP families now in the United Kingdom have been granted indefinite leave to remain?
James Heappey
I fear this may be a red herring, inasmuch as indefinite leave to remain is an automatic part of the ARAP scheme. More than 5,000 ARAP-eligible personnel were brought out during Operation Pitting, and around 1,100 of the 2,000 who have come out since are also ARAPers. About another 150 or so ARAP principals from the original cohort who actually worked for us and were approved during Operation Pitting are left in Afghanistan, and we continue to work to bring them out. Of course, we are getting applications all the time. The ARAP entitlement is absolute and is not time limited. We will bring out anybody eligible who applies.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence has a long-standing relationship with our Ukrainian counterparts, and we continue to provide support in many areas including security assistance and defence reform. Since 2015, the UK has helped to build the resilience and capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces through Operation Orbital, which has trained over 22,000 Ukrainian troops.
Henry Smith
Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the memorandum of implementation between Ukraine and the United Kingdom to build up naval capacity and naval bases?
Mr Wallace
It became very clear after 2014 that Ukraine had lost large parts of its navy to Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea, and it is important to help Ukraine build up and sustain a naval capability. We have continued to invest in that, and last year we signed not only an MOI but an agreement to sell naval patrol boats with weapons systems to the Ukrainian Government.
Mr Mohindra
I associate myself with the comments about Jack Dromey.
Does my right hon. Friend share my gratitude to the excellent staff at Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood in my constituency for their superb leadership and focus on our overseas operations?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to staff at PJHQ. Both civilian and military staff constantly work around the clock to deliver a whole range of international operations and, in terms of the frontline, are always ready and prepared to deploy to wherever we need in the world, including in Ukraine.
Jerome Mayhew
It has been suggested that our support for Ukraine might include the provision of weapons systems. Is that true?
Mr Wallace
As I have said, in June last year, we entered into an agreement with Ukraine to supply eight fast ships equipped with modern weapons systems. That was a significant agreement as it affirmed the UK’s openness to supply Ukraine with defensive weapons systems as well as training, and that principle remains.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I thank the House for the kind words about our friend, Jack Dromey? He is a loss to my party, to the wider Labour movement, and, indeed, to Parliament.
The threats made to Ukraine are part of a wider pattern of behaviour by Russia, ranging from Belarus to the Balkans, to test NATO and the west. We also have to tackle Russian misinformation, as it is a huge tool in President Putin’s arsenal and has been used to devastating effect against our allies. What steps are the Government considering taking to counter that huge problem, along with other grey zone attacks?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The false narrative is that, somehow, NATO is surrounding Ukraine, when only one 16th of Russia’s border is shared with a NATO member. It is also a false narrative to say that NATO, as some sort of single entity, looks to expansion. People seek to join NATO often as a result of other issues. The question for the Kremlin is why so many countries have sought that membership.
On what I am doing to counter that information, I think we all have a role to play. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has engaged the media, and I will continue to do so as well. This House had an extremely good debate on the subject, and I listened to many Members’ speeches. I urge anyone who has not read the debate, to read it. It is important to call out the false playbook. I also urge right hon. and hon. Members to read the article written by President Putin himself in July last year in which he exposes his real views towards the people of Ukraine.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Lots of people spoke in the debate last Thursday about the hybrid warfare that Putin is effectively waging against the west at the moment. Is the Secretary of State for Defence convinced that the UK is doing enough to tackle the dirty money that comes from Russia into London? Is he convinced that we are doing enough not just on the misinformation that Russia perpetuates here, but on the number of dodgy companies that are functioning here?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman will know from my time as Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime that I was always pushing to do more—and there is always more to do. The unexplained wealth orders were one step, but more transparency and more rigorous checks in places such as Companies House are also important steps. I think that he is right that Russia goes after a whole range of our vulnerabilities. Perhaps, in the way that we function as an open liberal society, we should make sure that we protect those places and not just the more obvious places, such as the military.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
May I associate myself very warmly with the comments made about my good friend, Jack Dromey? He was a friend to us all in this House.
Given that there is a need for maximum co-ordination and co-operation with our allies if we are to counter the threat from Russia effectively, what measures are the Government taking to enhance our co-operation with our European partners to make sure that we are an effective alliance?
Mr Wallace
The United Kingdom has uniquely at its disposal a strong partnership with the United States, and a partnership also with the EU and indeed in NATO. We are working all those avenues to make sure that we present a united and strong front. This week, I will visit a number of countries in eastern Europe and Scandinavia, many of which are very, very worried about what has been happening. We have continued with the diplomatic track. In 2019, I extended Operation Orbital to continue to help build Ukraine’s capability to defend itself, which is incredibly important. All of us should call out those false narratives to make sure that, should anything happen, we have a package of sanctions ready to deliver to make sure that Russia’s bad mistake is punished.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Putin’s ultimatum in December, placing unrealistic demands on NATO’s forced presence in eastern Europe and giving Russia licence to invade Ukraine, was clearly designed to be rejected. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we will not concede to Russia’s threats; that NATO’s defence posture in eastern Europe, and in the Baltic states in particular, will not change; and that we will commit to a long-term strategy of supporting Ukraine through joint training exercises, arms sales and the eventual inviting of Ukraine to join NATO?
Mr Wallace
First and foremost, we need to deal with the central charge, which I think is a false charge, of NATO aggression and a NATO surrounding of Russia. NATO is defensive by its very nature—if you attack us, you attack us all—and it is a defensive alliance; it is not offensive. There are no NATO bases in Ukraine, which is also alleged. The United Kingdom will work with whoever wants to work with us and shares our values. We will not be deterred by bullying, and we will not be deterred by distance. We shall step up and help those countries in eastern Europe and Scandinavia, and Ukraine—that is its right as a sovereign country—should they wish to have our assistance. We respect their rights as free, sovereign countries, and I ask other countries to do the same.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The worrying developments in Ukraine along with those in Kazakhstan demonstrate the need for us to be able to understand the Russian Federation and its motivations, however misguided its actions. Thankfully, the Ministry of Defence has the Russian military studies centre in Shrivenham, which is a resource of outstanding pedigree built on a proven research record. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the centre will be able to preserve its independence following the review that his Department is undertaking? It would be a great pity if the unique pedigree of that research centre was lost.
Mr Wallace
Not for the first time, the hon. Member raises an interesting point that I will be delighted to look at. It is important that we all have independent advice. This month, I will make the Chief of Defence Intelligence available to hon. Members of the House, to brief those who so wish on the current situation in Ukraine. We should not forget that what the Russian Government—not the Russian people—are frightened of is not NATO but NATO’s values.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
My right hon. Friend has fought and fought for the retention of more military personnel at St Athan. At his request, I visited the site personally and re-evaluated our options. Unfortunately, the historic agreement entered into with the Welsh Government does indeed make such—[Interruption.] I do apologise, Mr Speaker, and I apologise to my right hon. Friend—I wanted first to give an answer on future solider in general before getting on to the specifics—[Laughter.] I know exactly what my right hon. Friend is going to ask, because he has been assiduous in demanding more troops at St Athan.
Before I get on to that, future soldier is good news for Wales, bringing additional investment into the Army estate of around £320 million. I know Brecon will be delighted that Brecon barracks—the headquarters of the 160th (Welsh) Brigade—will be retained. We have identified Caerwent training estate for investment to host not one but two units—including the Queen’s Dragoon Guards—and, in north Wales, a new reserve unit of the Royal Welsh will be established in Wrexham.
Alun Cairns
I associate myself with the comments made about our friend and colleague Jack Dromey.
The Welsh Government’s refusal to extend the lease of the land at MOD St Athan effectively blocked a new major military unit coming to St Athan. What reassurance can the Minister give to the soldiers based at west camp? Do the Welsh Government have any right to the land on which they are based? If so, are they at risk of being evicted in the same way as those soldiers who were based at east camp?
Jeremy Quin
No, they are not. The good news is that the Ministry of Defence holds the freehold for the west camp land, which was not covered by the historic agreement made with the Welsh Government. My right hon. Friend has tackled me on this issue on so many occasions, and I went to visit the camp. We could not put new units into St Athan given the historic agreement with the Welsh Government, but west camp is MOD freehold and we will retain our forces there.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I associate myself with the tributes to Jack Dromey. He was a true friend and a credit to the House.
The Minister spoke about the future soldier programme in general terms, which connects to the Armed Forces Act. He made a welcome concession by agreeing to publish data on both investigations and prosecutions at all stages of the service justice system. What will the Government do if conviction rates for one or more of these serious crimes are concerningly low? Will the Government reconsider their approach and finally recognise that these cases should be dealt with by the civilian judicial system, and what impact does the Minister think that the Armed Forces Act 2021 will have on the Government meeting the target they have set themselves for 30% of Army recruits to be—
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I, too, pass on my condolences to Jack’s family and friends? It is indeed a sad loss.
I am clutching at two words—Army estate—in asking this question. On a recent visit to the Special Boat Service—our Marines special forces—I was shocked to find that it does not have a proper aquatic centre. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me and the House when and if the Special Boat Service will get a proper aquatic centre to do vital training in?
Jeremy Quin
I am aware of the discussions and the proposal and I have seen some suggestions, but I am not in a position to give any detail to my hon. Friend at the moment. I will look into it and write to him.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Foreign Affairs Committee has one up and running and the Secretary of State for Defence will give evidence in two weeks’ time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have no doubt that that Committee is doing a very find job indeed, but surely the damning evidence that it has received makes a full independent inquiry all the more important, not less so. Tens of thousands dead, millions facing humanitarian disaster, democracy and human rights in tatters, and many of billions of pounds spent—if that does not merit a full, comprehensive independent inquiry, what on earth does?
James Heappey
I think that the whole House can agree that the service personnel involved in Operation Pitting did an amazing job. I fear that the hon. Gentleman’s wider question might be better addressed to Foreign Office questions.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The defence and security industrial strategy provides a more flexible approach to determine the right acquisition strategy for any given capability, in line with our priorities and national security requirements. Where tenders are used, they are designed to be fair, open and certainly accessible to domestic contractors.
Bob Seely
Wight Shipyard Co. in my constituency recently raised with me its concern about the niche criteria and very short timeframes for the Ministry of Defence’s special purpose ship contract. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that all MOD contracts are fairly given out and fairly tendered to all contractors in the country, including smaller contractors such as Wight Shipyard?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is an assiduous advocate for the Island and he was right to raise this issue with me before Christmas. I looked into it and have written to him and another hon. Gentleman on the subject. The requirement is for an existing vessel that can enter service very quickly to help the Royal Navy perform, at pace, trials on autonomy and the use of modular persistent operational deployment systems. I am satisfied that the tender for this vessel is fair and open. It has attracted a significant degree of interest from a wide range of suppliers, and they will have to compete along the lines outlined.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Government are invariably keen to talk up their role in the manufacturing success story of Scottish warship building, and the Minister knows exactly the extraordinary private investment that has been made by BAE on the Clyde and by Babcock at Rosyth, and about the state of the art manufacturing process, equipment and, crucially, apprenticeships. Will he now commit to rewarding that investment by unequivocally ensuring that the fleet solid support ships are built in whole, not in part, in Scottish and, if necessary, other UK yards, and categorically commit to using UK steel?
Jeremy Quin
I think the hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to what this Government are doing in terms of investment in shipbuilding. We are a phenomenal investor in shipbuilding. BAE and Babcock are doing a tremendous job, with a huge number of ships coming through the production line. I am not going to prejudge a tender—that would completely contradict what I said in my previous remarks. However, if only the Scottish Government could take a leaf out of our book in the way in which they work with Ferguson’s, I think we would all be better off as a shipbuilding industry.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
Since the veterans strategy was published in 2018, we have been delivering for our veterans, including Op Courage in the NHS to support veterans with their mental health, the veterans’ railcard, and a national insurance holiday for those employing veterans. We continue to drive forward that agenda, with our publication soon of a veterans strategy update, which will recognise what a fantastic asset our veterans are.
Jonathan Gullis
In north Staffordshire we are very proud to house the Tri Services and Veterans Support Centre led by Geoff Harriman and supported by John Painter and Kathy Munslow, all of whom served themselves and do a range of work to support our local veterans—for example, the new veterans’ retreat set up in Kidsgrove parish, bringing veterans together to take part in archery, construction and even bee-keeping. I want to personally thank Ron Jeffries, a local businessman who kindly donated some of his land for this vision to become a reality. Will my hon. Friend therefore applaud the work of Geoff, John, Kathy and Ron in supporting our veterans and commit to visiting later this year to show us his skills in the field?
Leo Docherty
I would be delighted to learn about the work of those people in the parish of Kidsgrove—it sounds fantastic. I absolutely join my hon. Friend to thank Geoff Harriman, John Painter, Kathy Munslow and Ron Jeffries for their military service and all they continue to do for veterans in the community. I also thank my hon. Friend for the work he does to support our armed forces personnel. If possible, I would be delighted to visit.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Last month the President of the United States signed off the National Defense Authorization Act, which will ensure that US atomic veterans receive a medal and an official day of recognition for their service. Does the Minister agree that it is time to end the UK’s shameful position as the only country not to provide official recognition or compensation for nuclear veterans, and to mark the 70th anniversary of Britain’s first nuclear test by finally rewarding our courageous nuclear veterans with the medals they so highly deserve?
Leo Docherty
We will keep this under review but we regard it as a matter for the advisory military sub-committee on medallic recognition.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Colleagues across the House are right to voice their concern about Russia’s ongoing aggression towards Ukraine. While we are hopeful for a positive outcome from this week’s diplomatic efforts, we are preparing for all eventualities.
Chris Clarkson
May I associate myself with the tributes to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington?
Time and again during this pandemic our armed forces have stepped up, whether by building hospitals like the new Nightingale in central Manchester, delivering vital supplies or getting jabs into arms, and they are now doing it again by supporting our world-leading booster programme. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we should thank them for their amazing service and encourage everybody to get that booster?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend points out the other job that Defence does, which is building this country’s resilience wherever one may be in the United Kingdom. It is always important to remember that our armed forces have a day job—a main job—of defending our country. When we are out of this national crisis and pandemic, it will be important to look at making sure that other people step up to cover. In the long term Defence personnel are always there, whether for floods, pandemic or other threats, and they will continue to be so. That is why it was important that we put soldiers and sailors at the heart of our Defence Command Paper.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Today’s US-Russia talks in Geneva start a critical week of dialogue over Ukraine. I assure the Secretary of State that we fully support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As a defensive alliance, it is clear that it is not NATO’s but Russia’s actions that are dangerously escalating the current tensions. What leading role is the UK playing to ensure that any agreement on the talks is fully co-ordinated with NATO and with European allies?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. I will continue to work with him, and the Leader of the Opposition, to ensure that he is kept informed as much as we can on the situation. That goes for the Scottish National party as well. I have personally been to Ukraine five or six times in my time as Security Minister and Defence Secretary. The lessons of Afghanistan are that as we move together, whether as NATO or as a coalition, we will continue to work with—
Mr Speaker
Order. Topicals are meant to be short, quick and effective. I cannot get through the list if we are going to take them as normal questions.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I think my right hon. Friend will do so. I have been to Brecon previously with my hon. Friend, who has campaigned relentlessly to retain the barracks, and I was delighted to confirm that that would be the case. It is the right decision for the Army, for Wales and indeed for Brecon.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Minister made a welcome concession at the end of the debate on the Armed Forces Act 2021 to publish data about investigations and prosecutions. What will the Government do if the conviction rate for one or more of these serious crimes is concerningly low? Will they reconsider their approach? What impact does the Minister think the Act has had on meeting the target of 30% of Army recruits being female by 2030, particularly given that the current trends mean that that target will not be met until 2063?
Mr Wallace
The steps we have taken on judicial oversight, the Judge Henriques review of the service justice system and implementing the Lyons and Murphy reviews mean that we are confident that the changes we have made to the service justice system mean that cases will be better investigated, there will be a better quality of law and that justice is delivered. We are also continuing the work we are doing under Air Chief Marshal Wigston’s review to make sure it is a better environment for women to serve in.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right. In anticipation of those training situations, the Defence Command Paper in March and “The Integrated Operating Concept 2025”, which preceded it, put in place measures to ensure that our Army is more ready, more forward and more deployable than it has ever been before, because speed and readiness are the one of the best ways to deter our adversaries.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I am pleased to confirm that all the other nations of the United Kingdom do indeed have veterans commissioners.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Jeremy Quin
As my hon. Friend might be aware, we recently announced a closer working relationship with Japan on elements of the future combat air system programme. That followed on from talks that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had last September in Tokyo. The Japanese Government and we see a lot of benefit in working together on defence equipment programmes.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Mr Wallace
Periodically we come to this House—either myself or the Foreign Secretary—to update the House overall on Op Shader, and we periodically inform the House of all strikes we make. If it has not happened yet, it will happen very soon through the Cabinet Office.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Department is investing in emerging technologies around the country as part of the defence supply chain. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the next generation of armed forces personnel, including those at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, are trained to take advantage of them?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. We have more than 1,000 science, technology, engineering and mathematics—or STEM—representatives. We ensure that about 90% of all non-commissioned roles have the opportunity to take apprenticeships, which go right the way across new areas of skills, including STEM skills. That includes the outstanding Harrogate College. From memory, part of the syllabus includes space, autonomy and cyber. We are ensuring that we are absolutely at the cutting edge.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I am not sure I will accept that characterisation of the US position. I thought Secretary Blinken’s speech in Abuja was very encouraging. The UK is committed in east, west and southern Africa, against not just the rise of violent extremism, which concerns us enormously, but also increasingly how our competitors and adversaries are using countries to develop their influence. We see that as a bad thing in the long term, and we are seeking to counter it.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
If the closure of RAF Halton gets the go ahead—frankly, I do not think it should—the largest town in Hertfordshire will have no military capability on its boundaries. Is there any way we can have a reserve capability—we need the reserves as we go forward—at RAF Halton for the Army and the RAF?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have asked to look again at that and some of the rebasing options.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for Defence Procurement for his letter on the Navy’s special purpose vehicle and the changes he has made to the procurement process, but that will not get us away from the fact that the money has to be spent by March, which means that the vessel will be built or procured from a Dutch company, Damen. Why is he not backing British industry? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, this is a £10 million contract that will go to a Dutch yard, rather than be spent in the UK.
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Gentleman has already decided how our competition will end, which is unwise. We have multiple potential providers of a vessel that needs already to have been built, so we are going through a buying process and we will see how that procurement exercise ends.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
May I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement for the care that he is taking in dealing with the challenges of the Ajax contract, and for the transparency with which he is keeping the House up to date with the problems? Does he agree that the production contract, which was entered into in 2014, was characterised by transferring risk to the contractor? Had we followed the practice of the previous Labour Government, trumpeted by the shadow Secretary of State, the risk would have stayed with the Ministry of Defence and the taxpayer.
Jeremy Quin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Had this been like the Nimrod situation, where £3.7 billion was wasted by the previous Government and they attempted to blame it on us, that would have been where we are, but we are not; we have a firm-price contract with General Dynamics.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Redford barracks in my constituency has had another stay of execution to 2025. As the UK Government seem unmoved by arguments for retaining the defence estate in Scotland, will the Minister consider transferring the land at Redford to the City of Edinburgh Council so as to offset some of the economic impact of the closure of the barracks?
Mr Wallace
The hon. and learned Lady fails to recognise that we have already moved the 51st Brigade headquarters to Redford, so large parts of the barracks will be retained. Also, Glencorse barracks, which was due to be reduced, will be retained and increased on that site. The investment going into Scotland, through new bases or by securing existing bases, is incredibly important.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
From foot and mouth disease to floods and the pandemic, our armed forces have always stepped up in civilian emergencies, but the lesson has always been that this needs to be done as early as possible. Given recent experiences with Storm Arwen, does my hon. Friend agree that measures need to be put in place across all levels of Government so that the armed forces can be deployed in civilian emergencies locally, strategically and quickly?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do have those mechanisms already, with liaison officers in every local resilience forum. The armed forces do an amazing job, whether responding to flooding or, indeed, delivering 521,700 jabs last month alone as part of the booster programme.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As a fellow trade unionist, Jack Dromey was a dear friend. His final fight in this place was for Afghan refugees, 13,000 of whom are languishing in hotels—not exactly a warm welcome. Can the Defence Secretary say exactly how he is deploying the defence estate and Annington Homes to ensure that we home these refugees?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member makes a very important point. I ask all Members of this House to reach out to their local authorities, because a lot of local authorities’ words have not been matched by action. I have made available nearly 500 married quarters to those individuals. Of course, very few local authorities were prepared to take up the available married quarters in which to place the refugees. It is important that we all get our local authorities to pull together alongside the rest of the Government.
Building Safety
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Secretary of State to make his statement, I have to express once again my disappointment that important announcements have been made first to the media, rather than to this House. In this case, I accept that issues of market sensitivity meant that announcements had to be made this morning. However, I am told that the announcements were required because of speculation about the policy change over the weekend. That speculation appears to have been substantially accurate, which means that the media appear to have known the details before this House did. If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm that a leak inquiry is to be held.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on building safety. Before I do so, I can confirm that I have asked the permanent secretary in my Department to conduct a leak inquiry. It was a matter of considerable regret to me that details of the statement that I am about to make were shared with the media before they were shared with Members of this House, and indeed with those most affected.
It is worth pausing at the start of any statement to reflect on why building safety is an issue of concern to all of us in this House today. It took the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017, as a result of which 72 innocent men, women and children lost their lives, to put building safety properly on the political agenda. Families were living in a building that was literally a death trap because of failures of enforcement and compliance in our building safety regime. This Government must take their share of responsibility for those failures.
Over four years on from that terrible tragedy, it is clear that the building safety system remains broken. The problems that we have to fix have been identified by many across this House, from all parties. I would like at this point to register my appreciation of the work that the late Jack Dromey did on this issue. He was shadow Housing Minister for three years and he did a great deal, both as a trade unionist and as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Erdington, to bring to light the plight of those affected by this crisis.
As we know, there are still a small number of high-rise buildings with dangerous and unsafe cladding that have to be fixed. We know that those who manufacture dangerous products and develop dangerous buildings have faced inadequate accountability so far, and shown insufficient contrition. We also need to ensure that we take a proportionate approach in building assessments overall. There are too many buildings today that are declared unsafe, and there are too many who have been seeking to profit from the current crisis.
Most importantly, leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price. I am clear about who should pay the price for remedying failures. It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse.
Mr Speaker, we will take action on all of these fronts. To ensure that every remaining high-rise dangerous building has the necessary cladding remediation to make it safe, we will open up the next phase of the building safety fund early this year and focus relentlessly on making sure it is risk driven and delivered more quickly.
We will also ensure that those who profited, and continue to profit, from the sale of unsafe buildings and construction products must take full responsibility for their actions and pay to put things right. Those who knowingly put lives at risk should be held to account for their crimes, and those who are seeking to profit from the crisis by making it worse should be stopped from doing so.
Today, I am putting them on notice. To those who mis-sold dangerous products, such as cladding or insulation, to those who cut corners to save cash as they developed or refurbished people’s homes, and to those who sought to profiteer from the consequences of the Grenfell tragedy: we are coming for you. I have established a dedicated team in my Department to expose and pursue those responsible. We will begin by reviewing Government schemes and programmes to ensure that, in accordance with due process, there are commercial consequences for any company that is responsible for this crisis and refusing to help to fix it.
In line with this, just before Christmas, I instructed Homes England to suspend Rydon Homes, which is closely connected to the company that refurbished the Grenfell Tower, from its participation in the Help to Buy scheme, with immediate effect. I also welcome the decision by the Mercedes Formula 1 team and Toto Wolff to discontinue sponsorship from Kingspan, the cladding firm, with immediate effect. The voices of the families of the bereaved and the survivors of the Grenfell Tower were heard, but this is only the start of the action that must be taken.
We must also restore common sense to the assessment of building safety overall. The Government are clear—we must find ways for there to be fewer unnecessary surveys. Medium-rise buildings are safe, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. There must be far greater use of sensible mitigations, such as sprinklers and fire alarms, in place of unnecessary and costly remediation work.
To achieve that, today I am withdrawing the Government’s consolidated advice note. It has been wrongly interpreted and has driven a cautious approach to building safety in buildings that are safe that goes beyond what we consider necessary. We are supporting new, proportionate guidance for assessors, developed by the British Standards Institution, which will be published this week.
Secondly, we will press ahead with the building safety fund, adapting it so that it is consistent with our proportionate approach. We will now set a higher expectation that developers must fix their own buildings, and we will give leaseholders more information at every stage of the process.
Thirdly, before Easter, we will be implementing our scheme to indemnify building assessors conducting external wall assessments, giving them the confidence to exercise their balanced professional judgment. We will audit those assessments to ensure that expensive remediation is being advised only where it is necessary to remove a threat to life.
I will be working closely with lenders over the coming months to improve market confidence, and I have asked my colleague Lord Greenhalgh to work with insurers on new industry-led approaches that bring down the premiums facing leaseholders.
Further, we will take the power to review the governance of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to ensure that it is equipped properly to support a solution to this challenge. Those in the industry who refuse to work with us in good faith to take a more proportionate approach should be clear that our determination is to fix the problem for all those caught up in this crisis.
Finally, we must relieve the burden that has been unfairly placed on leaseholders. I want to pay tribute to all those across the House who have campaigned so passionately on this subject. They know the injustice of asking leaseholders, often young people who have saved hard and made sacrifices to take their first steps on the housing ladder, to pay money they do not have to fix a problem they did not cause, all while the firms who made a profit on those developments sit on their hands. We will take action to end the scandal and protect leaseholders. We will scrap the proposal for loans and long-term debt for medium-rise leaseholders.
I can confirm to the House today that no leaseholder living in a building above 11 metres will ever face any costs for fixing dangerous cladding and, working with Members of both Houses, we will pursue statutory protection for leaseholders and nothing will be off the table. As part of that, we will introduce immediate amendments to the Building Safety Bill to extend the right of leaseholders to challenge those who cause defects in premises for up to 30 years retrospectively.
We will also take further action immediately: we will provide an additional £27 million to fund more fire alarms, so we can end the dreadful misuse of waking watches; we will change grant funding guidance so that shared owners affected by the crisis can more easily sub-let their properties, and encourage lenders and landlords to approve sub-letting arrangements; and in the period before long-term arrangements are put in place, I will work with colleagues across Government to make sure that leaseholders are protected from forfeiture and eviction because of historic costs. Innocent leaseholders must not shoulder the burden.
We have already committed £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ funding from the Government, but we should not now look to the taxpayer for more funding. We should not ask hard-working taxpayers to pay more taxes to get developers and cladding companies making vast profits off the hook. We will make industry pay to fix all of the remaining problems and help to cover the range of costs facing leaseholders. Those who manufactured combustible cladding and insulation, many of whom have made vast profits even at the height of the pandemic, must pay now instead of leaseholders.
We have made a start through the residential property developer tax and the building safety levy, both announced last February, but will now go further. I will today write to developers to convene a meeting in the next few weeks, and I will report back to the House before Easter. We will give them the chance to do the right thing. I hope that they will take it. I can confirm to the House today that if they do not, we will impose a solution on them, if necessary, in law.
Finally, we must never be in this position again, so we are putting the recommendations of the Hackitt review on building safety in law and we will shortly commence the Fire Safety Act 2021. We are also today publishing new collaborative procurement guidance on removing the incentives for industry to cut corners and to help stop the prioritisation of cost over value. We will legislate to deliver broader reforms to the leasehold system, and also bring forward measures to fulfil commitments made in the social housing White Paper. When parliamentary time allows, we will have legislation on social housing regulation so that social housing tenants cannot be ignored as those in the Grenfell community were for many years.
Four and a half years on from the tragedy of Grenfell, it is long past time that we fix the crisis. Through the measures that I have set out today, we will seek redress for past wrongs and secure funds from developers and construction product manufacturers, and we will protect leaseholders today and fix the system for the future.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind words about Jack Dromey, who should have been with us here today? There is a space over there that I know Jack would have occupied. Back in the 1970s, horrified by the spectacle of a skyscraper in London that lay empty while people slept rough underneath it, Jack was one of those who occupied Centre Point tower in protest. He was never afraid to speak truth to power, and I hope that today marks the start of all of us across the House invoking his spirit.
Four and a half years after the appalling tragedy at Grenfell, and with a road paved with broken promises and false dawns, hundreds of thousands are still trapped in unsafe homes, millions are caught in the wider crisis, and the families of 72 people who lost their lives are waiting for justice. It is a relief that we finally have a consensus that the developers and manufacturers who profited from this appalling scandal should bear greater costs, not the victims, and that blameless leaseholders must not pay. After a year of hell of the prospect hanging over leaseholders, we welcome the decision to remove the threat of forced loans, but can the Secretary of State tell us what makes him think that he can force developers, who have refused to do the right thing for four years, to pay up? We have been told there is a March deadline and a roundtable, but there is not a plan. If he has one, can we hear it? He will find an open door on the Opposition side of the House, if he has a credible proposal to bring.
Today the Secretary of State warned developers that if negotiation fails,
“our backstop…what we can do…is increase taxation on those responsible”,
but that is not quite right, is it? I have in front of me the letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. May I remind the Secretary of State what it says? He was told that
“you may use a high-level ‘threat’ of tax or legal solutions in discussions with developers”
but
“whether or not to impose or raise taxes remains a decision for me”
—the Chief Secretary—
“and is not a given at this point.”
If I have seen the letter, I am fairly sure that the developers have too. Furthermore, it appears that what the Secretary of State has told the public—that tax rises are the backstop—is not what he has told the Treasury. The letter says that
“you have confirmed separately that DLUHC budgets are a backstop for funding these proposals in full…should sufficient funds not be raised from industry.”
That is not what the Secretary of State told the House a moment ago, so can he clear this up? Has the Chancellor agreed to back a new tax measure if negotiations fail, or is the Secretary of State prepared to see his already allocated budgets—levelling-up funding, or moneys for social or affordable housing—raided? Or is his plan to go back to the Treasury, renegotiate and legislate, if he fails in March? If that is the case, it will take months, and there is nothing to stop freeholders passing on the costs to leaseholders in the meantime. Does he even have an assessment of how many leaseholders will be hit with whacking great bills if he delays?
If the Secretary of State is serious about going after the developers—I hope that he is—why is he not putting these powers into the Building Safety Bill now? The only trick that he has up his sleeve, as he just confirmed to the House, is to ban them from Help to Buy, and we know that the impact of that, though welcome, will be marginal. Can he see the problem? He will also know that there is a gaping hole in what he has proposed. A significant number of buildings have both cladding and non-cladding defects, and leaseholders in them face ruinous costs to fix things such as missing fire breaks and defective compartmentation. One cannot make a building half safe. Given that the Secretary of State recognises the injustice of all leaseholders caught up in the building safety crisis, why is he abandoning those who have been hit with bills for non-cladding defects, and why will he not amend his Bill so that all leaseholders are protected from historical defects in law?
The truth is that the pace of remediation has been painfully slow. The Secretary of State is now on track to miss the deadline to fix all Grenfell-style cladding by over half a decade, and there are huge delays when it comes to building safety fund applications, so will he get a grip on what is going on in his own Department and ensure that the progress of remediation is accelerated markedly? As he knows, this has been a living nightmare for affected leaseholders, and we owe it to them to bring it swiftly to an end.
What the Secretary of State has given us today is a welcome shift in tone and some new measures that the Opposition very much hope will succeed, but the harder I look at this, the less it stands up. We were promised justice and we were promised change, to finally do right by the victims of this scandal, and that takes more than more promises. It takes a plan.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for her questions. First, I entirely agree with the generous and fitting words that she had for Jack Dromey. As I mentioned briefly in my statement, he was a relentless campaigner for social justice throughout his career. Indeed, the role he played in highlighting the plight of the homeless, and the need to act in order to ensure that they had a safe and decent place to live, is one of the many achievements that we will all recall as we think of his contribution. I also welcome the consensual approach that the shadow Secretary of State and her Front-Bench colleagues are taking in seeking to ensure that we place responsibility where it truly lies, and she had a number of appropriate questions to follow up in order to ensure that we deliver effectively.
The shadow Secretary of State made the point that the allocations from the building safety fund so far have been slow and are behindhand, and that is true. I think it is always better to be honest about those areas where the Government have not performed as well as they should, and one of the first things I did as Secretary of State was to ask for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that that money was spent effectively. Of course, one of the problems we have had is that it is a demand-led system, so we have relied on many of those who have been responsible as the individual owners of buildings to come forward. However, what we are also hoping to do is ensure that, working with the National Fire Chiefs Council, we have the most extensive analysis of all the buildings that need our support and that we accelerate work on the BSF. So her concerns are not misplaced, and it is certainly my intention to ensure that we accelerate and make comprehensive that work.
The shadow Secretary of State also made the point that non-cladding costs do need to be met, and I agree. She specifically requested that we provide amendments to the Building Safety Bill to ensure that there is statutory protection for leaseholders. That is our intention—we intend to bring forward those amendments—and I look forward to working with her and colleagues across the House to provide the most robust legal protection.
The shadow Secretary of State doubted—again, I can understand the basis of her scepticism—whether developers and others in industry, given their past behaviour, would necessarily come sweetly to the table, and that is why it is so important that we have a range of tools available. I think it is important to recognise that there are some developers and some in the industry who have done the right thing, and it is also important to recognise that a spokesman for the Home Builders Federation, Stewart Baseley, today struck a very a constructive and open tone.
However, we do need to have additional backstops, and it is clear that taxes can, if necessary, play a part. I do not want to move there, but we do have the absolute assurance that we can use the prospect of taxation to bring people to the table. All taxation decisions are made by the Chancellor, and no Chancellor or Chief Secretary would ever say anything other than that, but the fact that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor have authorised me to use the prospect of taxation, and the fact that we already have taxation through the residential property developer tax, shows that we are prepared to take every step necessary.
The final point that was implicit—perhaps explicit—in everything the shadow Secretary of State said is that we will be judged on our actions, and I think that is entirely fair. I recognise, given the scale of the frustration that so many have felt in the past, that ultimately there can only really be satisfaction when we bring this matter to a conclusion. I believe that today marks a significant step forward, but there is more work to do, and I hope that we can conclude that work on a cross-party basis in order to bring justice to those who deserve it.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I will co-operate, Mr Speaker, and may I say, through you, to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), that the tributes to her husband Jack Dromey for his work on people’s interests at work and at home will be long remembered, together with that of David Amess, who for 20 years worked on the all-party group on fire safety and rescue with Ronnie King and others?
I believe that this is another step forward that is greatly welcomed and greatly needed, but I think the extension of the liability to 30 years is wrong for those who knew that what they were doing was wrong: 30 years may be fine for those who did it by mistake, but for those who knew what they were doing, there should be unlimited liability both in time and in money.
I hope that the Secretary of State will have a roundtable. If he wants to take over the all-party group roundtable for a summit on this, he can pick up some of the other issues that no doubt he has been working on, but which, to keep his statement reasonable, he may not have covered today.
One problem is the insurance premiums paid by leaseholders for a property they do not own, which may have gone up from an illustrative £300 a year to £3,000 a year. I believe that the Association of British Insurers should be told that the Competition and Markets Authority will look to see whether there is price gouging, in simple terms, and, that if there is some kind of catastrophic reinsurance needed, the Government should help them to make communal arrangements to deal with that, because insurance premiums should come down to the £300 they were before.
The last point of very many I would like to make is that the Treasury will expect to get the benefit of the levy and tax towards the £5 billion already announced, and the contributions that will come in from developers will relieve burdens on residential leaseholders, but the Government should also get the VAT on money that is spent, which is 20% of the total cost. If the total cost comes down from £15 billion to, say, £12 billion, my right hon. Friend can calculate and discuss with the Treasury how much extra the Treasury is getting. The Treasury should not be making a profit out of all this catastrophe.
Michael Gove
I thank the Father of the House for his questions. He is quite right that Sir David Amess, before his sad death, was one of the most prescient and most effective campaigners for improved building safety. His memory is very much in my mind.
The Father of the House makes a point about the need to potentially look at unlimited liability for those who consciously and deliberately operated in a reckless fashion. I will consider that and I am sure it will be considered during the passage of the Bill. On his point that we should work with others, particularly the broad leasehold community who have done so much to identify the way forward, we absolutely intend to do that. The point he makes about insurance premiums is absolutely right. That is why my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh will be talking to Baroness Morgan of Cotes and others in the Association of British Insurers to ensure that more insurers, like Aviva, do the right thing. I very much note his point about VAT and Treasury contributions. In the ongoing conversations we have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will reflect on the very important point that he made.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I wish to echo the sentiments from across the House on the work Jack Dromey did on this issue and his campaigning to get justice for those affected.
It has been almost five years since the Grenfell fire. In that time, we have had four Housing Secretaries and several different policies and approaches to this issue. First the Government would pay, then leaseholders would pay and now developers will pay, all because the Treasury has for so long refused to act further on this issue. The confusion is not only harming homeowners facing a Tory cost of living crisis, but affecting the ability of devolved Governments to plan their responses appropriately. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that this latest policy will be acted on, and will he commit to working with the devolved Governments to provide further clarity? Additionally, can he make it clear when already promised funding will fully and finally be delivered to the devolved Governments for this matter?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her points. We certainly will work with the devolved Governments. Of course, the residential property developer tax, like all UK-wide taxes, is distributed appropriately in line with the Barnett formula and other requirements, but we will certainly work with devolved Governments. I should say that I am very grateful to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for the work they have already done on this issue. We all have much to learn from one another.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I welcome the direction of travel in the statement, specifically that leaseholders will not have to pay for cladding remediation. I am also glad that building product makers are now coming within the scope of Government, not only property developers. I have been personally shocked by some of the revelations coming from the Grenfell inquiry and I think that potentially we need to address the building products sector. May I stress to my right hon. Friend that speed and delivery here is critical? It is now four and a half years since the tragedy in my constituency. What is important is not only having a good plan, but executing it quickly and efficiently.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am very conscious of the need for speed. I quite agree. If we look at the behaviour of some of the cladding firms, the behaviour of people who work for Kingspan and Arconic, and the evidence presented to the Grenfell inquiry, we see that it is truly dreadful. The individuals concerned must take responsibility. She represents a constituency in which there are many, many people who are effectively trapped because of the failure of the property market to effectively address all these problems. In the interests of her constituents and so many more, and in particular in the interests of the Grenfell community and its fight for justice, I am very conscious of the need to move as fast as we possibly can.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am sure he will welcome an invitation from the Select Committee to come and discuss these matters further in detail. Just two important issues. First, will he clarify that leaseholders will not have to pay the cost of remediation, including non-cladding work, because that is not exactly what his statement says? Secondly, will he clarify that, apart from the removal of aluminium composite material cladding, the Government will give social housing providers no help whatsoever? If developers do not pay for the measures that he announced today or taxes are not raised, and there are cuts to his budget as a result, will that come off social housing provision as well? What assessment has he done of the total impact on the future building of social housing?
Michael Gove
These are three very important points. First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe. Secondly, to ensure that there is not an adverse impact on social housing or on the work that Homes England is leading to bring together and remediate brownfield land for new private-sector development, we will do absolutely everything possible so that, ultimately, those with big balance sheets and big bucks discharge their responsibility. He and I will know that the seven major housing developers do much good work but that in the last three years they made profits of £16 billion. Understandably, people are prompted to ask that those significant sums be devoted to ensuring that the building safety crisis is met, alongside the building supply pipeline of the future.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I welcome these further measures to provide critical support to leaseholders and to restore a greater degree of confidence to the housing market. In particular, may I welcome the future support for those in medium-rise buildings? It is a pity that the Treasury did not agree to that proposal in January of last year, but such is the way with this issue. May I ask my right hon. Friend about two particular points? First, he has agreed a backstop with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whereby the ultimate risk will be borne by the provision of social housing. I am sure that he would agree that it would be quite wrong for social housing tenants and the homeless to pay the price for solving this issue, so will he say that that will not be the case? Secondly, I see that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has failed to make good on the conversations we have been having for several months, if not years, to instil a more proportionate and sensible approach into the assignment of risk. What further steps—he alluded to some in his remarks—can he take against RICS, because its behaviour is now bordering on scandalous in not taking this issue seriously?
Michael Gove
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, my predecessor. I have had the opportunity since joining the Department to see just how hard he worked, facing a number of frustrations, to secure justice for those who are our first concern. I heard some comments from some Opposition Members seeking to decry that. If they knew what I know about how hard Robert had worked to try to secure justice, they would not be trying to make a cheap point about it. We all care about this issue, but few care about it as much, and certainly no one currently in this Chamber has worked as hard to try to help those people, as my right hon. Friend. So I am not having it.
The second point that m right hon. Friend made is absolutely right; we need to ensure both that there is more social housing provision and that we improve the quality of social housing—that is a core mission for the Department. His third point, about RICS, is right. There have been all sorts of difficulties with that organisation in the past, but I am now hopeful that we are on a more positive footing. We have the potential to take steps to improve the governance of the institution, but I am hopeful now that, given some of the conversations we have had, including with lenders and others, we can be on a more positive footing. Let me once again underline and affirm my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for his incredibly hard and dedicated work to try to bring this situation to a satisfactory conclusion.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
My constituents in Eclipse House, Station Road, Wood Green have been suffering for more than a year with astronomical costs to deal with gaps relating to fire doors and external wall insulation. Can the Minister confirm that that is not covered in today’s statement? Secondly, what voice will tenants have in the future? One of the worst things about Grenfell is the lack of tenant voice to make good things stick when bad practice is all around.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes two important points. First, the freeholders, as the ultimate owners of these buildings, will be held responsible for all the work that is required, and we will make sure that leaseholders are not on the hook. Secondly, she is right that those who listened to some of the testimony at the Grenfell inquiry, and those who have seen some of the excellent campaigning journalism associated with it, will know that Ed Daffarn and others explicitly warned of some of the consequences of the approach taken at the time. Tenants’ voices were not heard, and people died as a result. That is why the social housing White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) did so much to advance, and the social housing Bill, which will come forward in due course, are so important.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I welcome this brilliant statement, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for working constructively with us, across parties, and with the cladding groups to get us to where we are today. Today’s announcement is another huge step forward for leaseholders. This is a victory for leaseholders, who will get up to £9 billion of support. We will make those responsible pay and start on the journey.
I seek clarification on two areas. First, cladding is an external fire safety defect, but are developers responsible for internal fire safety defects such as missing fire breaks, which stop fire spreading from one flat to another? Secondly, will there be Government amendments to the Building Safety Bill to make it clear in law that leaseholders are innocent parties and will not have to pay?
Michael Gove
I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic campaigning on this issue. On the first point, which is linked to his second point, the owners, the freeholders and the responsible figures in charge of these buildings will be held responsible and made responsible for making sure that all the work is done to make these buildings safe. We will table amendments to ensure that, on a statutory basis, we protect leaseholders from having costs passed on unfairly by the owners of the freeholds of these buildings.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
When the horror of Grenfell happened, many local authorities such as mine responded immediately by inspecting all buildings and taking action as appropriate, as they should have done. The private sector did not do that for many of our leasehold properties.
I had a very sad conversation with a group of leaseholders a month ago. They are completely stuck. They cannot sell or move, they have expanding families and they are faced with massive bills. Can I go to them tomorrow and say that the Government will underwrite all the costs that they have been threatened with so that they can get their building brought up to standard and, if they wish, sell and move on? Or will there be months and months of delay until the private sector decides not to pay and the Government intervene? I think those leaseholders, like leaseholders all over the country, deserve an immediate answer. They have been through too much stress.
Michael Gove
Perhaps for the first time, I am almost wholly in accord with the right hon. Gentleman. Leaseholders deserve speedy action, but I do not want to overpromise. I believe we can rapidly relieve the difficult situation in which his constituents find themselves. I do not think it can be immediate, but I intend to ensure it is as quick as possible.
Please forgive me for making this point, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that many in local government, across parties, were far quicker to respond to this crisis than some in the private sector, which is shaming.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that this whole issue has caused extraordinary misery, anxiety and upset, and I had the opportunity this morning to speak to Jim Illingworth of BrumLAG. He, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and our friend Jack Dromey have worked closely, and he was clear that he is very grateful for this progress. We are seeing a mixed economy of response, although there are clearly issues of timing and other details, which I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to address. I hope that he accepts that he needs to crack the whip on this, but is he not well able to do so?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point. I had the chance to chat to Jim Illingworth and other cladding campaigners earlier today and he is absolutely right. I know that my right hon. Friend, as a Birmingham MP, is all too well aware of how many people in that great city are affected by this crisis, and I look forward to working with him and others to resolve it as quickly as possible.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
A retired teacher in my constituency invested in a property in 2015, but just before Christmas, they were issued with a massive bill for £200,000 for an increase in their costs, and remedial work on their property will cost a possible £9 million. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the leaseholders to talk about how the policy change will benefit them?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I will make sure that either I or others in my Department have those conversations as quickly as possible.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I welcome the statement today and the work that the Minister for Housing has done with colleagues across the House to explain how the policy will go forward, because this has been a nightmare for leaseholders. I have two quick questions. First, if leaseholders have already paid money out, will they get that money back from the freeholders or the developers? Secondly, on the issue of insurance, which was raised earlier, does the Secretary of State realise that even though people are liable for the costs of building insurance, they have no rights at all in the policy? When the situation occurs, they cannot claim against the policy; only the freeholder can do so. That must get changed in the Bill.
Michael Gove
There are few people in the House who know as much about fire safety as my right hon. Friend. We will certainly work with him to explore the specific insurance provisions that he mentioned. I cannot, unfortunately—I would not want to mislead him—say that we will be in a position to compensate those who have already contributed. We are seeking to ensure that individuals do not face costs in the future, but again, I will work with colleagues across the House to try to get to the most equitable position possible.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I look forward to seeing the amendments from the Government about how leaseholders will be protected, because my constituents in St Albans, like many others, have had too many false dawns. I want to ask about the Secretary of State’s review of proportionality. In the past, building safety assessors have been chosen because of their willingness to recommend the less expensive safety work, and that has created a race to the bottom. Will he confirm that the BSI guidance will be mandatory for building safety assessors, and will he put protections in place so that assessors do not get away with offering the lightest touch mitigations that they can?
Michael Gove
First, I thank the hon. Lady—it is always difficult for me to praise a Liberal Democrat, but she has been campaigning consistently on this issue for some time and has done a great job of bringing to light some of the defects that need to be addressed. It is the case that the BSI work, we believe, will ensure a properly proportionate approach. There are incentives either way—incentives, sometimes, for some to seek to do work on the cheap and for others to exaggerate the scale of the work that may be required to generate business. I hope, however, that a truly proportionate and safe approach will now be followed as a result of the BSI’s work.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I joined this campaign a year or so ago because, as the Secretary of State said in his statement, leaseholders are blameless and it is morally wrong to make them pay. I look forward to seeing this become part of the Bill so that leaseholders know that they will never have to pay. However, let me go back to insurers: not only are they increasing premiums by up to 1,000% for people who cannot really afford the premiums that they were paying before, but insurers are part of the problem. They were indemnifying these developers and underwriting these developments. They are part of the warranty issue and yet, this has not been brought into scope as part of the solution, so will the Secretary of State look again and make sure that insurers have to pay in the way that developers will?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and his campaigning has been a significant factor in helping us to get to the right, or certainly to a better, position. We want insurers to be part of the solution, as we want everyone to be, and Lord Greenhalgh is doing great work with them. I am sure that there will be an opportunity before too long for me to explain in greater detail, with Lord Greenhalgh, to my hon. Friend and others the progress that we are making, but he is absolutely on the button in pointing out some of the mistakes that have been made that need to be addressed by the insurance sector.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I note that the Secretary of State said he would extend the right of leaseholders to challenge those who cause defects retrospectively for 30 years, but he will be aware that unscrupulous developers such as Mr Jason Alexander in my constituency exploit loopholes in company law with the result that there is no corporate entity to go after because it has been wound up, struck off or stripped of assets. Can he say what work he is doing with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that those loopholes in company law are closed? Can he also tell us whether the obligations that developers will now face as a result of his statement today will take precedence over their other financial obligations?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes two important points. On the first point, yes, this has been a feature. I was not fully aware, until I took on this responsibility, of how some within the development industry play fast and loose with the rules and set up special purpose vehicles, shell companies and so on to evade their responsibilities. They exhibit the unacceptable face of capitalism, I am afraid, and she is right to say that work requires to be done to bring them appropriately to account. I will be working with colleagues across Government to do just that.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today but, like others, I will be awaiting the detail, not least because I was calling for leaseholders to be protected from the cost of cladding when I was a Minister in the Department. So what has happened to change the Government’s mind?
Michael Gove
As so often, my right hon. Friend is ahead of her time. There have been any number of occasions, including recently, when I have had to acknowledge that she has been right and the rest of us have been wrong, and this is one of those occasions.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Today the Secretary of State has told us what many all across the House told the Government three years ago—namely, that individual leaseholders trapped in unsafe homes should not have to bear the cost of making them safe. But today’s statement focuses on cladding, whereas the vast majority of leaseholders are suffering in unsafe homes as a result of other insulation and fire stopping defects. How will he address that? He has told the companies to pay up, but many have now gone into voluntary liquidation. We need a windfall tax on the whole industry now. Far too many leaseholders have been waiting for three and half years in purdah. Many of them, like my constituents in Central Square, have been waiting since 31 July even to get a response from the BSF. Can the Secretary of State get his own Department to be a bit more expeditious?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points. Yes, the Department needs to be more expeditious and yes, we are focused on doing just that. Yes, it is important that the freeholders—the ultimate owners—deal with all the fire safety issues and yes, it is absolutely right that, while ACM cladding is the most egregious example of buildings being unsafe, there are many other issues that require to be tackled.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is long overdue. Many in my constituency and elsewhere face huge bills, as he knows. The biggest problem is getting the developers to talk to those who have suffered. I spent two years trying to get representatives of Telford Homes to meet the leaseholders, but they have now gone to ground and will not say a word. The Government have been talking about talking to developers for some time now but nothing has come of it, so, with all due respect, how is my right hon. Friend going to drive them—and the insurance companies that insured those that have gone out of business—to meet the leaseholders? Taxes can take time, so what about instantaneous fines?
Michael Gove
By any means necessary. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. My preference is, wherever possible, to proceed consensually and to think the best of people. There are undoubtedly many people in the property development sector who have done the right thing and others who hope to do so, but if we need to, we will deploy heavier artillery to ensure that we get the necessary support to those on the frontline.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, which is certainly a step in the right direction.
There are many tall buildings in my constituency. Some of the issues affecting them, and the costs that they bear, are very complex, and do not involve anything that would be covered today. Two blocks, Longitude and Altitude, have to pay for compartmentalisation, and although Bridge House—which is over 18 metres tall—is cladded, its cladding is not categorised as the right type to qualify for funding under the Government’s scheme. Some of my constituents live in blocks where the developer has gone bust and the freeholder is overseas, and they have a tenuous relationship with the managing agent. It is very difficult to get any information. Can the Secretary of State say something about that wider issue and what can be done about it, and what is his estimate of the cost of making all these buildings safe?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady has made a series of important points. I know that she has already been in touch with the Department, but I want to be more closely in touch with her. Our project team, Operation Apex, are making sure that we can do everything possible to ensure that the ultimate responsible owner is identified and takes on responsibility for the work to which the hon. Lady has correctly drawn attention. I look forward to working more closely with her to address precisely that issue.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for standing up for leaseholders, particularly young people who have just got on to the housing ladder. May I ask him to look again at sprinklers as a safety measure? They are required in many countries, and the fact that they are not required here has always perplexed me. I also ask him to ensure that the building materials used for social housing are subject to the necessary level of scrutiny. Developers often use lower-quality materials which create a greater risk to safety, and we need to protect social housing tenants as well.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She was an incredibly hard-working figure in local government in London, where she helped to ensure that the needs of those in social housing were understood. There are specific provisions in the building safety legislation introduced by the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), to address some of those questions about poor-quality material social housing.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is right that leaseholders should not be held responsible for the faults of builders in the past, and I therefore welcome the statement. However, given that housing is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, I assume that what we are discussing today will not automatically apply there. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Communities Minister and the Finance Minister—both of whom are responsible for these housing and building regulations issues—given that Sinn Féin seem to take the view that anything that emanates from this place, regardless of how beneficial it is to people to Northern Ireland, is not acceptable?
Michael Gove
Those are very fair points. I have written today to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and the other devolved Administrations to outline the approach that we propose to take. I will work with Ministers from whatever party—I absolutely take on board the point made by the right hon. Gentleman—to ensure that we get to the right position. I am grateful to the First Minister, Paul Givan, for the support he has given us overall in the run-up to this announcement: it is much appreciated.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Everyone remembers their first visit to Bolton, but on his next visit, will the Secretary of State come with me to Holden Mill in Blackburn Road and Astley Bridge to meet residents and see the progress that has been made on the removal of cladding, but also to discuss with them issues relating to poor build quality and how the Government can fight their corner?
Michael Gove
I certainly will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a very effective advocate for Bolton.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
May I add my voice to those who have spoken of the sudden passing of Jack Dromey? He was a truly pleasant and decent person. Let me also convey my condolences to the Mother of the House, and especially to his son, Joe Dromey, who I know very well, and knew especially well when we were councillors together in Lewisham.
Leaseholders are feeling anxious and angry about the delays, and the uncertainty about when the cladding will be removed from buildings and associated safety problems will be dealt with. That includes residents of the Parkside development in my constituency. The developers and the housing association have said that they will start to look at doing the remediation work in the spring, but will provide no absolute guarantee that any costs will not be passed on to the leaseholders. Will the Secretary of State review this case in order to provide the certainty that leaseholders in my constituency so desperately need?
Michael Gove
Yes, I absolutely will. I thank the hon. Member for bringing that to my attention.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his sheer determination not only to hold people responsible for the wrongdoings they did but to stand up for leaseholders. However, building owners are still dragging their feet, delaying essential remedial works, even though they might be eligible for Government funding. What incentive can he give today to those building owners to complete the works as soon as possible and not put concerns about their own financial liabilities, however theoretical, above the concerns and safety of residents in those blocks?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is certainly the case that many already enlightened owners have done just that. But one thing we are saying today is that ultimately we will ensure in law that it is the ultimate owner of the building that is responsible for that work, so the incentive is to move now for fear of consequences later.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see the Secretary of State acknowledge the unjust treatment of buildings under 18 metres in particular. However, it appears that what he has outlined will involve a voluntary contribution from developers, which may take a while. The leaseholders in my Vauxhall constituency do not have a while to wait. They are fed up of waiting. It has been four and a half years. They want solutions now. So will he confirm that he absolutely understands the urgency that leaseholders want to see and call on those developers to take action now?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. Again, I do not want to over-promise, but I do recognise the need for speed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The complexity of this issue has been highlighted by the Secretary of State’s statement and by the questioning. May I challenge him on one point? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said, thousands of people will have received large bills and many will have paid them. The Secretary of State is saying that he will take statutory powers in the Bill that is coming before us. When will that happen? Once the House has voted on those powers, will that be the operational date for bills not to be presented to leaseholders, or can leaseholders who have refused to pay the bills thus far say, “Thank goodness—I don’t have to pay anything”?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend, who has been a consistent campaigner in this area, makes a very good point. Again, I do not want to make a cast-iron commitment at the Dispatch Box on the operational date, but I will work with him and others as we frame the legislation and ensure that he has access, in so far as it is possible, to the legal advice we have, so that we can stress test it and provide the maximum level of protection.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I have spoken to many leaseholders in my constituency who have struggled with issues around fire safety and cladding and the impact that has had on their mental wellbeing. We raised that issue in the Building Safety Bill Committee and the response was that those people should access mental health support through their GP in the usual way. We know the pressure GPs are under at the moment, so will the Secretary of State bring forward any additional measures in the light of his statement to support leaseholders’ mental health?
Michael Gove
It is the case that some leaseholders face additional vulnerabilities. Some have had mental health problems and other leaseholders living with disabilities have particular problems. It is important that we develop a comprehensive package for all, so I will look into that.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I welcome the announcement and thank my right hon. Friend for listening to leaseholders who have faced the prospect of bankruptcy because of defects that needed to be put right. In confirming that he will keep in mind that other defects may come to light when cladding is removed, will he commit to looking at that and ensuring that the bodies responsible for the cladding crisis cannot find a place to hide and will be pursued to pay for it?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. I totally agree with my hon. Friend that we need to take all means to pursue those who are ultimately responsible. We also need to recognise that, exactly as she said, when remediation work is undertaken, sometimes other flaws are revealed, and they need to be addressed.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I associate myself with all the comments that have been made about my colleague, Jack Dromey.
I welcome the steps forward that we take every time a Secretary of State comes to the House and makes a statement, but it is the steps backwards that we make after those statements that are causing me problems. I have a property in my constituency that is about 18 metres high. The residents have done their own survey and say that it is over 18 metres. The management agency says that it is over 18 metres and should therefore qualify for the building safety fund. These issues though are difficult to resolve. Meanwhile, the residents have been paying out £28,000 a month for waking watch for nearly four years. How retrospective will these measures be? Will my constituents be compensated for what they have unfairly had to pay out? It would have been far cheaper to put in a fire alarm system than to continue paying waking watch. Will we see an end to the EWS1 forms or will RICS come back at us and say that we cannot possibly do that, as it has done before?
Michael Gove
I can totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) pointed out, and as the hon. Gentleman’s question lays bare, there is a complex set of inter-related problems. We are making money available to ensure that we can get rid of waking watch in all save a very few circumstances. I recognise that there are people who have faced costs so far, but it depends on individual circumstances as to whether or not—depending on the ultimate owner of the building—they can receive compensation. I do not want to make any guarantees about that in a blanket way today.
On EWS1 forms, we can dramatically reduce their use as a result of the engagement that we have with lenders and with RICS. Again, it will still be the case that, in the meantime—even as we get a more proportionate approach—there will be some 11-to-18 metre buildings where work of that kind will be required, but we absolutely want to reduce it.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I welcome the commitment of the Secretary of State to hold to account those responsible for this. It is morally wrong that leaseholders should foot the bill. I know that this announcement and this progress will be welcomed by residents of Vizion apartments in Milton Keynes as well as by thousands and thousands of others across the country. Can he confirm that this means that the Government are accepting the principle of polluter pays in this instance? How confident is he that the cowboys will cough up without additional taxation?
Michael Gove
We do accept that principle, and we will do everything that we can to round up the wrong ‘uns. I do recognise, none the less, that we are dealing with some individuals who have behaved unscrupulously in the past and who will do everything to evade their responsibilities, which is why we need tax as a backstop.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
There are many Welsh victims of this particular scandal, including in my own Arfon constituency and elsewhere in Wales, as I am sure the Secretary of State will be hearing about. I am very much in favour of holding the industry to account, but I have to tell him that long experience of trying to hold the cavity wall insulation industry to account, albeit as a Back Bencher, has not been encouraging, so I wish all power to his elbow on that matter. I was glad to hear him say that he will be working with the Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can his officials look at the issue of companies that work from England and are subject to its strictures, but that also work in Wales, as that might be a complicating factor?
Michael Gove
We absolutely will. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the approach that he outlines. Indeed, we want to work with the Labour-Plaid Cymru Administration in Wales in order to get to the right result.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, but I gently remind him that those who have worked hardest on this issue are Conservative Members supporting their constituents. Two in particular—my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—have worked incredibly hard on this issue. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no leaseholder—living in the building or not—living in a building of 11 metres or lower, or having problems with external or internal building defects, will pay any costs whatever?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point and allows me to place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I completely agree that their campaigning has been incredibly important. It is our intention that the ultimate owner of a building is responsible for all of the safety steps that are required, and we will use statutory means in order to ensure that that happens. That is what we will seek to do with the help of colleagues across the House.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the statement’s commitment to leaseholders and the fact that it puts businesses on notice, giving them the chance to do the right thing. When will the deadline be up for that chance to do the right thing? Without it, we could just be kicking the can down the road. Leaseholders in Putney will want to know when they can expect to be able to sell their homes and to move on. Will there be a Government guarantee—a letter or similar that they can use with estate agents and others—so that they can move on with their lives? Finally, residents in a Putney building of just under 11 metres have been given a bill of £1 million for remediation. Will they be covered by this?
Michael Gove
I will look at the specific case of the building of just under 11 metres that the hon. Lady mentions. More broadly, I would absolutely love to be able to provide people with reassurance that from tomorrow the cloud will be lifted, but as a number of Members have pointed out, there is a complex set of interrelated problems. I believe that we have a means of dealing with them all, and I also appreciate that we need to move at speed. I will come back to the House before Easter with an update on the measures we have taken. I will work with colleagues across the House in order to ensure that we have the right statutory underpinning. Again, I want to confirm that we require everything to go right in order to be able to help everyone who is currently facing difficulties. We will do everything we can. I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that I would not want at this stage to provide an absolute guarantee for people whose specific circumstances I am not yet familiar with.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which I very much welcome, and I am incredibly grateful to his Ministers for the time they have spent listening to my concerns and those of residents of The Wharf in my constituency. They have suffered from a lack of transparency and clarity on the work required and whether it needs to be done. As we speak, the management company, Y&Y, is applying to the tier 1 tribunal for costs. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give my constituents, who are very concerned about any outcome that would leave them with bills of between £10,000 and £20,000, payable within the next six months?
Michael Gove
Absolutely the intention of today’s statement is to try to address the concerns raised so powerfully by my hon. Friend on behalf of constituents who face those imminent bills. I am really grateful to her for drawing attention to the immensely hard work being done by Ministers in the Department. The Minister for Housing, Lord Greenhalgh and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who has responsibility for rough sleeping, have all been working incredibly hard to engage with colleagues across the House and with others in order to try to move this forward. It has been a collective effort and I am very grateful to my colleagues for that.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is four and a half years since Grenfell. The Secretary of State has made clear today that the Government have failed to solve the problem, but he then said that his chief action has been to write a letter to developers to ask them to come along to a meeting. That is simply not good enough for the thousands of leaseholders affected in Southwark. The biggest threat in this statement is to allow the backdating of action against those who have installed unsafe products over 30 years, but it is leaseholders who will be forced to take on the legal and other burdens involved, including the fees. Will the Secretary of State therefore amend the Building Safety Bill to finally clarify responsibility and load the burden where it belongs—on the developers, builders and manufacturers—so as to properly protect leaseholders, as Ministers have promised multiple times but which today’s statement fails to deliver?
Michael Gove
The proposals that the hon. Member enjoins on me are the ones that we are seeking to bring forward. However, in fairness to the hon. Member, for whom I have a great deal of respect—he is a courageous and doughty campaigner—I can understand a degree of cynicism and/or scepticism, given some of the missteps we have had in the past. If we manage to make progress along the lines that he has outlined, I hope that he will be in a position then to say that his worst fears were not realised. I think it is perfectly legitimate for him, at this stage, to want to see the colour of other people’s money.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Morello Quarter in my constituency has issues not only with cladding but with other building defects such as the apparent lack of firebreaks. Will my right hon. Friend include those in the scope of the measures, or should I go back to my residents and tell them to pursue legal action against the developers, who do not want to engage with me or with them, to try to get a resolution and certainty?
Michael Gove
It is our intention to ensure that those who are ultimately responsible—the ultimate owners of the freehold or the real owners of the building—pay in order to make it safe, but I will look specifically at the example that my hon. Friend raises to ensure that we can do everything we can to provide his constituents with the reassurance they deserve.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State spell out how the statutory protection he has announced will help leaseholders in developments such as Waterside Park, built by Barratt in my constituency, which does not have a cladding problem, but where apartments have become valueless because of other serious building defects—missing firebreaks and unsafe insulation? How exactly will the statutory protection help them?
Michael Gove
I rely on the right hon. Gentleman’s description of the building, but we will talk to Barratt or whoever is the ultimate owner in order to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities, and there are steps that we can take. We will outline what they are when we bring forward appropriate amendments. We will make sure that we test those amendments with him and others to ensure that they meet the need that he has correctly identified. There is still a little bit of legal work to be done to ensure that the amendments are as robust as possible.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the work that the Minister has done as well. I hope it will bring resolution to people in blocks of flats in Plough Lane in the centre of Wimbledon and in Chorus properties. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will expect and, if necessary, require lenders to base their lending decisions in future on the new risk mechanism, because clearly distress has been caused by people being trapped in their houses?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on and that is what we will seek to do.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been asked by both sides of the House about protecting social landlords and tenants from remediation costs. Will he answer that point, bearing in mind that the biggest social landlords have said that their new housing programmes will be cut by 40% over the next five years if they have to cover fire safety costs themselves? Affordable housing is at particular risk, as yesterday’s fire in New York showed. Will he study the lessons from that fire, especially as some of the victims were on the lower floors, which he appears to say are at lower risk, and that lack of compartmentalisation rather than cladding was the cause of most of the deaths?
Michael Gove
I know that the hon. Gentleman, not least as a former council leader, has considerable experience in this area. He is right that the fire in New York reminds us of the range of risk, and he is also right that we need to take appropriate action to ensure that registered social landlords, housing associations and others are not hit adversely. We need to balance a set of competing goods, but ultimately—as he will appreciate—the most important thing is to make sure that people are in decent, safe homes and that there are more decent, safe homes built where people need them.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about lifting the cloud that is hanging over leaseholders. Can he provide reassurance to residents such as those in Banning Street in Romsey, where the building is sub-18 metres, the freeholder is a housing association and the defects are cladding related, that they will be swept up in his reforms? They are looking at costs of £15,000 to £20,000 per leaseholder for new fire escapes, which may well not even be needed. Can he provide reassurance that they will be helped?
Michael Gove
I will absolutely look at that specific case. I do not want to say any more at this point, but my hon. Friend raises a very important point. One of the things with housing associations and other registered social landlords is that we need to make sure that the balance of responsibility is appropriate.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Sadly, cladding is not one of the only risks to building safety: flooding is another huge risk. While the Secretary of State is open to looking at amendments to building safety in general, will he also look at strengthening the standards for all new public and private buildings in terms of flood resilience? The Secretary of State promised me a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss my flooding Bill and, as he is a man of his word, I am sure that date will arrive soon in my email inbox.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes two very important points. We have already changed regulation with regard to flooding, but more could be done. I will ensure that either I or the relevant Minister sees her before the end of February, if that is okay.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which will yield significant benefits directly for leaseholders in England. As he has acknowledged, this policy area is devolved and therefore responsibility in Wales falls to the Welsh Government. However, the UK Government, through their initiatives, may well raise significant sums of money for this purpose. What conclusion has he drawn on whether that funding should be ring-fenced for that specific purpose in Wales, rather than diverted to other purposes?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. We of course respect the devolution settlement, but he is absolutely right that money generated for building safety should be devoted, as far as possible, to building safety. I will work with him and others to ensure that the focus is maintained in the way he outlines.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It was a good weekend for Cambridge United, but sadly the misery continues for so many people in and around Cambridge who find themselves trapped in buildings that were not built to the expected standards. As we have heard, it is not just about cladding; it is also about fire breaks and so on. For so many of those people, lack of an EWS1 form means that they cannot move—they are absolutely trapped. What in the Secretary of State’s statement can give them confidence that they will be freed from that trap?
Michael Gove
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and all supporters of Cambridge United, and I extend my sympathies to Newcastle and Arsenal fans, given the unfortunate events of the weekend. On his very important point, I hope that the withdrawal of the consolidated advice note and its replacement with the BSI-approved PAS 9980 will play a part in helping his constituents and others to be in a position once again to operate fully in the property market. Lenders to whom I have spoken have given our proposals a fair wind so far, but obviously engagement needs to continue.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I draw his attention to the situation at Nobel House in Redhill? The development has 126 apartments, 86 of which are privately leased, but the ownership of the freehold has changed twice. The managing agents failed to make an application to the initial £1.6 billion building safety fund. I was told in June that a new fund of £3.5 billion would be coming forward, but that is yet to materialise and leaseholders are already having to pay over £2,000 each towards the cost of this exercise. Can they be fully reassured that they will get their money back, given the ownership status of the building?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend raises a very important case. I will look at what we can do to help his constituents. I will not make an absolute promise from the Dispatch Box at this point, but the situation he describes is clearly unacceptable.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State said that we cannot make a building half safe, but some residential buildings are possibly more dangerous than others. In October 2020, over 800 leaseholders and students were evicted from the Paragon blocks in Brentford, with one week’s notice—that is how dangerous they were deemed to be. They were built using a modular form of construction, and the eviction came two years after the flammable cladding had already been removed. I have reason to believe that the Paragon situation—there are other examples across the country—was a result of the modular form of construction, to which the out-of-date building regulations do not apply, as well as poor, shoddy and badly supervised construction works. When will the Secretary of State bring up-to-date building regulations through the system, and when will he address the lamentable culture in the construction industry, which the counsel for the Fire Brigades Union at the Grenfell inquiry described as being driven by an
“agenda of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation”?
When will he do something about that?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point about modular construction. Through the Buildoffsite Property Assurance Scheme guidance, we require appropriate adherence to principles with modular construction, which should keep buildings safe. She is right that the Grenfell inquiry has also had a number of accounts from a number of witnesses that raise issues of concern. Although it is important that we continue to take action even before the inquiry concludes, I would not want to pre-empt the inquiry’s conclusion on all the issues she mentions.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct that this is a substantial step forward, and he and the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) are to be congratulated on it. May I return to the subject of those developers and companies that have gone broke and disappeared since they did the things for which the Secretary of State has rightly castigated them? Some of those have disappeared not for nefarious reasons. Has he quantified how much money will be absent—how big a hole there is in the money that ought to be available—for compensation from such companies? Who is going to fill that hole?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We want those we can identify as the responsible owner or freeholder of properties to contribute to and meet the needs of fire safety costs, but we are already looking at the wider development community and at construction products manufacturers to help to ensure that we have sufficient resources to provide relief to leaseholders everywhere.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I join the tributes to Jack Dromey. Our shock is all the greater because we thought that he would always be with us; the whole of his life was dedicated to being there for others, as a representative of workers who was very proud to serve his constituents.
I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State has made today. It represents progress—loans were never going to work; they were unfair. However, my constituents will have listened very carefully to the exchanges between the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on the question of liability for non-cladding costs. I have many constituents, as do other Members, whose bill is on the mantelpiece, staring at them. Given that the Secretary of State has offered statutory protection, what are they meant to do with those bills? Can they confidently say, “I do not have to worry about that now, because the Government are going to sort this out”? When he talks about statutory protection, he mentioned protection against forfeiture and eviction. May I add a third risk to that list, which is bankruptcy? That is what many people are facing if they are ever forced to pay these bills that they are not responsible for and cannot afford.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: such people are not responsible for these problems and in many cases they cannot afford the bills. I would not want to give advice precipitately to any individual at the moment about their particular circumstances without knowing every aspect of their particular circumstances, but it is vital that we move as quickly as possible. What I will want to test with him and others is the efficacy of the legislative solution that we propose to bring forward, because I am confident that it will help enormously, but I want to be in a position where he and others have an opportunity to stress test it, so that we get the best possible protection.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Everybody welcomes the statement of principle that it is immoral that innocent leaseholders should pay for remediation of something which was not their fault, but if that is immoral for the future, it is also immoral for everybody who has been pursued ever since the disaster at Grenfell Tower. Therefore, may I urge the Secretary of State to revisit the answers he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), because otherwise he will be creating a perverse incentive for people to come down on leaseholders and extract rip-off fees before any legislation comes into play if it is only going to be forward-looking?
Michael Gove
I very much take my right hon. Friend’s point. We will try to ensure that the legislation deals with the potential perverse incentive to which he alludes.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In opening his remarks, the Secretary of State acknowledged that the problem is not simply developers’ negligence but a failure of regulation, for which the Government are responsible. Leaseholders will fear that today’s announcement will have the effect of kicking a solution further down the road, causing delays for those who have been trapped in an intolerable position for far too long. Does the Secretary of State accept that the best way of seeking a solution is for the Government to fulfil their responsibility by acting to fix the faults without delay and then using all their powers to recover the money from developers and those responsible?
Michael Gove
I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that the legislation we are bringing forward helps to address some of the regulatory failures to which he alludes. I also think it is important to wait for the conclusions of the Grenfell inquiry before apportioning appropriate weight on the responsibility that rests on central Government, the responsibility that rests on local government, and the responsibility that rests on others. I believe the proposals that we have put forward today are the best and most expeditious way of ensuring that we can provide support to leaseholders, but of course we will keep that under review.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a chartered surveyor.
I warmly welcome today’s announcement. May I ask my right hon. Friend about two aspects that he has mentioned in the statement—namely that the indemnity given to building assessors and the proper auditing assessment should enable lenders and insurers to offer those products at reasonable rates fairly quickly? That, in turn, will get the market moving, so that those leaseholders who desperately need to move should soon find that there will be a market for them to do so.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly our intention, and it is the fruit of the work read by my hon. Friend and others.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I pay tribute to all the campaigners up and down the country who have done a sterling job at keeping this issue on the political agenda. They will certainly welcome the principle, set out in the statement, that innocent leaseholders must not shoulder the burden. I hope that applies equally—not just to cladding, but to any other fire safety defects and to the cost of the interim safety measures that have been necessary. The Secretary of State recognised that in the statement by referring to the extra £27 million for waking watches, but leaseholders will have already paid out thousands of pounds for waking watches. Should they now expect some reimbursement for those costs?
Michael Gove
I completely understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the hon. Member. We are seeking to avert additional costs in the future. It will be difficult for us to make good all the injustices that have been visited on his constituents and others. I do not want to oversell what we are putting forward. It is a significant step forward, but it cannot resolve every issue from the past. I enjoyed listening to the conversation that he and the Father of the House had on Times Radio at the weekend, and I echo the very generous comments that he made about the Father of the House.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his actions today, particularly scrapping the loan scheme for medium-sized buildings, which will help constituents of mine such as Susan Seal and the Russell Square residents in Horley. I really welcome the onus that he is putting on developers. Does he agree that, along with the other things he has talked about, transparency can be an effective tool in getting people to do the right thing? Would he speak to whether naming and shaming could be part of the solution?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the things that we saw just before Christmas with the Kingspan-Mercedes deal is the way in which public pressure from the Grenfell community meant that a very big corporate—Mercedes—did the right thing. I am very grateful to Toto Wolff and his team for doing that. We need to use a variety of tools, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that transparency is critical.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I convey my own and my party’s sincerest sympathies to the family of Jack Dromey at this time of great grief and sorrow? He made a significant contribution in Westminster Hall last Thursday, and he will be missed—I want to put that on the record.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his clear commitment to finding a solution for everyone in this process. It is clear to me that that is what he intends to do, but can the right hon. Gentleman outline what steps he is willing to put in place to ensure that the burden of the cost of replacing cladding is not on the tenants alone? Too many tenants of one-bedroom apartments are being asked to pay thousands of pounds towards this from low wages, while developers are sitting pretty. Will the Secretary of State liaise with the Chancellor to see what tax breaks could be offered to developers who do the right thing by their tenants?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. He is right that there are people in small, one-bedroom flats who have been faced with huge costs, which are totally disproportionate and from which we need to relieve them.
Secondly, he makes an important point about being as supportive as possible of developers that do the right thing. A debate such as this will inevitably concentrate on those who need to take additional responsibility, but it is important to stress that many developers, housebuilders and people in the property sector have done the right thing, and we should applaud them for having done so.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which ticks all the boxes needed to solve this crisis, not least pointing the finger at construction product manufacturers. There is no doubt they have gamed the system to get some of their products approved inappropriately, but that gaming was facilitated by the Building Research Establishment, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, was privatised about 25 years ago. Will he make sure that these manufacturers contribute towards the costs of remediation and will he consider bringing the Building Research Establishment back under public ownership?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is incredibly knowledge-able about all matters of property and housing. On the first part, absolutely. On the second part, that is a tempting thought, but I will have to discuss it with the Chancellor.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Since last April, I have been seeking answers for a constituent in Cambuslang who has been trying to sell a flat between 11 metres and 18 metres, which was wrongly assessed to have failed the EWS1 form because of cladding. The Scottish Government have launched a free-of-charge assessment pilot, but details about the full roll-out and remediation payments are still pending. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the devolved Administrations about remediating buildings across the UK at greater pace?
Michael Gove
I wrote to and was in touch with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive earlier today, and I look forward to working with them. As the nature of the debate has reinforced, there are people in every party who are interested in practical solutions. That is incredibly helpful in helping to relieve the problems faced by the hon. Lady’s constituents, and by so many others.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome the statement, particularly on 11 metres to 18 metres. That includes flats owned by many of my constituents, who will get a great sense of relief from that. There are still concerns, as colleagues have mentioned, about non-cladding issues. The section of the statement about restoring proportionality was very interesting, but I do not want to be in the same position in three or four months of talking to a leaseholder who cannot sell their property because of non-cladding issues, so the proof will be in the pudding.
An issue that has not been raised is that when the cladding remediation work is carried out, the living conditions those who still live in the building have to live through are often unacceptable. I am certain that if my right hon. Friend visited St Francis Tower in Ipswich, he could not but share my anger at the conditions in which my constituents have to live. I invite my right hon. Friend to St Francis Tower to see the conditions that they are expected to live in.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point that sometimes work that is absolutely necessary involves a degree of disruption to people’s ordinary lives that is incredibly painful. Whether it is me or another Minister, we will make sure that someone comes to Ipswich to listen to my hon. Friend’s constituents. He is an incredibly effective advocate for them, and it is only right that we hear direct from them.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Some of the most distressing conversations I have with constituents are with those who have been caught up in this scandal, as are some of the most distressed constituents I have met. They are trapped, unable to move and face unknown costs, none of which is their fault. I warmly welcome the raft of measures announced today, as will they, but the next question will be, what next? What will happen and how quickly? I urge my right hon. Friend to clarify the measures that he has set out as soon as possible, to drive this forward and to bring them the certainty they desperately need.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right that people will want greater detail, and greater detail soon. I look forward to working with him and others to provide them with the required reassurance. As I mentioned earlier, although we believe these measures have the potential to resolve many of the issues, I would not want to say that every single individual’s problems will be resolved. We will do everything we can to proceed at speed in providing help.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome today’s announcement, and I am sure many families in my constituency will welcome it, too. Only this weekend we have seen a tragedy in New York, and I am sure I speak for every Member in saying that my thoughts and prayers go out to all affected. This was another electrical fire, and we still have a situation in this country where whether a flat’s electrical installation and appliances are tested depends on the tenure of the flat. It is like only rented cars having an MOT. I have raised this previously, and I will continue to raise it until we do something about it. Safe electrics and safe appliances means fewer ignitions and fewer fires, which means fewer lives lost.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Of course there are things we need to do to ensure building safety when it comes to construction products and materials, and when it comes to the quality of development and building control, but he is right that the fundamental aspects of wiring, power supply and electricity in our homes need to be addressed if people are to have the safe homes to which they are entitled.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Last week I led a debate on the broader issue of developers and house builders making large profits from low-quality homes that cause problems for owners and local communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the safety issues he seeks to tackle today are on a list of issues that people see with these companies, albeit that they are the most serious? That means the public will be very unsympathetic if they see further foot-dragging in trying to get a satisfactory solution.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and he tempts me into a broader debate to which I will return. In a nutshell, many people involved in housing provision, construction and development produce safe, beautiful homes with concern for the environment that enhance our communities, and we need more homes that are safe, decent and sustainable. There are also problems in the system, and the behaviour of certain actors needs to be addressed.
Everyone in this House wants to work with the industry, because having a home of our own is such an important part of our aspirations and ambitions, but we must recognise that more work needs to be done so we can be proud of the sector. I know that was at the heart of the points my hon. Friend made in his Westminster Hall debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for escaping the BBC lift this morning so that he could come here to make his statement and respond to questions for more than 90 minutes.
Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 3 November 2021 (Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Mrs Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.
Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill
Monday 10th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 View all Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 January 2022 - (10 Jan 2022)
18:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 458 / Noes: 53 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(6) “Owned by a foreign power” means owned by a company controlled by a foreign state and operating for investment purposes.”
This amendment is a definition of “foreign power” set out in Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) the nuclear company is not wholly or in part owned by a foreign power, and
(d) the fuel rods for the company’s reactor are supplied by a UK based company.”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from designating a nuclear company owned or part-owned by the agents of a foreign power and ensures that the fuelling of the designated company’s reactor is provided by a UK based company.
Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) detail of any public funding agreed as part of the project development and the services being provided for this funding.”
Amendment 9, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament in respect of each project in relation to which a nuclear company has been designated under section 2(1) before exercising the power under section 6 (1), setting out—
(a) the expected overall capital cost of the prospective project,
(b) the expected up-front cost of the prospective projects,
(c) the general terms of the project for the sale of electricity onto the grid, including—
(i) a statement of whether the Government has offered the nuclear company a minimum floor price mechanism for the sale of electricity onto the National Grid,
(ii) the minimum floor price mechanism included in any arrangement including any inflationary or baseline indices, and
(iii) the duration in years of any such arrangement under sub-paragraph (ii); and
(d) how decommissioning costs of the project will be met, including in the event of insolvency of the nuclear energy company, setting out any role for—
(i) revenue collection contracts, including any percentage specifically dedicated to decommissioning costs;
(ii) protection of decommissioning payments for time of need;
(iii) insurances; and
(iv) consumer risk.”
In respect of new nuclear projects, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the up-front and overall expected cost of the project, details of any agreement reached terms for the sale of electricity onto the National Grid and how decommissioning costs will be met, including in the event of the nuclear company becoming insolvent.
Amendment 8, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
“(n) provision about penalties the Secretary of State may apply if the level of power outages of a nuclear reactor results in up to 60 non-operational days in a 12 month period.”
Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) When exercising the power in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not cause the excess of expenditure being incurred over the allowable revenue cap to lead to further charges upon revenue collection contracts.”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from allowing the levy of further consumer charges should an increase in allowable revenue be agreed following increases in costs or timescale of a nuclear project.
Amendment 4, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) When exercising the power in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out how an adjustment in the company’s allowed revenue is to be made without relying on revenue collection contracts.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set out how an adjustment to allowed revenue, following an increase in costs or time, is to be provided for by means other than additional customer levies.
Amendment 7, in clause 11, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must exercise the power under subsection (1) to require each designated nuclear company to make an annual report of—
(a) the number of outages of each reactor, the reasons for outages and the total number of non-operational days per outage, and
(b) an assessment of the operational lifespan of the reactor and its key components and details of all safety inspections carried out.”
Amendment 5, in clause 32, page 24, line 24, at end insert—
“(5A) In the event that a relevant licensee nuclear company cannot be rescued as a going concern, or if a transfer of the undertaking to a wholly owned subsidiary does not result in the establishment of a going concern, the Secretary of State must establish a Government-owned company into which the assets, liabilities and undertakings of the relevant licensee nuclear company may be transferred in order to allow electricity supply to be commenced or continued at the nuclear installation in respect of which the relevant nuclear licensee holds a nuclear licence.”
This amendment ensures the continuation of a nuclear project where a failed company cannot be rescued as a going concern or successfully have its assets transferred to a subsidiary.
Amendment 10, page 24, line 26, at end insert—
“(7) Prior to a transfer falling within section 32(3), the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament.
(8) The report under subsection (7) must set out—
(a) the liabilities associated with the nuclear company;
(b) any estimated costs of getting the plant operational again if it has been temporarily shut down;
(c) the estimated lifespan of the nuclear power station; and
(d) decommissioning costs and confirmation of any funding provided by the nuclear company for this purpose.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the matters listed prior to any transfers falling within clause 32(3).
Alan Brown
I express my condolences on the untimely passing of Jack Dromey. I pass on my sympathies to his family, particularly the Mother of the House.
I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 6 to 9 in my name. I make it clear at the outset that I still oppose the Bill. The strategy is completely wrong, but I tabled these amendments to seek transparency and to see whether there is any seriousness to ministerial words about their willingness to consider amendments and their openness to further parliamentary scrutiny.
Let me start with amendment 9, which is all about ensuring that Parliament has a fuller understanding of what sums are involved and what commitments the Government will be making as regards any new nuclear project. The Minister has been very good at telling us about the mythical savings that will accrue via the regulated asset base funding model introduced by this Bill—they are estimated at between £30 billion and £70 billion.
What the Government are not so good at is telling us what money they want to commit for the likes of Sizewell C. In effect, they are telling us, “Let’s save money for bill payers by signing up to a less bad deal for a new nuclear project.” According to the impact assessment, the capital and financing cost is going to be in the region of £40 billion to £60 billion for a new nuclear power station. It is a strange logic to tell us that £50 billion being added to our energy bills at the time of a cost of living energy crisis is somehow a good thing. By default, the Government are also confirming just how much of a stinking, rotten deal Hinkley Point C was for bill payers if we are saying that we can save that much money compared with the contracts for difference model for Hinkley C.
We know that eye-watering sums are intended to be committed, but the Bill, as it stands, gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to sign off on a new nuclear deal. Amendment 9 tries to address that by setting out key criteria that should be laid in a report before Parliament. In Committee, and at other times when there has been quizzing on cost transparency, we have been given the con trick, “We cannot share that information for commercial confidentiality reasons.” If Parliament is told that the capital cost of a new power station is some £23 billion, which is the current estimated cost for Hinkley Point C, we do not know what the breakdown of that £23 billion is, so there is no way that that would breach commercial confidentiality. We have a right to know what up-front costs are being committed to or forced on bill payers, and it is important we know that for any deals on the sale of electricity. As I said, at the moment the Government tell us how much money the RAB model will save, but they want to continue to be vague on how much a new project will actually cost. We have the smoke and mirrors argument that it is a basic RAB payment that somehow, in the future, gets partially negated with the sale of electricity to the grid.
In Committee, the Minister also argued that if the capital cost of the project was somehow known, it would be harder to raise capital in the private markets. That is a nonsense argument, given that other infrastructure projects have their costs put in the public domain while capital is still to be raised. I would have thought it advantageous for it to be in the public domain how much capital is required to be raised, in order to generate competition for that capital investment. Initial capital-raising discussions would need already to have been held to get some assessment of the viability of the project as it was being developed. Lines about market sensitivity and best value just do not stack up as a counter argument.
We also need to know what other costs are committed to during the anticipated construction period. Under the RAB proposals, consumers will start to pay money as soon as construction begins, but they are not committed to the full construction cost because that gets spread out over the 60-year operational contract period. It is only right that bill payers know what costs are being committed to at the outset before that final sign-off of a 60-year contract.
Amendment 9 also tries to get transparency about the sale of energy. We are told there will not be a strike rate, but to me it is not credible to believe that some £50 billion-worth of capital and financing costs will be committed for a 60-year operational plan without sufficient confidence on the returns from the sale of electricity. Ministerial clarity is required, and that is why it would be good to have the Government commit to having to report on that.
For example, in a briefing in favour of the Bill, the Prospect union has come up with the ridiculous supposition that if energy prices in the market are at the right level in the future, RAB payments could reduce to zero. Are we seriously supposed to believe that is a credible proposition? Equally, are we supposed to believe that if wholesale electricity prices drop to a certain level way below the operational costs of the nuclear plant in generating electricity, the nuclear company will just carry on regardless, because it carries all the risks? It might not be a strike rate as we understand it in terms of the contract of difference scheme, but given the scenarios I have painted, some sort of guarantee will be looked for and it might be a minimum floor price on the sale of electricity. If so, we should know about it as parliamentarians and bill payers. If there is not a minimum floor price in future and the risk lies with the developer or is somehow baked into the RAB payments, we should know and understand that as well. Otherwise it is about continued closed-door negotiations hidden from the public who are actually paying for it.
Amendment 9 tries to shine a light on what would otherwise be that closed-shop negotiation by a Government who still have not learned the lessons from their desperation to sign off on Hinkley Point C at any cost whatsoever and seem destined to do so again with Sizewell C, just this time with a different model and the bill payers carrying a greater level of risk through the RAB model. I would expect any parliamentarian here who believes in some form of parliamentary scrutiny to be happy to have the Secretary of State obliged to report on the capital cost, any up-front committed costs and any future sale of energy contracts as a basic form of transparency, as amendment 9 seeks.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is raising some important questions about cost and reliability. What is his recommendation as to what the Government should do to make the position better?
Alan Brown
My ideal recommendation would be not to invest in a new nuclear plant. That would be the first thing, but if we take the situation as it is and look at the position going forward, the Government first need to satisfy themselves on the design. Bear in mind that the EPR system is still not working anywhere in the world. The whole point of the amendment is to at least have yearly assessments and reports to Parliament that advise on reliability. As I say, that would allow parliamentarians to understand that, challenge the Government if need be, and help to put pressure on nuclear consortiums if they were not performing to plan. That, for me, is critical to actually getting what has been signed up for.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that increasingly, the view that we need a permanent base-load for energy supply is outdated thinking, and that most modern thinking around the idea of energy supply all day, every day is that we do not need the idea of base-loads anymore?
Alan Brown
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Actually, as far back as 2015, Steve Halliday, the then chief executive of National Grid, said that baseload was an “outdated” concept and a false argument, so I agree with that. This goes back to my point that nuclear is too inflexible because it is either on or off, and it is actually nuclear that leads to wind turbines being turned off so often. The bizarre thing is that nuclear has hidden costs because of the energy constraint payments that are made.
To return to the amendments, our amendment 10 relates to clause 32, as does Labour’s amendment 5. I would point out, as I stated in Committee, that I do not support the Labour amendment because I believe that compelling the Government to take over a plant confirmed to have been economically unviable would be throwing good money after bad, which is the polar opposite of the rationale behind our amendment 10. However, to be fair, I certainly support all the other Labour amendments, particularly those about foreign ownership, and I will be happy to support them if they are pushed to a vote.
Finally—people will be glad to know—I turn to new clause 1. This is another attempt at transparency in what could otherwise be the Secretary of State committing huge sums of money via the special administration route. Again, I do not think it too onerous for the Secretary of State to have to report to Parliament on the likely costs of a bail-out of an insolvent company.
In Committee, the Minister argued that it would hamper the process, but given that the SAR process is only being implemented for the first time through Bulb going bust, it is unclear to me why a report to Parliament would unduly delay the anyway complicated process of going through the courts. The Minister stated that the court process would provide enough transparency, but also that the reporting requirement might have commercial implications and affect the Secretary of State’s ability to bring the administration to an end. Both aspects of that cannot be true: there is enough transparency or there is not. It seems to me that reporting to Parliament should not hinder the transparency process, and it should not have commercial implications, so this new clause has been put forward to ensure clear reporting of information to Parliament.
In conclusion, I have made it clear from the outset that this Bill lacks transparency. Clauses 2 and 3 give way too much power to the Secretary of State to assess what he or she believes to be a value-for-money nuclear project and then commit bill payers to paying for it. While I am opposed to the Bill, I have not even proposed wrecking amendments because the amendments today are all designed to ensure that, first, parliamentarians and, secondly, bill payers know exactly what money is being committed and for what reasons.
If the Government have faith in their arguments that nuclear energy is required and that it represents true value for money, it seems to me that they should willingly accept these amendments and new clause 1. If the amendments get defeated in votes, we will know that it is all about continued backroom deals that they fear will not stand up to scrutiny if they were to report on the actual sums.
John Redwood
I welcome proposals that will create more generating capacity in the United Kingdom. As the Minister knows, I am extremely worried that we are already typically 10% dependent on imported electricity and that the current plans envisage our becoming more import dependent, with the preferred route for electricity provision being the construction of more interconnectors. I am worried about this on security grounds, because we link ourselves at our peril into an energy-short system on the continent of Europe that is far too dependent on Mr Putin and Russian gas. I also worry about it because we are short of electricity and gas at the moment, and we see the price pressures that that creates. I think we should be doing more to expand the supply of both electricity and domestic gas.
I think the Scottish National party has made some important points, although it comes at nuclear power from a different perspective from that of the Government. While we could usefully enjoy more nuclear power, it is very important that those projects are timely and cost-controlled, with technologies that will deliver reliable power on a sustainable basis. Does the Minister agree that nothing in this legislation, and nothing that he can now do, can prevent the proportion of our electricity that is generated by nuclear from declining for the whole of this decade? As I understand it, these projects take a long time to get type approval and financing, and a long time in construction. As I also understand it, all but one of our current nuclear power stations is scheduled to close by 2030, and although one large new nuclear power station should come on stream during that period, it will not offset all the capacity that is taken out.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The purpose of small modular nuclear reactors—we are going to be building 10 or 15 of them—is to enable us to bring the price down. Is my right hon. Friend also concerned that 18 major projects in oil and gas exploration have seemingly been put on hold, given that we need those projects and those fields to come online now?
John Redwood
Yes. I fear I may be wandering a little from the actual Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, but given the general context of energy shortage and the crucial role that gas has been playing in recent months in generating electricity, because we are short of nuclear power and short of wind power when the wind does not blow, I would strongly recommend that we get on with exploiting our own gas reserves. That is greener and cheaper than relying on gas being brought halfway round the world in a liquefied natural gas tanker or on Mr Putin’s gas routed via the continent. That is probably an argument for another day, but I am grateful to the Deputy Speaker for allowing me to answer my hon. Friend’s very good point.
In conclusion, I would like the Minister to set out a little bit more of the context of when nuclear might start contributing to our electricity demand and need, and how he sees the balance of that developing between small nuclear being rolled out at greater scale and the one or two large nuclear projects that might still be around. Also, given the hugely radical electrical revolution that the Government wish to encourage, with switching home heating from predominantly gas to electricity and switching much transport from predominantly diesel and petrol to electricity, we are going to need a massive expansion of total capacity. Would he agree, however, that we are starting from a position where we do not have enough capacity for our current levels of demand and where the nuclear element of that capacity will contract quite a lot over this decade?
Wera Hobhouse
As a lifelong anti-nuclear power campaigner, I could not fail to speak in this debate or to represent the views of the many Bath constituents who have written to me over the last weeks and months about voting and speaking against this Bill. We need to get to net zero by 2050 at the latest, but do we need nuclear power to get there, and is nuclear energy a fair deal for our consumers? While nuclear power is not a carbon fuel, it is enormously expensive, costing twice as much as generation from renewables. In answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I believe that we just need to roll out renewable energy. We have the capacity. Britain is a country surrounded by sea, and there is a lot of wind further out. Projects such as floating wind are out there—I speak to that industry a lot. If only the Government had the political will to make that renewable energy revolution happen.
John Redwood
What difference would it have made if we had had double our wind capacity in recent weeks when it was supplying only 2% of our total electricity because there was no wind?
Wera Hobhouse
As I said, there is the potential for offshore wind, particularly further out where the wind blows all the time—the right hon. Member needs only to talk to the industry about that—if only the Government were prepared to invest much more in that and not just rely on the small projects that we currently have.
Yes, we doubled our offshore wind capacity thanks to the Liberal Democrats in government—some time ago now—but there is still no level playing field for the renewable energy sector. We speak of this again and again. If only the Government were prepared to set a regulatory level playing field, we could see a lot more renewable energy to cover our energy costs.
Let me repeat that while nuclear power is not a carbon fuel, it is enormously expensive, costing twice as much as generation from renewables, and in the end that cost will fall on the consumer. We have seen the disasters of that in recent weeks. Quite apart from the long-term costs of decommissioning, disposal and storage of waste, nuclear is an unusual technology that sees costs rise instead of fall over time. In other words, it has a high need for Government subsidy.
The Government say that the Bill is about saving consumers money by removing barriers to private investment in the nuclear sector, but that is misleading. Their proposed regulated asset base funding model provides no protection for consumers; instead, evidence shows that costs under this model for abandoned nuclear power stations have still been passed on to consumers.
Let us look at what happened in the United States, where a version of the regulated asset base model—early cost recovery—was introduced more than 10 years ago. As in Britain, ECR was sold to policy makers as a way of lowering the cost of capital, thereby making nuclear power more competitive with other sources of generation. However, the lower capital cost was not a true saving. The nuclear renaissance’s 2009 peak consisted of applications to build 31 units pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Of those, 29 have been cancelled, and despite expenditure exceeding $20 billion, no new US nuclear plants have gone into service. In South Carolina, ratepayers are having to pay $2.3 billion for a cancelled nuclear plant. While US electricity customers are exposed to paying more than $10 billion for cancelled nuclear plants and another $13.5 billion in cost overruns, no reactors have come online as a result of the US shift to early cost recovery. Florida and South Carolina have repealed the laws allowing early cost recovery, and no states have enacted such laws in the last decade, so why on earth are the Tory Government introducing a failed financial model from the US?
In contrast, the cost of renewables is falling globally. Renewables are significantly undercutting fossil fuels as the cheapest form of energy as the cost of renewable technologies falls. According to the International Energy Agency, the world’s best solar power schemes offer the “cheapest…electricity in history.”
Wera Hobhouse
I will not give way again.
Renewable energy is the future, and we in the UK are ideally placed to take advantage of the wind and wave power all around us. When UK tidal wave projects were cancelled in the past, that was always on a cost basis. Why do we not look at those projects again? They are truly renewable and truly the future. We could be an exporter of renewables. Onshore wind is now the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I have been incredibly generous, as I was to Sir John Redwood. Could the hon. Lady tell me which clause she is speaking to?
Wera Hobhouse
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am coming to the end. I could not miss the opportunity to speak in this debate because I believe that the whole Bill is a complete failure. However, I will be supporting all the amendments that are proposed today because they will improve it, but I will vote against the Bill.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As the co-founder of the nuclear delivery group, along with my fellow atomic kitten, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), I have been at the forefront of campaigning for nuclear energy to form a key part of our 2050 net zero strategy since becoming MP for Ynys Môn.
I can talk about the various amendments tabled by the Opposition, but the reality is that this Bill is critical if the UK is to tackle climate change, and it is critical for the UK’s energy security and stability. The demand for electricity will only rise as we phase out carbon-based energy. Although renewables such as solar, wind and tidal energy must form part of our zero-carbon mix, they simply do not currently offer the capacity or reliability that we will need to go forward. Nuclear power is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels that the UK can implement in the timeframes required.
Alan Brown
When the hon. Member speaks to the amendments, will she explain why she opposes any of them? I would have thought that tabling amendments about transparency and to highlight the costs of nuclear would be a good thing.
Virginia Crosbie
Several of the amendments that the hon. Member mentioned relate to information flow and financing. I will talk more about financing and how that is so important to my constituents on Ynys Môn.
In recent years, we have seen our nuclear generation capacity drop and UK progress on the decarbonisation of power stall. Over the past year, I have been working hard to raise the issue of financing for nuclear power with Ministers and officials, because it is a key blocker to bringing more nuclear power online. The majority of my constituents support Wylfa Newydd. It is recognised as the best site in the UK, possibly the world, to host a nuclear power plant.
I will end by saying that the Bill will make a huge difference to Ynys Môn. My constituency has one of the lowest levels of gross value added in the UK and we desperately need these jobs to come through. On behalf of the nuclear delivery group, I would like to thank all my constituents and, in particular, the community of Llanbadrig for remaining positive and united in the hope that Ynys Môn sees the fruits of this important piece of legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. It would be really useful when people are contributing on Report if they could mention some of the amendments or the new clause now and again.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I welcome the return of this important Bill from Committee and I am pleased to support it, as is the Labour party. Indeed, although our NHS is the Attlee Government’s greatest achievement, it was his Labour Government who approved this country’s first nuclear reactors, which have been supplying clean energy ever since.
It is regrettable that it has taken the Conservatives more than a decade in office to bring forward these new plans to finance and ensure that we have the next generation of nuclear that we need. I am concerned that much of our domestic expertise and supply chain capacity has eroded in that time, but it is still true that if the best time to build a nuclear plant was 10 years ago, the second-best time is today. This is especially important with the retirement of Hunterston B last week, which alone provided 1 GW of the UK’s 7.9 GW nuclear capacity—enough to power 1.7 million homes.
As our energy bills rocket in the months to come, as a result of huge volatility in the international gas markets, we will be reminded yet again of the importance of the diversification, sovereignty, security and constancy of our power supplies, which Labour’s amendments address. Ensuring that there is a further generation of nuclear plants is the best way to address that as well as to be environmentally sustainable as we seek net zero.
There are too many myths about nuclear power that undermine it in the public mind and in pockets of this place. Let us hear the facts: nuclear power has the lowest lifecycle carbon of all technologies, the lowest land use of all low-carbon technologies, the lowest mining and metal use of all low-carbon technologies and the highest employment multiplier of all low-carbon technologies. Those peddling such myths rely on misleading comparisons, over-optimism about alternatives and wholly outdated concerns about safety that do not reflect the reality of modern nuclear plants. We should not be scared of making the positive case for nuclear, and making it strongly and proudly. Nuclear is safe and reliable, and it directly creates quality, high-paying and unionised jobs, as well as supporting many more in its supply chain.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Does the hon. Member have any figures on how many of those jobs in Warrington might be put at risk by the exclusion of companies that are partly foreign-owned? If passed, Labour’s amendment might keep them out of new nuclear build.
Charlotte Nichols
I do not have the data on my person at this point, but ultimately more jobs are at risk in Warrington North’s nuclear sector if we do not approve the building of new nuclear. Regardless of whether that involves direct state investment, a regulated asset base model, as we are discussing today, or foreign investment, the fact is that we need to get it built, because all those jobs will be at risk if we do not.
Going back to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, we have heard complaints about the cost of the regulated asset base model. Indeed, my preference would be direct state investment in this vital national infrastructure, which would keep the stations and the power they produce in public ownership. None the less, the model that we are discussing must be recognised as an investment that guarantees construction and production over the longer term.
As I wind up my remarks, I want to point out that the uncertainty and lack of guarantees have left the industry in the dark for so long. With the uncertainties now addressed by the Bill and the amendments that Labour has tabled, the industry can now have the confidence to plan and move forward. My hope is that by passing the Bill on a cross-party basis, it will send the signal that there is a clear consensus on the vital role that nuclear will continue to have in our energy mix. This message is fundamental as we hopefully move on from Sizewell C to other projects and plan these as a fleet to drive down costs and to maintain and expand the world-class expertise and skills of the British nuclear sector.
Bob Seely
I rise to speak to amendments 1 and 2. If I have time, I will get to amendment 9, but I will speak for no more than five minutes.
I hear what people say about the importance of renewables, but it is not a choice between renewables or nuclear. Frankly, if the world is to have any chance of meeting its carbon targets, it is not “either/or” but “and”. I am afraid to say that we see the environmental, energy and security disaster that is Germany’s imbecilic energy policy, caused by the shutting of nuclear and the dependence on Russian gas and lignite coal, the dirtiest form of energy production known to humanity.
Wera Hobhouse
I am not speaking on behalf of Germany, because Germany is in a very different position from that of Britain. It is more or less landlocked, it does not have sea, and it does not have wind in the same way. Britain has a massive opportunity to invest in new renewable energy that no other country has apart from Greece, which is doing so.
Bob Seely
I am half German and I think my German relatives would confirm that they have wind in Germany. [Interruption.] And the Baltic sea—thank you very much indeed. There is no reputable case, including in reports from the UN and others, that disagrees that, if we are to meet zero carbon at some point in the next 20, 30 or 40 years, nuclear will play an increasingly significant element, whether we like it or not. It is a very low-carbon form of energy, with no greenhouse gas, and it is important for us to take that on board.
On foreign ownership and foreign funding, would I start from here? No. I am uncomfortable with the idea that we would ever want to build an untried, untested Chinese nuclear reactor in this country, especially one that has not been built anywhere else, to say nothing of the geopolitical ramifications of that. I am not hugely happy that we have Chinese funding in place, but I understand the critical point that we need a sense of momentum to make progress on this issue. In a perfect world, though, we would not be starting from here.
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of nuclear to get to net zero, but the UK Government are committed to decarbonisation of the electricity grid by 2035. If we are going to rely on nuclear, there is no way on earth that we can fully decarbonise the grid. Other things are needed, such as carbon capture and storage and green hydrogen.
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sensible point, but his argument that we can do it all with renewables is a bit of a cop-out. We are not doing so. I want tidal energy for the Solent and for the Isle of Wight as much as he does for the west of Scotland, but the argument that renewables will solve our problems—especially when, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) says, there is no wind— is a difficult one to sustain.
Moving back to amendments 1 and 2, it is perfectly sensible for the Government to make the point—the Minister did so when we were in conversation last week, and I thank him for his time—that we need foreign institutional funding, especially from friendly states, such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and the European Union, and a RAB system to make that investment in nuclear, which is expensive and which we need for the long term, but we need to be getting on with it. Having argued against those two amendments, I have to say that we have had two decades of incredibly poor leadership on energy supply. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke eloquently about the attractions of the nuclear industry, but, unfortunately, the point she missed out was that nuclear was killed as an investment discussion early on in the new Labour years. Unfortunately, the coalition carried on with that, because, effectively, we were appeasing a rather extreme green lobby in our country. We are coming to this very late. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, in a decade’s time, we will lose 12 out of the 13 nuclear reactors that we have. That means that we will go backwards when it comes to producing low-carbon, low-greenhouse-emission energy, even if more renewables come on stream, which I hope they will, so we need to get on with this.
Are we in a perfect position with Chinese funding? No. Do I want to see a Chinese nuclear reactor in this country? Absolutely not. Do I want to see Rolls-Royce nuclear reactors, which I hope will be the Rolls-Royce solution in all senses of the word? Absolutely, and we need to get cracking, because that will lower the price. It is also British technology and we will be keeping those high-quality jobs. We need to get moving. On that principle, I oppose amendments 1 and 2. I am happy with where we are with the Government at the moment, but let us just crack on, get this done, get another Bill for another nuclear plant this side of an election and then get in place the laws and the Bills that we need for modular nuclear to come onstream.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
In the past, I have spoken in the Chamber and in smaller debates about nuclear energy and its importance in today’s society. I will put on record once again my support for nuclear energy and for what it can deliver for all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We need nuclear generating capacity for the United Kingdom, and I believe that this Bill gives the opportunity for that to happen.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) put forward a very good case for his proposals in new clause 1 and amendments 6, 9, 8, 7 and 10. I believe that, ultimately, it comes down to whether we support nuclear energy and the benefits that it brings or whether we have some concerns, which, obviously, the hon. Gentleman has.
Nuclear energy in the UK is minimal, with only 13 nuclear reactors and six plants, which are able to supply only about 20% of the UK’s electricity demand. It is worth pointing out that Northern Ireland is the only devolved institution in the UK without a nuclear plant or power station. I note from the papers supplied to us by the Minister that
“For the RAB model and revenue stream measures in Parts 1 and 2, these will extend and apply to England and Wales and Scotland only. This is because the unique energy position of Northern Ireland means they would not benefit from energy produced by nuclear energy generation projects under a RAB model in Great Britain, and so should not be obliged to pay.”
It is clear that the Government have provided protection for us in Northern Ireland. It is also important to remember that in the context of the Government’s levelling up agenda as well as the Bill, the funding is not relative.
Nuclear energy in the UK has not peaked since 1995 and the opening of Sizewell B, the last commissioned plant to be built.
Alan Brown
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would welcome new nuclear power. I mentioned earlier that the impact assessment stated that the capital and financing costs of a new nuclear power station would be some £50 billion. If I were to offer the hon. Gentleman £50 billion for an investment in Northern Ireland, would a new nuclear power station really be it?
Jim Shannon
If only we had the opportunity of a nuclear power station in Northern Ireland! We do not have that possibility at this moment, but I would certainly be keen. I have supported this throughout my years as an elected representative—as a councillor from 1985, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now today.
This group of amendments also deals with reports to Parliament on costs of nuclear projects, provision of information on outages, and limits on additional charges to revenue collection contracts.
We are expecting the next nuclear plant to be built in Hinckley Point C in Somerset in 2025, some four years from now. |There is no doubt that there is a huge cost implication when it comes to safe nuclear energy, but I look to Members today to see the good that comes along with it. It ensures that we keep our carbon footprint to a minimum, which is one of the main goals that we addressed at COP26. It is also essential in addressing the energy gap and relaying our response to climate change and lowering gas emissions.
The new RAB model is expected to allow new nuclear projects to be financed privately, which is the thrust of what the Bill is about. However, it is the responsibility of our Government, and our Minister, to ensure that private investors are protected. I should like to hear from the Minister how he plans to include Northern Ireland in this strategy, so that we can gain some benefits. What will happen to private investors should things change in future? I encourage the Minister to engage with the relevant Ministers back home to ensure that similar opportunities are within reach for Northern Ireland. I have historically encouraged him and his Department to ensure that there are the correct provisions for nuclear energy improvement across the UK. While this is a long and costly road, I urge other Members to look at the benefits and sustainability factors that come along with it. Additional funding must be secured for successful and green living throughout the UK.
What is important in this debate is that we understand the essential role that nuclear power has to play, and allow that role to be played in a regulated and possible manner. I support the aim of the Bill to allow the Secretary of State—or the Minister, in this case—to regulate for revenue collection contracts, which will be used to fund a nuclear company. Payments will be managed by a “revenue collection counterparty”. Projects will be paid an “allowed revenue”, which is broadly the agreed capital cost of a project along with other relevant costs. Payments will be made by electricity supply companies which are expected to pass the cost on to consumers. Costs will start to be charged to consumers during construction, based on the allowed revenue due for that period. During operation, the cost will be the allowed revenue due, minus the value of selling the energy generated.
All this seems to me to be common-sense and logical. It is important that we regulate effectively and ensure maximum security. This is not a matter that we can ever take lightly, and I believe that the Bill’s progress has been right and proper. I therefore support the Bill, but ask the Minister to reconsider the role of Northern Ireland in our nuclear power plan. Now that the potential for a plant has been removed from the old equation, there must be a place for us in the new equation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to join the debate. One of the most enjoyable moments for me was to hear the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) making the case strongly and proudly for nuclear power. It was wonderful to hear that, and many of us on this side of the House have shared that feeling for a long time, while perhaps not everybody on her side has done so. It was fabulous to hear it being said.
This debate comes in a week when one of our most important nuclear power stations has just closed. It is a moment to pay tribute to all those involved in Hunterston B, which was designed to last for 25 years and actually did its job for 46 years—a tribute to the huge engineering skills and safety operation involved. It generated enough carbon-free electricity for the whole of Scotland for 31 years. In that context, I find it puzzling that the SNP continues to take such a strong anti-nuclear power position, after all the good work that Hunterston B has done for people across Scotland.
Wera Hobhouse
We always say that in the past it delivered so much energy, but what about the radioactive waste that is still there? We just close our eyes to that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I just remind Richard Graham before he continues that the new clause and amendments should be spoken to, as opposed to a general debate.
Richard Graham
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have made precisely the same observation—that we must focus on new clause 1 and the amendments. In that context, it is worth mentioning that there was undoubtedly a strategic error of no new investment in nuclear during the period from 1997 to 2010, when the Opposition were in power. That is precisely why we are here today to discuss the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The need for a baseload of nuclear power of up to 25% is apparent. Big nuclear power stations such as Hinkley Point C that will produce about 8% will be absolutely important, especially as Hinkley Point B will soon be mothballed. We really do need to get this going, and it is a shame that when the Labour party was in power it did not develop nuclear power.
Richard Graham
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments because they lead in to the Bill and what we are debating today, which is largely about finance and the optimum way to ensure that a new, large nuclear power station is constructed, following the success of Hinkley Point C. Indeed, obviously, the ideal thing would be to move the team seamlessly from one project to another. In all of this, it is worth paying tribute to the hugely successful operational nuclear headquarters for the whole country at EDF Energy’s offices in Gloucestershire in my constituency. One thing I hope the Minister will touch on today is how important a part they will play in the future development of our nuclear capacity, whether in further large stations such as the one at Wylfa, talked up—rightly and so effectively—by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), or in any other part of the United Kingdom, as well as in the small modular reactors that have been mentioned by several Members as a key way of generating more nuclear power, and probably faster, to answer the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).
Alan Brown
I issue the challenge again to the hon. Gentleman to speak to the amendments. For example, can he explain why, if he is pro-nuclear, he will vote against amendment 9, which is about providing transparency on cost? Why does he oppose amendment 7, which would compel the Secretary of State to report on the operation of the new nuclear stations in the future, including outages and their condition and operability?
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman has tabled several amendments, including amendments 6, 8, 9 and 7. Largely speaking, my perception is that they are designed to tie down the Government in as much detail as possible, avoiding the uncomfortable truth for the Scottish National party that the whole process of regulated asset base funding, which the SNP opposes, has already been used very successfully for infrastructure projects around the country, not least the separation of ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro Electric in 2005. It has also been used for the Thames tideway tunnel and Heathrow terminal 5. I do not recall those projects ever being criticised for the concept and detail of the regulated asset base funding, which is precisely what we are discussing for Sizewell C.
Alan Brown
The RAB model has been used successfully for some infrastructure projects, but as outlined earlier it has not been very successful in the United States when applied to nuclear power stations. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of a successful application of the RAB model to a nuclear power station?
Richard Graham
May I answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) first? We are more interested in what has been tried and tested here in the United Kingdom than in what may not have succeeded in a different model in a different sovereign country. Obviously, this is the first time it has been used for nuclear power here, but let us not forget, as I have pointed out, that there was a whole generation in which no nuclear power stations were built at all. When it came to the funding for Hinkley C in around 2010-11, I remember well the debates that we had at that time and, of course, the uncomfortable truth that we had lost the expertise to build these things ourselves, so we needed to bring in both foreign finance and foreign expertise. The situation today is different, because we are building on what we have already learned and achieved so far in the process at Hinkley Point.
I agree with the Government that this is a time to choose to move to regulated asset financing, because the crucial difference is that the businesses involved will be able to finance at lower rates and, as I understand it, two thirds of the cost of electricity from Hinkley Point C will come from the cost of capital. Making access to income available during the construction period will both reduce the costs of the project and make it more attractive to institutional investors, who are quite happy with a lower but steady return on their investment. I believe that that is the key reason—and I am comfortable with it—for adopting that approach to this nuclear power station and, I hope, others to come in the future.
Richard Graham
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) first and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.
Mark Jenkinson
If I could take my hon. Friend back to Sizewell C and to EDF in his constituency, and specifically to amendment 2 in the name of Her Majesty’s official Opposition, does he share my concerns that removing nuclear companies that are part owned by foreign powers would remove EDF’s involvement in the likes of Sizewell C? That would kill Sizewell C and it would kill Moorside.
Richard Graham
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was coming on to what seems to be a curious irony in the position of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, particularly the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for whom I have a lot of respect on energy issues. It seems ironic that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, amendment 2 would make it virtually impossible for a company partly or wholly owned by a foreign power to build and run a nuclear entity. Of course, since British Energy was sold by the last Labour Government in 2009, it is not possible for a company that is entirely British owned to do the work. In that context, the amendment seems rather ironic. Perhaps the fact that it would be a UK subsidiary of EDF answers the question; otherwise, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that amendment 2 should be ruled out immediately by Members on both sides of the House on the basis of it being wholly impractical.
I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham wants to intervene, but I think the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was first.
Clive Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. Some of us on the Opposition Benches consider energy to be a public good, and therefore if we are talking about the optimal way of funding this public good, it would be via the state. The RAB system that he is talking about is very complex and is actually being backed by the state, not the market. Ultimately, if he wants to bring the costs down and make the system more cost-effective and to be optimal—that is the term he used—we would have the state funding this area fully, as well as the rest of the energy roll-out that he is talking about.
The final point I will make is that the hon. Gentleman gave some examples about Heathrow and other large-scale projects, but the difference here is that the system that he is advocating will mean that bill payers will foot much of the risk and much of the bill if there is an overspend. The problem is that that proposal is regressive—it is like a poll tax on energy. The far more progressive way to fund things would be through progressive taxation.
Richard Graham
We may be straying a bit from the subject and scope, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will try to come back to the road of virtue as quickly as I can, but the hon. Member raises interesting points about what structure of ownership is required to develop nuclear power stations effectively. To be honest, it was his party that decided to sell—to privatise—British Energy. I think it is too late to try to row back on that and recreate that situation, unless he is proposing an interesting new Anglo-French argument over nationalising EDF Energy in the UK. We have to accept that things have moved on, and we must focus on the amendments proposed today.
John Redwood
The burden of the argument with the SNP, my hon. Friend and the rest of us is, as I understand it, transparency over the costs and terms of putative contracts. If those are to be private sector contracts, there are issues about commercial confidentiality, but if there is to be a lot of state exposure, there needs to be a very clear definition of its limits and what it will be, and I am sure that is what the Minister has in mind. Does my hon. Friend agree that we expect to see a very clear and honest statement of any state liabilities, but that commercial private contracts are not as appropriate for that kind of transparency?
Richard Graham
Yes, that is a very good way of defining the difference between the confidentiality of commercial agreements and the state’s obligation to be transparent in what is clearly a model that has elements of both. There is an element of hybrid in it, as Members have alluded to.
To bring my contribution to a close fairly swiftly, fundamentally we need to get on, as other colleagues have said, with the business of building more nuclear capacity as quickly as possible. The Bill is an opportunity to move that forward fast, with the safeguards offered by the Government within it, and to get on with a new way of funding through the regulated asset base mechanism. It will provide cheaper costs of financing and ultimately bring down the costs to consumers. Clearly, the Labour party is supporting us today in principle, and perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will give his support to the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. The SNP is not supporting it.
From the Government Benches, I want to reiterate my support as the MP for Gloucester for what the nuclear operational headquarters in Barnwood has successfully achieved for a very long period, and I hope that the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), will accept an invite to visit Gloucester to look at the operational headquarters and what it is doing and to discuss ways to ensure that that expertise can be used most effectively in the development of nuclear capacity in the future, as well as now.
I am afraid none of the amendments will have my support. I have mentioned that amendment 2 is ironic and inappropriate, and I think all the SNP amendments are designed to try to ensure as far as possible that today’s Bill does not go any further. Bearing in mind that we are celebrating the 46-year role of nuclear in providing electricity to every home in Scotland, that seems rather ironic and, frankly, a bit disappointing. Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much hope the Bill goes through.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I do not want to detain the House for too long. However, I want to say a few words as the Member of Parliament for Maldon, which contains Bradwell-on-Sea.
Bradwell had been the home of a nuclear power station since the early 1960s, and it safely generated power for nearly 40 years before being successfully decommissioned. I remain a strong supporter of nuclear power, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) that it is not a question of choosing between renewables and nuclear. We will need both if we are to achieve our ambitions, particularly our ambition to reduce carbon emissions.
The fact Bradwell has been the site of a nuclear power station for so long is probably the reason why it was chosen as one of the designated sites for new nuclear development. Of course, an agreement was reached between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation whereby Hinkley Point and Sizewell would be majority owned and financed by EDF with some Chinese contribution, but Bradwell would be the site of a Chinese-designed and majority Chinese-financed reactor.
I visited China General Nuclear in Shenzhen when I was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when the attitude of the British Government was perhaps a little more friendly towards China than it is today. At that time the Government were keen to encourage investment in Bradwell, partly because it appeared to be the only way that we would be able to finance new nuclear, as the Chinese were the people who had the resources and the willingness to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight referred to the concerns about Chinese technology, and my concern is not about the safety of Chinese technology. The Chinese reactor is now well advanced in the generic design assessment process, and it appears to be proceeding smoothly. I suspect it will be found to be safe, but there may be other reasons why the British Government are perhaps less keen on the idea of a Chinese-owned and designed nuclear power station in this country than they were five years ago. I fully appreciate and understand the reasons for that.
Bradwell is one of the few locations to be designated as appropriate for new nuclear, and the site is owned by CGN. If the Government decide it is not appropriate to build a Chinese reactor, I would still like to think Bradwell is a possible site for an alternative nuclear power station development. Whether or not the Government reach that decision on China, it is too early to say, and I am sure the Minister will not be in a position to say definitively this afternoon, but I would like to put it on record that Bradwell successfully hosted a nuclear power station for 40 years—Bradwell A—and I saw the benefits it brought to the local community. I would therefore still be positive about the possibility of Bradwell B, whoever designs and owns it.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the amendments tabled on Report. You will be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I would also like to talk about the Bill and its contents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Dr Whitehead, do you intend to keep your mask on?
Dr Whitehead
Sorry, no—I have a general habit of wearing a mask whenever possible.
The Bill essentially falls into three parts. Part 1 concerns the designation of a company for the receipt of regulated asset base payments. Part 2 concerns the collection and disbursement of funds through the regulated asset base arrangements. Part 3 sets out a special administration regime, should a nuclear power plant be unable to carry out its obligations arising from the institution of the regulated asset base arrangement.
The Bill, essentially, is trying to produce a method for funding and getting over the line one particular nuclear power plant: Sizewell C. That is the only plant that is developed enough to be able to generate by 2030. A substantial part of the Bill is not about the general future of nuclear, or the relationship with nuclear renewables; it is about how one plant is to be financed over the next period so that it can actually start producing energy, hopefully by the end of this decade or shortly thereafter.
The Labour party supports nuclear power for the future and is particularly concerned that, for example, the Climate Change Committee has indicated that some 8 GW of nuclear power might be put in the mix for low-carbon renewable power for the future. Sizewell C is an important part of that process—indeed, getting it going is long overdue. Perhaps I can put the record straight, because the previous Labour Government, as the 2007 nuclear White Paper and the strategic planning documents of 2009-10 show, laid the basis for the present number of sites to be considered and, therefore, for nuclear power going forward.
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but unfortunately we lost a decade, from 1997 to 2007, when nuclear was taken off the table. Because of the timescales, which he is well aware of, will he just accept—this is not necessarily party political—that losing that decade put us back and is costing us now?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is quite right that prior to 2007 the Labour Government did not consider the development of nuclear power by state means to be an appropriate way forward, although they never suggested that the development of nuclear power by private means could not be countenanced. However, we have since had more than 10 years of Conservative-led Government, which has produced precisely no nuclear power plants. Indeed, there is one nuclear power plant in the pipeline, and we hope a nuclear power plant that can be financed by reasonable means. One of the problems with the previous plant, Hinkley Point C, which the present Government got off the ground, was the funding arrangements, with EDF supplying most of the capital for the plant and then a CfD for the plant at the end, which looks like it will be quite disastrous, with future electricity prices being completely uneconomic.
It is therefore important that we get a method for funding those nuclear plants, and particularly Sizewell C, that does not fall into those traps and is also secure for the future. That is the concern of our amendments 1 and 2. To put the record straight, anyone who looks at those amendments reasonably closely will see that amendment 1 defines what is stated in amendment 2, and that it is defined as
“means owned by a company controlled by a foreign state and operating for investment purposes.”
That does not include EDF. Let us be clear from the outset that EDF is not
“a company controlled by a foreign state.”
Although it is substantially owned by a foreign state, it is not operating for investment purposes, but for production purposes. Let us be clear about what the particular concern is for the future.
Richard Graham
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that EDF is majority owned by the state. If the state required it to do certain things, I do not see how the company could say no. Could the hon. Gentleman confirm if that is his understanding?
Dr Whitehead
It is correct that EDF is owned by the French state, but it is not controlled by the French state and, as I say, it does not operate for investment purposes. The amendment specifically excludes that kind of company from its provisions, but, importantly, it includes companies such as the China General Nuclear Power Corporation, which is clearly owned and controlled by a foreign state and operates for investment purposes.
Richard Graham
This is incredibly important. The amendment states
“the nuclear company is not wholly or in part owned by a foreign power”.
Factually, that is the situation with EDF. I do not have a problem with it, but I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that his amendment does not say what he has just said it does, and it is therefore inaccurate, even by what he is trying to achieve.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid we will have to differ on that. Amendment 1 has been written on good advice, in terms of what EDF does and does not do in its operation, and, on the contrary, what a company such as the China General Nuclear Power Corporation does. There is a clear distinction between those two particular companies and organisations.
The amendments wish to draw attention to the fact that this is not an academic issue. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned earlier, we have an agreement in place at the moment whereby the Chinese state nuclear corporation has a 35% stake in Hinkley Point C, a 20% stake in Sizewell C, should it go ahead, and complete control of Bradwell, should that go ahead, with ownership of the site and operations, and with the installation of a Chinese reactor. That agreement has already been reached, so the issue in this Bill is that if the regulated asset base is going to be put in place to finance and bring about the control of a nuclear power plant by the Chinese Government over the next period, we think that that would be a retrograde step for the future of nuclear power in this country, for obvious reasons.
In Committee, we asked the Government whether they wished to make any statement about the future of the agreement that is currently in place, which was agreed between 2013 and 2016 and includes the Secretary of State’s investment agreement, and about future arrangements for nuclear power. We asked if they could they confirm that RAB would not be used as an instrument to extend those arrangements, as far as the Chinese Government are concerned. They have not said anything about that at all; I regret that. Hence we have brought these amendments to try to clarify what RAB will be used for, what the position is concerning the 20% of Sizewell C that looks to be owned by the Chinese Government in the future, and how that relates to RAB overall. Although it is not central to the RAB debate, it is an important element in that debate and needs clarification for the future.
We did not particularly want to table these amendments. If we had had a statement from the Government that they were not proceeding with Bradwell and were going to bring an end to the arrangements that are in place for Sizewell C at the moment, perhaps things might have been different, but we urgently need some clarification about their intentions in relation to RAB and Chinese involvement in UK civil nuclear power in future. That is what amendments 1 and 2 would achieve.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I welcome these amendments because one of the concerns about RAB is that there are no safeguards, so the developer could run up costs and there would be nothing to stop them doing so. Therefore, if the Government do not accept the amendments, would it not be irresponsible to support the Bill on Third Reading?
Dr Whitehead
It would not be irresponsible to support the Bill on Third Reading, but it would be responsible of the Government to take a little more notice of these particular problems with the RAB process and possibly, as we move forward with its development, bring in mechanisms that can protect the bill-paying public in a rather better way than is suggested at the moment. That is essentially what the amendments do.
The arrangement for the RAB to be put into place is that a series of considerations are entered into to give an agreed expenditure cap for what is considered to be the proper use of the collection fund that will provide assistance to the company producing the new nuclear power plant. It can properly draw on that, up to a certain ceiling, from the general public. That is if everything goes well with the nuclear power plant, but of course that may not necessarily be the case. Of 176 nuclear power plants across the world, 175 went substantially over time and over budget, so we need to be very clear that we should not commit the general public to fund these proposals completely open-endedly. We are saying in these amendments that should there be a cost overrun or a time overrun, the Secretary of State should seek an increase in the agreed revenue ceiling without further recourse to customer funds. That may be by producing bonds or it may be by further state funding if that is the choice the Government wish to make, but they should not increase the ceiling for customers to pay exponentially at the same time.
These are very simple and straightforward amendments saying that, should there be such cost overruns or time overruns and there is a suggested further call on customer bills through RAB, the Secretary of State will have to think of something else to fund the system. Let us be clear that, with the RAB arrangements at the moment, it is suggested, I think very optimistically, there will be an increase of about £10 to £20 in customer bills. That is a really current topic at the moment, but a cost overrun would substantially increase such a levy on customer bills, and we just think that should not be part of the RAB arrangements for the future.
The third set of changes we wish to put in place are to part 3 of the Bill, which sets out what should happen and what arrangements should be in place if a company, despite all the investment from the public in the construction of a nuclear power plant, essentially goes bust. In this part, the Government have in effect lifted the provision in the Energy Act 2011 for a special administration regime. Again, that is rather current because it is precisely such a special administration regime that was used to rescue Bulb Energy when it went bust a little way ago. It was placed in such a regime under the 2011 Act—the wording is identical to that in this Bill—to allow it to continue trading for the time being, subject to the company being disposed of.
However, I would suggest that a nuclear power plant the size of Sizewell C, for example, is not remotely the same as an energy company the size of Bulb. It would be quite possible to dispose of Bulb or disperse its customers according to the special administration regime, but that would not be the case for a large nuclear power station. We are saying in amendment 5 that there should be an additional backstop so that, in the circumstances of a special administration regime, it would not be possible to pass the company on—to sell it on or to reintroduce it as a going concern through allocation to a subsidiary—and that the Government should have a plan to introduce a public company to take it over, provided it is working as a nuclear power station. That would not be the case—some Members may think the amendment means this—if the power station could not continue because the reactor head had exploded or the power plant was otherwise non-operational. If it is an operational power plant, we think that such a backstop should be available.
Hon. Members have mentioned what I think is the salutary case of the North Carolina energy plant that was conceived under RAB arrangements, or something very similar. Some $9 billion of customer money went into that plant, but the plant went bust, not because it was not operational, but because it was unfinanceable. Customers lost $9 billion of money, and there is no power station at the moment.
John Redwood
Is it not the case that, if the Government in power are faced with a big financial disaster from a very large project going horribly wrong and the company going bust, they will need flexibility to make the best decisions they can in the interests of the taxpayers and customers at the time, and it is quite difficult for us to pre-think that and embed it clearly in law?
Dr Whitehead
That is precisely why we wish to put in the Bill that there should be a direction in which the Government should go. Of course they should have flexibility in how they work, but we think this is an important backstop that will ensure customers do not lose their shirts in a company that goes bust after they have invested large amounts of money in its operation.
We will seek to divide the House on amendments 2 and 3 in the absence of any clear further Government commitments today in relation to. We may well be minded to support amendment 9, tabled by the SNP, should that also be put to a Division. However, I emphasise that we are happy to support the Bill overall. We want it to go through Third Reading, but we would like it to be strengthened as much as it can be by the addition of the amendments we have put forward today.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
First, may I minute my condolences on the death of Jack Dromey? I shared his 12 years here and he made an enviable contribution to the House. Particular condolences to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman).
I am thankful for the excellent contributions we have heard today, and over the past few weeks during the passage of the Bill through the House, from Members throughout the House. I will attempt to address all Members’ comments and explain why the Government do not believe that today’s amendments should be accepted.
I turn first to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for the SNP, regarding the special administration regime, but before I deal with his amendments, let me reflect a little bit on the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). The SNP, as we know, is talking today about transparency, but its real agenda is a hardcore anti-civil nuclear power agenda. This comes, ironically, just a few days after the closure of the Hunterston power station, which had its life extended by two decades beyond what was predicted and provided 31 years—31 years—of zero-carbon electricity to every home in Scotland. The Bill would make things cheaper, but I do not think that the SNP has got Scotland’s best interests at heart here for Scottish electricity or Scottish consumers.
Nuclear power has been a massive success story in Scotland, which is what I hope the Bill will also enable. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, would severely risk the effectiveness of the special administration regime by delaying the speed at which an administrator could access funding to continue a nuclear RAB project construction or a plant’s generation of electricity. That could result in significant sunk costs for consumers and is not in the public interest.
I will turn now to Labour amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), while responding to some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member and I are aligned in our concern that foreign investment in our critical infrastructure should not come at the cost of national security. However, I want to be clear that the Bill is not about decisions on individual future projects; it is about widening the pool of potential investors and financing while reducing our reliance on state-owned developers to build new nuclear power stations. As the House is aware, we have committed to taking at least one project to final investment decision in this Parliament, subject to value for money and all relevant approvals. We are in active negotiations on the proposed project at Sizewell C. The hon. Member argued that the approval of Hinkley Point C would inexorably lead to the approval of other projects. That is simply not the case. Decisions on nuclear projects in this country are made on a case-by-case basis, and subject to a number of robust approvals from both Government and independent regulators.
Greg Hands
I am not going to take an intervention. I will respond to the debate first.
Whatever the intent of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test with amendments 1 and 2—this is the crux of the argument, ably pointed out in interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester—they could rule out many companies from investing in new projects under a RAB model. The RAB model is designed to bring in new investment, but in my view and in the view of the Government, his amendment would severely restrict who could invest. It could extend to some of our closest international partners. My advice is that EDF itself would be very much in scope, or at least it would be arguable in court as being in scope, of his amendment. It could also mean the rejection of huge amounts of potential investment from bodies such as major sovereign wealth funds of friendly or allied countries.
I am sure that the hon. Member’s intent does not lie in that direction, as that could make it much harder to bring new projects to fruition, and the purpose of the RAB model is to find new investors. We also need to maintain resilience in our fuel supply chain, referred to in amendment 2. I put on record my visit to Springfields recently to give the UK Government’s support, including funding announced in the spending review recently, to make sure that we have that flexibility.
Alan Brown
Will the Minister explain why he does not want to put forward a report that explains the public funding that is allocated to a project? I do not understand why that would be so difficult for him.
Greg Hands
We think those processes are already in place, and it is right that this should be a commercial decision and negotiation, but with transparency. We think the balance in the legislation as proposed currently meets that.
On amendment 9, also tabled by the SNP, the additional reporting obligations are unhelpful and unworkable. The requirement to publish up-front capital costs of a project could jeopardise our ability to complete a complex and lengthy capital raise. The amendment’s requirement to publish the floor price is simply not workable. In the context of a RAB model, there is no minimum floor price, and nuclear companies’ allowed revenues are determined by the economic regulator throughout the life of a plant.
Greg Hands
No, I will not. I will try to respond to the debate.
Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by Labour, address how additional costs beyond the financing cap could be paid for. I agree that any RAB scheme must have adequate protections in place for consumers. However, given the size and importance of a new nuclear project, there must be a mechanism in place, with appropriate protections, to allow additional capital to be raised to ensure completion of a project where the financing cap is likely to be exceeded. The amendments proposed by the official Opposition would nullify the ability to be flexible. We are making sure that we do not have to go down that course to carry out robust due diligence on the project in the first place, having learned from existing and current projects to set a robust estimate of project cost.
SNP amendments 7 and 8 refer to reporting requirements. Planned outages at nuclear power stations may happen for a variety of reasons, and it is right that they are governed by the amount of time required to complete the maintenance—the actual cause of the outage in many cases—rather than the arbitrary time limit set out in the SNP’s amendment. Both the Office for Nuclear Regulation and National Grid already work closely with nuclear operators with regard to outages and availability, and they should do so independently of the Government. Nevertheless, I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that we are aiming to design the RAB regime so that the nuclear company is incentivised to maintain availability.
I turn now to amendment 5, tabled by Labour. It deals with situations whereby a RAB project
“cannot be rescued as a going concern”,
having entered special administration. Of course, I share the wish of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that the special administration regime should protect consumer interests, but the amendment could have the impact of damaging those interests. We expect the insolvency of a nuclear RAB company to be a highly unlikely event. However, there may be even rarer circumstances within this where it is actually in the best interests of both consumers and taxpayers to discontinue the project, and for it to be safely decommissioned—for example, if a safety fault, which is very unlikely, discovered at a plant made it, in practical terms, inoperable. It is important that the Secretary of State retains the discretion to act in whichever way can achieve the best outcomes for consumers or taxpayers during the insolvency of a relevant licensee nuclear company, and the Opposition’s amendment would remove this discretion.
Finally, I would like to discuss amendment 10, tabled by the SNP. It is important to make it clear that special administration is a court-administered procedure and that the nuclear administrator is an appointee of the court. There is already an appropriate level of transparency through the court process for the transfer.
I will now deal with other points raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked about new supply, particularly in relation to gas, which is not on the face of the Bill. I can tell him that six new gas fields came on stream in the last quarter of the last year: Arran, Columbus, Finlaggan, Tolmount, Blythe and Elgood. It is not the case that there are no new gas fields coming on stream. Gas is, of course, heavily incentivised at present, simply by the price, for there to be more extraction. According to the developers’ estimates, Hinkley Point C could be online or start to come online as early as 2026. However, my right hon. Friend is right that we need to think ahead. I should Make it clear that I welcome the official Opposition’s support for the Bill overall, but let us not forget that awful 1997 Labour manifesto, which said:
“We see no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations”—
not just state-owned nuclear power stations, as my right hon. Friend said. Hinkley Point is being built, and an amazing job has been done to keep that construction work going through the pandemic. Our nuclear industry deserves congratulations.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said that we should be rolling out renewable energy. That is exactly what we are doing. We have massively expanded our offshore wind power, and we are quadrupling it over the next decade. I think she said that Germany did not have any wind, but it has a target of 30 GW of offshore wind. There is a lot of wind in Germany. I know that she is from Hanover, which is a long way from the sea, but there is even a famous film—it is one of the best German films—called “Mit dem Wind nach Westen”, which is all about wind carrying people in balloons from east Germany to west Germany. There is most definitely wind in Germany.
Greg Hands
No, I will not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who described herself as one of the original atomic kittens—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) is the other one—gave a passionate speech in favour of civil nuclear power. She is right that the Bill is all about financing, making cheaper and alternative sources of finance.
Again, I welcome the Opposition’s support for the Bill, but the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) was wrong to point the finger of delay at the Government. I should point out the 1997 Labour party manifesto and how nothing happened for 13 years. Hinkley Point C is now being built.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) made a fantastic speech. He was quite right that the Bill’s purpose is to reduce dependence on foreign developers. He is right that we are not in a perfect position when it comes to energy or to nuclear power, but the Bill will significantly improve that position by creating options and establishing expertise for us to go forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made important points about Northern Ireland. I speak to Gordon Lyons quite often, and obviously Northern Ireland has a special status for energy and electricity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester made a fantastic speech and fantastic interventions. I am sure that his hub of expertise in Gloucester will come in incredibly useful, and I of course agree to visiting it.
I turn finally to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). Bradwell, which has been a successful site in Britain’s civil nuclear experience, is at a very early stage of development and not a decision for now. Of course, in terms of the future of the site, the Bill is not site-specific; it is all about financing.
This has been an excellent, wide-ranging debate and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
Greg Hands
No, I am winding up now. For the reasons that I have set out, I cannot accept the amendments tabled and therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members not to press them. I hope that I have nevertheless shown that our aims are closely aligned for Britain’s brilliant nuclear renaissance, and the Bill will be a key part of that. I urge the House to reject new clause 1 and amendments 1 to 10.
Alan Brown
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Key definitions for Part 1
Amendment proposed: 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(6) ‘Owned by a foreign power’ means owned by a company controlled by a foreign state and operating for investment purposes.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
This amendment is a definition of “foreign power” set out in Amendment 2.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to start by following right hon. and hon. Members in paying my respects to the late Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). His constituency has lost a dedicated public servant and a real champion of local industry. I am sure that all our thoughts are with his wife and his family.
Civil nuclear power has worked for this country and it works for consumers, but we all know that the existing financing scheme has led to too many foreign nuclear developers walking away from projects, setting our nuclear industry back a number of years. While the contract for difference model was right for Hinkley Point C, the lack of alternative funding models has contributed significantly to the cancellation of recent potential large-scale projects, including Hitachi’s project at Wylfa and Toshiba’s project at Moorside. We urgently need a new approach to attract capital into the sector, and therefore we are introducing the new nuclear RAB model, which will deliver nuclear projects at a lower cost for consumers.
This new funding model is a win-win for nuclear and for our country. Not only will we be able to encourage greater diversity of private investment; we will also be able through this mechanism to lower the cost of financing new nuclear power and reduce costs commensurately to consumers and to businesses. New nuclear is absolutely essential if we are to have security of energy supply and diversity to ensure resilience.
We have heard from MPs across the House about how the nuclear industry in their constituencies has created and will create jobs—from Wylfa to Hartlepool to Hinkley. All those hon. Members are powerful advocates in this place for the future of the nuclear industry. Thanks to the Bill and other steps we are taking, I firmly believe that we are at the beginning of a new age, a new renaissance, of nuclear energy in the UK.
We have already made a commitment to bring at least one further large-scale nuclear project to final investment decision by the end of this Parliament, subject of course to value for money and relevant approvals. We are also creating not only an ability to invest in large-scale nuclear but a £120 million future nuclear enabling fund to tackle barriers to deploying new nuclear technologies. I am particularly pleased to refer to the fact that we have committed £210 million to back Rolls-Royce’s plan to deploy small modular reactors.
Jonathan Edwards
The one thing that perplexes me about this Bill is that it is for nuclear only. If the RAB model is the way forward, why is it not also available for other technologies, such as tidal?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions tidal, because for the first time, I think, in the history of the technology—in the history of the world—this Government committed to supporting tidal stream only last year. I am pleased that he should support that initiative.
I would like to make a few brief comments on some of the key themes that the debate has covered. One of the Labour party’s amendments would have put investment in new nuclear in the deep freeze. It would have prohibited investment from abroad. The very purpose of the Bill is not only to reduce the UK’s reliance on overseas developers for finance, but to widen—and this is often overlooked—the pool of potential investors, including British institutional investors and investors from some of our closest allied countries. That is why we rejected the Opposition amendment and why we feel that the Bill broadens our ability to finance new projects. The amendment would have ruled out many companies and prevented like-minded allies such as Canada, Norway and Singapore, with their large pools of capital, from being able to invest in our industry.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this Bill. There is absolutely no doubt that nuclear provides the zero-carbon baseload that we need in our transition to net zero, and this is really going to help, so many congratulations to him.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. The House will know that she and I worked very closely in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and she was one of the first in the new Parliament to realise the key importance of nuclear. I pay tribute to the work that she, among others, did to drive this agenda. Clearly, this Bill is timely because, as she said, we cannot reach net zero without a substantial commitment to nuclear.
John Redwood
Will the Secretary of State give some indication of how long it might take to prove and put into a working model the small nuclear technology, if all went well?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the small modular reactors cannot be brought onstream in the next few months, but with the right investment and the right incentives, all this technology can be brought onstream very quickly. I cannot say that it will be five years or 10 years, but it will be brought onstream and will help us to reach the decarbonising targets that we have set ourselves.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I must make progress—forgive me.
Since the publication of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan in November 2020, £6 billion of new investment has already poured into the energy sector—just in a period of barely 15 months. It was notable at the global investment summit in October last year that a further £9.7 billion-worth of deals was announced. Foreign investment is particularly eager to help to finance our way to net zero. But I have to state that foreign investment must not come at the expense of our national security. That is precisely why the National Security and Investment Act 2021 was introduced to safeguard our key strategic industries.
The final issue that we have debated is the necessity of ensuring that there is adequate protection for consumers. With this approach, private investors will be given greater certainty through a lower and more reliable rate of return, but that will, in turn, lower the cost of financing projects and ultimately, in the medium term, help sharply to reduce consumer electricity bills. To protect consumers, the Government will of course put any potential projects through a rigorous due diligence process, allowing detailed scrutiny of a project’s cost along with its delivery plans. The RAB regime will be designed to incentivise the company to deliver the project to time and to budget.
Britain once led the world with our civil nuclear industry, and we fully intend to clear a path to leadership and innovation in this critically important piece of infrastructure.
Alan Brown
If there is such a desire for investment, why was £1.7 billion allocated in the last Budget just to develop this project to final investment stage? What are we getting for that £1.7 billion of taxpayers’ money?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We all know that the hon. Gentleman’s party is against nuclear, but we also appreciate that the comprehensive spending review that he alluded to was all about ensuring our commitment in the 10-point plan to at least one further final investment decision before the end of the Parliament, and that is the sum of money that we have allocated to ensuring that that happens.
I look forward to following the progress of this Bill and pursuing our plan for greater nuclear investment, greater resilience and greater affordability in our energy mix. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Dr Whitehead
The Bill, as its title suggests, is about how to finance nuclear power. We know that the Climate Change Committee has indicated that some nuclear power is needed in the future as part of an overwhelmingly renewable energy mix. The Bill is therefore important in ensuring that we get at least the next, and only, nuclear power plant that can generate power by the early 2030s in place and developing, as the prospects of a new plant elsewhere seem bleak.
We welcome the arrangements that the Bill will make for financing nuclear power. We need to remember that there has been a 10-year hiatus, during a time of Conservative Government, in bringing forward any nuclear power, so the Bill is welcome, but overdue. We hope that with the RAB model in place, Sizewell C will be able to reach financial closure and go ahead.
We ought to understand both the advantages and possible problems of a RAB model, in the context of the people who will fund it from their bills. Although RAB has been used for other projects, a RAB model of the size and scale needed for Sizewell C has never been attempted. We urge the Government to be very careful about how they deploy the RAB model in terms of the customer interest, to not just regard customers as a milch cow for overruns or time delays in nuclear power for the future, and to ensure that the customer contribution is properly regarded as far as nuclear power development is concerned. We think the Government should pay closer attention to customer involvement in RAB, particularly because, on this occasion, the customer is funding the nuclear plant before, and not after, it develops. Careful stewardship and close custody of how that RAB model is used is vital.
The question of ownership of plant is important for UK national security. Although the Government have rejected our amendments about foreign influenced or owned investment in nuclear power in the future, we all know what that is actually about—the role of China and the Chinese state nuclear corporation, the China General Nuclear Power Corporation, in Sizewell C, and the possibility of them owning the nuclear power plant at Bradwell in the future. Despite the Government’s bluster, we know the arrangement is now in place for that development to succeed. Is that a wise way to go with nuclear power in the future, we ask?
We consider it imperative that the Government are clear about what they think about Chinese involvement in the very near future, and that they plot a clear course whereby this RAB investment is not the vehicle for the realisation of China’s developing and owning a nuclear plant in the UK, with all the security implications that has. I urge the Government to come forward at an early stage with clarity on what they consider to be the future for that arrangement. As the Secretary of State knows, that was not arranged on his watch, but in 2013 to 2016, before he was a Minister. I hope he will be able to cast an eye over the arrangement, with a view to the future that he has set out today.
With my party being in favour of nuclear power, I repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) about the £1.7 billion in the Red Book at the last Budget for the completion of the project. Is it about buying off China? Is it about developing this project? Is it about funding further nuclear power for the future? We have no clarity at all, as we have only one line on that investment, which is not good enough. We need much more clarity for the future.
The health and welfare of Springfields is vital to this development, as it could be and should be supplying nuclear fuel rods to the new plant, and we hope the Government will look carefully and sympathetically at the future of that company, because the delivery of British fuel rods to a British nuclear reactor is very important for the future. It is vital that the Government do not allow the company to slip away under their watch when its contribution could be so important to the future of nuclear power in the UK.
Overall, we see much to support in this Bill and believe that, properly executed, its provisions will be able to establish a viable way forward for UK nuclear power. We therefore wish to support its Third Reading.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
We have two nuclear power stations in my constituency. I cannot say how glad I am to hear the news that the Bill will proceed, and I am elated that the shadow Minister has endorsed it. I have been talking about it for many years, and this is a great day.
I remember the coalition era, when private enterprise had to fund nuclear power, and now we are taking steps to safeguard our own energy supply and, more to the point, to safeguard jobs in my constituency, because we have two nuclear power stations that are due to cease production within the next decade. This is £40 million to my local economy and jobs—nuclear is the largest employer in my constituency. I wholeheartedly back this Bill.
Alan Brown
Unlike the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), I do not support the Bill, which may come as a surprise to some.
The basis of the Bill, as outlined by the Secretary of State, is that the Government recognise market failure in nuclear power, with Hitachi and Toshiba walking away from the sites they were developing. It is interesting that the Government now admit what we have said all along, which is that Hinkley Point C is a bad deal for bill payers. The Secretary of State dresses it up as being the right deal at the right time but, if we look at the impact assessment, it says the new RAB model could save up to £80 billion. By default, the impact assessment is telling us that the Government believe the model for Hinkley Point C cost bill payers an additional £30 billion to £80 billion.
Looking at the 35-year contract for Hinkley Point C, this means the Government are now telling us that bill payers will pay an additional £1 billion to £2 billion every year of that 35-year contract if Hinkley Point C starts generating electricity. That is a disgraceful waste of money.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a good point about the waste of money. It sounds like he agrees with my constituent Maureen from Kelvingrove, who says she believes
“the money being poured into this would be better spent on smaller scale more local solutions such as tide, wind, solar, hydro…and of course the key to it all, energy storage.”
Does my hon. Friend agree?
Alan Brown
I agree wholeheartedly, and I said earlier that the £1.7 billion allocated for the final investment stage of Sizewell C could deliver two pumped-storage hydro schemes in Scotland—two schemes that provide dispatchable energy when it is required.
My other big concern about the Bill and the RAB model itself is that the savings will not accrue and, worse, bill payers will carry too much of the construction risk. We keep hearing how successful the RAB model has been for other infrastructure projects, but nobody can demonstrate that it is proven to work for delivering nuclear power stations. As we discussed earlier, the examples from the United States suggest otherwise. Abandoned projects are costing bill payers billions of dollars, including $9 billion for the abandoned South Carolina project.
At the present time, in the here and now, we have a cost of living crisis, so it is absolutely scandalous to commit an estimated £50 billion to £60 billion in capital and finance costs and pass those on to bill payers. The Government tell us that is only £10 per household over the construction period, but what they do not tell us is how much more it will be when the 60-year RAB model contract kicks in.
We are in a bizarre situation where the trade body Energy UK supports the RAB model while arguing that consideration needs to be given to the removal of levies from our existing electricity bills due to the impact on the cost of living crisis. That is contradictory. Why support a payment mechanism with contractual payments of some 70 to 75 years being added to our bills during the current energy price crisis? E.ON has confirmed that it opposes such a move, and particularly the concept of bill payers starting to foot the bill as soon as construction commences.
Instead, if we retrofitted 11 million homes with energy efficiency measures, it is estimated that peak heat demand could fall by 40%. That is where the Government should start the targeted investment. We do need to consider whether we need new nuclear at all, and therefore whether we need this Bill or alternative funding mechanisms. Of the eight existing power stations, Dungeness went offline last year, seven years early; Hunterston B has now stopped production; Hinkley Point B will stop later this year; and Heysham and Hartlepool will stop in 2024. So five of the existing eight stations will be down by 2024, way before Hinkley will be up and running.
If nuclear is so critical to baseload, how will we live without it for these years? It actually undermines the Government’s own argument, particularly when we realise how often nuclear power stations go down and outages need to be managed. The wind might not be blowing and the power stations might go down as well, so what is the answer then? That is why we need investment in alternative renewables.
Worse still, the proposed EPR model developed at Hinkley looks set to be used at Sizewell. There is no functioning EPR model anywhere in the world. Taishan in China is still shut down, and according to a French whistleblower more fuel rods are damaged than China has acknowledged. Indeed, at Flamanville in France, which is already predicted to be 12 years behind, construction has stopped again because the French nuclear authorities are investigating a possible flaw in the EPR design. Surely this Government would not be so daft as to sign a new nuclear contract with an EPR design that has still not been shown to work.
This Bill represents the wrong priorities for the Government. Instead of mitigating the cost of living crisis and the cost of energy crisis, they are looking to compound the misery by adding further burdens on bill payers. I know that the Labour party has said that it will support the Bill, but I strongly recommend that it reconsiders its position, given the commitment of £50 billion to £60 billion in capital and finance costs being added for bill payers. We do not require another Tory white elephant nuclear project. I will certainly be voting against it.
John Redwood
I wish the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Bill every success. I think we might call this Secretary of State brave, because experience tells us that it is extremely difficult to land one of these really big projects and keep it to time and budget, and it is extremely difficult to get agreement to cheaper power. I am delighted that Ministers are motivated by the wish to have both more reliable generating capacity and more affordable power. Those are two excellent objectives of energy policy.
However, I fear that what I have learned from this debate, and from previous debates like it, are these things. First, we are going to have less nuclear power in 2030 than we have today, whatever Ministers do—they are prisoners of their inheritance. Secondly, it will be difficult signing up big projects in particular, or getting smaller projects that are available and working in good time so that there is more nuclear, rather than less, in the decade that follows, and it will be difficult securing that at prices that customers think are good.
In the meantime, we have the problem that, on a typical day, we are already 10% import dependent for our electricity—I think it should all be generated in the UK—and that we are very dependent on the sun shining and the wind blowing, but the wind not blowing too much. When those things did not happen towards the end of last year, we had to reopen three old coal plants. People would rather not have to burn coal, but coal stations were reliable and actually worked when the wind did not blow and the sun did not shine. If the plan is to close them down and make them unavailable in future before we have anything else as a good stand-by, we will be trying the patience of the international community and trying our own luck rather too far.
I urge the Secretary of State, on the back of this Bill, to consider ways of increasing reliable power for this coming decade—the decade that we are living in and that we will be battling over in immediate elections to come—because that is what will matter to our voters. We should have in mind security of supply, availability of supply and affordability as the crucial things that we need to take care of so that we do not have a self-imposed energy crisis. Linking us into the European system is not a secure thing to do, because those countries are chronically short of reliable green power. Poland and Germany are in the middle of trying to phase out coal and lignite. Germany is in the middle of phasing out nuclear altogether. France needs to think about replacements for its ageing nuclear fleet and it is chronically short of gas, which is a sensible transition fuel, so it needs to rely on Putin and Russia.
Wera Hobhouse
We talk again and again in this House about Britain being a global leader. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Britain could be a global leader in renewable energy? We are not making the most of the areas in which we could be a global leader, which are renewable energy from tidal, wave and offshore and onshore wind power.
John Redwood
I would be delighted to see a mixture of renewables, so that the reliability issue is taken care of. The problem with wind is that it is erratic. In the industrial revolution, people tended to prefer water power over wind power because it was a bit more reliable. The hon. Lady must understand that, like me, she is answerable to constituents who will expect the lights to stay on throughout this decade and will expect electricity and gas and other main energy sources to be affordable and available. The danger is that, if we do not do more to expand our capacity of the transition fuels as well as working on improving and increasing renewables, we will not be able to guarantee the crucial features of a good energy policy: availability and affordability. So, yes, fine to the Bill, but it is about the 2030s. We need also to think about the 2020s.
Mark Jenkinson
We have heard a lot today about offshore wind and how it could be the saviour of our energy system. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the levelised cost of energy of our largest offshore wind farm last year was £140 per megawatt-hour, which is twice the price of nuclear energy, if not more?
John Redwood
I have learned enough about energy to know that people produce figures that suit their case. I agree with my hon. Friend that we can say that wind energy is a lot dearer than its advocates suggest. It depends on whether we cost out the back-up power and the back-up arrangements. Obviously, once the windmills are turning they deliver very cheap power, but there is a lot of sunk cost to take care of, and we do need to account somehow for the cost of the alternative when the wind does not blow. We would need to do quite a lot of homework, and probably not in a Third Reading debate, to crack what exactly is the true cost of wind power.
I urge Ministers to think again about availability and affordability now as well as their nuclear ideas.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I rise tonight to put on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and to the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for the support they have shown to Springfields nuclear fuels, which is located in my constituency. I did a Westminster Hall debate a few months ago to highlight the importance of Springfields. It is the only nuclear fuel manufacturer in the UK, and it contains some of the most highly skilled people in the world when it comes to nuclear fuel design and manufacture. Part of that site is also the National Nuclear Laboratory. This is integral to the future of UK energy security and the next generation in the UK nuclear story.
I really want to thank the Government for everything they are doing and continuing to do. I know how hard they are working to secure the future of that plant and its workforce and to ensure that Springfields has an incredibly important part to play in the future. Let us be in no doubt that those of us on the Government Benches have always been committed to nuclear. We have not always pushed it as far forward as I would have liked, but no one can doubt the efforts the Government are making to ensure that nuclear plays an incredibly important part in Britain’s industrial renaissance and in our low carbon journey. I will support this Bill on Third Reading.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Charter for Budget Responsibility and Welfare Cap
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 206 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 54 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I beg to move,
That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2021 update, which was laid before this House on 5 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this we will take the following motion:
That the level of the welfare cap, as specified in the Autumn Budget and Spending Review 2021, which was laid before this House on 27 October 2021, be approved.
Mr Clarke
The charter for budget responsibility is, at its core, about fiscal responsibility. Its existence is born of the belief that stable public finances are the foundation for building a stronger economy for the whole country. Its purpose is to set out the Government’s approach to managing the nation’s finances openly so that the British people know that their money is being handled carefully and to give us a credible framework for action, underpinned by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which the OECD remarked is considered by many as a “model independent fiscal institution”.
Given the challenges that we currently face, hon. Members may reasonably ask whether this is the appropriate time for such a debate, but the credibility of the Government’s fiscal plan is what has allowed us to act as we have and will allow us to act again if we need to. In other words, we are updating the charter not simply for the sake of it, but to maintain what the Chancellor called at the Budget
“the path of discipline and responsibility”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 275.]
Almost two years ago, in the face of the pandemic, we took bold and decisive action to commit unprecedented amounts of public money to support jobs and businesses across the UK. That, including the support recently announced in response to the omicron variant, has helped to prevent long-term scarring to the British economy. The International Monetary Fund praised our
“impressive, coordinated, and extended policy response”,
while the OBR said that the costs of inaction would have been far higher.
The Government are proud of the decisions that we have taken, and that we continue to take, but we are not complacent. The pandemic has left us with the highest level of borrowing since the second world war and, at nearly 100% of GDP, public debt will reach its highest level since the early 1960s. That is clearly not sustainable over the long term.
It is important to keep debt under control for three key reasons. First, our level of debt means that we are more vulnerable to changes of interest rates and to inflation. In fact, OBR analysis from July found that our sensitivity of debt interest spending to changes in interest rates is almost twice what it was before the pandemic. A single percentage point increase in interest rates and inflation would increase annual spending on debt interests by over £20 billion in 2024-25, which is more than the entire Home Office budget for that year.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend comment on what difference, if any, he thinks it makes that a significant proportion of that debt is now owned by the Bank of England, which is 100% owned by the Government on behalf of the taxpayers?
Mr Clarke
The Bank of England has obviously helped to underpin our wider response to the crisis that we face. Clearly, it does have a bearing on the relevant significance of debt, but it would be simply irresponsible to leave ourselves exposed in the manner in which we risk being if we fail to constrain the borrowing, which risks otherwise becoming an unacceptable burden and which would leave us very vulnerable. A 1% rise in interest rates would cost the Exchequer £22.8 billion in 2025-26. That is a meaningful level of exposure and one which we want to take action to address.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
To help the Minister, would he not also point out that, under this Government, the Bank of England has reduced the proportion of new debt issuances, which are attached to rising inflation rates? So at least, due to the actions of the Bank of England over the past two or three years, that exposure has declined.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are certainly not saying that we are in an untenable situation, but we are saying that it is important to meet our fiscal rules and to get debt falling as a percentage of GDP. As Conservatives, we believe that and we have won elections four times in the past 12 years on that basis. It is important that we continue to uphold that.
John Redwood
Further to that point, is my right hon. Friend not quoting a gross figure for the impact of a rise in interest rates, and quite a bit of that would be credited back to the Bank of England, which, in turn, could pay it back as a dividend to the Treasury?
Mr Clarke
I think it remains the case that we need to make sure that our debt-to-GDP ratio is more sustainable than it is at present, and I do not think colleagues would significantly demur from that. I take the point that, obviously, there is an interaction—some of these interactions are of a relatively circular nature—between the Bank and Exchequer, but none the less, it is important that we control our public debt. Indeed, we were able to respond to the pandemic as comprehensively as we did precisely because of the fiscal space created since 2010. The fact that we faced two once-in-a-generation shocks in just over a decade highlights why we must have the buffers to provide support when it is needed most and why we must act to rebuild those buffers, so that we are ready for any future shocks. In its most recent “Fiscal risks report”—not an easy one to splutter out—the OBR said:
“In the absence of perfect foresight, fiscal space may be the single most valuable risk management tool”
that we have.
The third and final reason we need to keep our debt under control is simple: our public finances are the legacy we leave for future generations, and the decisions we take now will have a material impact on the lives and livelihoods of our grandchildren. They will help or hinder their future ability to tackle long-term challenges, from climate change to an ageing population, or indeed to seize the opportunities that lie ahead.
The charter for budget responsibility contains new fiscal rules to guide us back to fiscal sustainability in a fair and responsible way. The rules will ensure that we get debt down over the medium term. They will allow us to deliver a significant uplift in capital investment, in turn driving economic prosperity, but without burdening future generations with borrowing to fund our day-to-day spending. The new rules require that underlying public sector net debt, excluding the impact of the Bank of England, must as a percentage of GDP be falling. The current budget must be in balance, which means that everyday spending must be paid for through taxation. Both rules must be met by the third year of every forecast period, giving us the flexibility to respond to events in the near term, such as omicron, while credibly keeping the public finances under control.
Finally, a third rule will ensure that public sector net investment does not exceed 3% of GDP on average over the forecast period. This rule will allow the Government to deliver on our ambitious plans for investment over this Parliament, with the highest sustained levels of PSNI as a proportion of GDP since the late 1970s. With this rule, we are delivering on plans to invest more than £600 billion in gross public sector investment over this Parliament to spread prosperity across the UK. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund is part of that. An unprecedented investment package of £5.7 billion for eight English city regions to transform their local transport networks is also part of it. On top of these commitments, the UK Infrastructure Bank is now open for business and is expected to support more than £40 billion of infrastructure investment. Crucially, the rule also mitigates the risk of increasing debt to an unsustainable level. Our fiscally responsible approach supports growth while keeping debt under control.
Combined, these rules will guide responsible decision making. The International Monetary Fund has noted that
“Countries that have followed a debt rule have typically managed to reverse a jump in debt...significantly faster than other countries”,
and it recently assessed that the
“new fiscal rules have anchored fiscal policy well”.
Thanks to our support for the economy and early responsible decisions to strengthen our public finances, in its October forecast, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the rules were met. The current budget is in surplus and underlying debt is forecast to fall in the current target year, 2024-25. The rules will guide fiscal policy for at least this Parliament and will be reviewed at the start of each Parliament to ensure they reflect the economic context and mean that we can deliver for the British people.
In addition to the rules in this charter, we will go further, becoming one of the first countries to formally consider the broader public sector balance sheet in our management of fiscal policy. The OBR will now forecast broader measures, including public sector net worth, which it says provides a fuller picture of fiscal sustainability and allows for more sophisticated analysis.
The charter also retains the welfare cap in order to keep welfare spending on a sustainable path and to support the other rules in strengthening the public finances. Since the cap was last set at Budget 2020, the covid pandemic has had a significant impact on the medium-term outlook for welfare spending. To reflect that and to align with the updated fiscal framework, the level of the cap is being reset in line with the latest forecast. That leads to an effective increase of £10.5 billion in the cap by 2024-25.
Richard Fuller
I would like the Chief Secretary to educate me a little bit, because what I cannot appreciate is the impact of covid on welfare expenditure. In the short term, I can understand why that would be significant, but why does that move forward into the medium term, when one would anticipate that the economy is recovering and we have demand for people to go back into employment?
Mr Clarke
The reality is that much of what we have put in place—this has been a £400 billion response—will take time to filter through the economy and out the other side. Clearly we expect some of it to taper away, but there are large parts of the package that we have had to put in place to support lives and livelihoods that will undoubtedly take time to wash through the wider economic settlement. The welfare cap is designed to be an automatic stabiliser, but it is also partly a measure by which we can be held to account as a Government, because this is not like departmental spending; it is more akin to AME spending—it is not something where we can manage it in the usual way. Therefore it is important that by setting this cap, we give ourselves at least a benchmark against which our performance in managing those pressures can be measured by the end of the forecast period. It is vital to ensuring that we have a welfare system that provides fairness and accountability to the taxpayer and the House.
The updated charter delivers on our commitment to budget responsibility in a way that is appropriate to our current circumstances. I understand very well the concerns that hon. Members may have about inflation and rising prices. We have already introduced more measures to put money into people’s pockets—increasing the minimum wage and cutting the universal taper rate. Although we have had to take important steps to protect the NHS and safeguard our economy, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget
“my goal is to reduce taxes. By the end of this Parliament, I want taxes to be going down, not up.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 286.]
We want to reward innovation and hard work, as well as the sacrifices of the British people over the last two years. Our plan for stable public finances in the charter puts us in the best possible place to achieve this goal and to stay true to our Conservative ideals. Tonight, hon. Members have a clear choice—to vote for fiscal responsibility, a credible path back to sound public finances and a stronger economy for the British people, or to let slip the anchors and leave our economy vulnerable and adrift.
The charter balances flexibility to support the economy and our stated manifesto goals in the near term with stronger public finances in the medium to long term. It supports our vision for a stronger economy, levelling up across the UK through significant cash investment, and it safeguards a stable, prosperous future with a strong fiscal legacy for generations to come.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I begin by echoing the sentiments from Mr Speaker earlier following the death of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I knew Jack for many years, from his time as deputy general secretary of what was then the Transport and General Workers’ Union, and later as a colleague and fellow west midlands MP. He was a tough negotiator, always determined and loquacious, but pragmatic enough to reach a deal and stick to it. We are still in shock at Jack’s sudden death on Friday. We will miss him greatly, and my sincere condolences go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and their family.
On the motion, the Chancellor announced at the time of the Budget that he would bring this before the House. He made a big thing of it. At the time, we presumed that he would come along and display his credentials for fiscal probity. He probably thought that it was a clever move at the time, but it does not look so clever now. He has not even turned up for tonight’s debate. What happened? Where is he? When he was dishing out money, he was everywhere. We could not move for Instagram videos and pictures of his slippers or sliders, or whatever they are called. Now the crunch is coming, he is nowhere to be seen.
Was the Chancellor worried that if he turned up tonight he would be asked what he will do about the cost of living crisis facing the country? Is he avoiding the House because he has nothing to offer people facing rises in energy bills of hundreds of pounds a year? Why is it that he has done one of his disappearing acts again? He was not here last month when businesses were crying out for support as Christmas bookings were cancelled in their thousands, and he is not here again this month for what he once told us was a central plank of the Treasury’s strategy.
On the rules themselves, during the covid pandemic the Chancellor has had to borrow a great deal of money—approaching £400 billion extra. The pandemic was an emergency situation that required emergency measures. That is true in this country and around the world. Our fiscal rules, published at the time of our conference, take account of such emergency situations, because there is no point in having a set of fiscal rules that work only when times are good. Fiscal rules have to take account of all kinds of economic weather, and ours do exactly that. Crucially, our rules also allow for the investment plan needed for the transition to the lower carbon economy that we will need. The Government’s fiscal rules do neither of those things.
Indeed, when we look at what is happening in the economy right now and what families around the country face in the real world, we have to wonder what the point of this exercise is. Did the Chancellor really think that tabling this motion would take attention away from the fact that he is imposing the highest tax burden on the country for 70 years? The Tories have become a high-tax party because they are a low-growth party. They are asking the British people to stump up the cost of their economic record not for the one or two years of the pandemic but for the past 12 years. Projections from the Bank of England do not look any better, with forecasts for growth of about 1% in 2024. Does the Minister really think that, with this motion, people will not notice or remember that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have driven a coach and horses through one of their central manifesto promises on tax with the forthcoming rise in national insurance? Is he trying to cover up for the fact that, as families face a cost of living crisis with steep rises in energy bills, he has no plan to help them?
The Minister may not have a plan, but Labour does, and it was set out yesterday by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). Our plan would offer every family £200 off bills this year. It would give a further £400 off bills for those with the lowest incomes. It would help the energy-intensive industries on which so many good jobs rely. It would be paid for, in part, by a windfall levy on the companies making the most money out of the huge spike in gas prices. It is fair, it would help the poorest most and it is fully costed. That is what people need right now—not a reheated political stunt thought up by George Osborne a decade ago.
We have to wonder what the conversation was when this was thought to be some great political idea. Did they sit around in the Treasury and say, “We’ve borrowed £400 billion. We’re putting taxes up to levels not seen since the 1950s. We’ve wasted billions on failed programmes and dodgy contracts. But let’s have a parliamentary vote to show that we are really fiscally disciplined”? It will not wash. People are seeing through it.
You do not have to take my word for it. Only today, the head of the National Audit Office drew attention to the level of waste that the Government are presiding over. He wrote that
“many of the interventions carried out by government are either not evaluated robustly or not evaluated at all. This means government…has little information in most policy areas on what difference is made by the billions of pounds being spent.”
He added that only 8% of major Government projects “had robust evaluation plans”. Perhaps that is not surprising when we have seen £3.5 billion-worth of contracts handed out to businesses run by contacts of the Conservative party, and—the Minister and I debated this last Wednesday night—£17 billion in extra costs for the taxpayer, which the Government casually legislated for last Wednesday night to pay for their own mistake in messing up public sector pensions reform.
Where is the Government’s commitment to transparency, value for money or proper procurement practices in their fiscal rules? Did they forget to include those bits? Where is the commitment to tackling the level of fraud that has been exposed in Government lending schemes? Where is the commitment to controlling the Prime Minister’s pet schemes? How much was spent on the Prime Minister’s idea of building a bridge between Scotland and Ireland before the project was abandoned? The Chancellor should have known, because the Prime Minister has got form. He could not even build a garden bridge over the River Thames, let alone a bridge across the Irish sea.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am always glad to hear that bridge mentioned, because I did a second-year geography project at high school that could have told the Prime Minister it was a terrible idea. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given that was an infrastructure project for the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland, we should get the money that was committed to it?
Mr McFadden
I would like to know how much was committed to it. I hope the Minister clarifies that while he is wrapping up and telling us about fiscal probity.
But in the spirit of solidarity, I do have some sympathy with the Chancellor these days. It cannot be easy when his tax policies do not even have the support of his own Cabinet colleagues. The Leader of the House has made his views known. He has told all and sundry that he wants the tax rises coming in April to be cancelled and the Prime Minister has been too weak to do anything about this open breach of Cabinet discipline. Is it a free-for-all in Cabinet nowadays? Does every Cabinet member get to have their own tax policy? Have all the leadership campaigns destroyed whatever collective discipline there might once have been? The former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is not with us tonight, has even taken to using our argument about this Government resembling Ted Heath more than Margaret Thatcher. I know that is not how the Chancellor wanted to be remembered. He wanted to be regarded as a tax-cutting modern monetarist, a worshipper of the true Tory faith. But the real truth is that you cannot stand up and give a Budget that imposes the highest tax burden since the 1950s and then issue a disclaimer at the end of it. It is just not credible. It will not wash and nor will this motion today.
People want help with what they are facing now. The impending squeeze on family incomes in this country is going to take a battering ram to people’s standard of living. It is not just global factors; it is about years of regulatory neglect in the energy market that created a whole host of small energy Northern Rocks that have now had to be bailed out, and about the choices made by this Government through tax rises. Yes, there are global factors in the energy market, but the crisis has been made worse because of decisions and choices made by the Government.
We have published a plan to help people. This is a changed Labour party coming up with real answers to a real cost-of-living crisis faced by families today, and we are facing an exhausted Conservative party that has run out of answers and has sacrificed for ever the mantle of being the party of low taxation. Perhaps there is no greater evidence for that weariness than the fact that on the question households throughout the country are most worried about, how they are going to pay the bills this year, the Government have said nothing at all.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Let me return to the subject of the debate, the charter for budget responsibility. I will not follow the Opposition into a debate on the general state of the UK economy, which I am sure we will have other opportunities to discuss.
I see this as the Maastricht rules tribute debate. Every year under the Maastricht treaty, whether under Labour, coalition or Conservative Governments, we used to have a debate. We had to look at the two fiscal rules, which of course both came from the European Union: rule one was that the budget deficit had to be 3% of GDP or less; and rule two was that we had to either be below 60% of GDP with our state debt, or we had to show how we were going to get down to 60% of GDP with spending cuts or tax rises. The UK normally favoured the tax rise route, rather than the spending cut route.
That was characterised by the Opposition parties of the day, once the Conservatives or the coalition were in office, as austerity economics, although they would never accept that the cause of the austerity was the rules designed in Brussels. They would point out, when I made that point, that, “Oh well, because the UK is not a member of the euro there are not the same penalties imposed if the UK fails to comply.” The fact was, however, that the whole UK economic machine—Bank, Treasury and officialdom—believed they were very serious commitments and that, as they were treaty commitments, the UK had to keep to them. So when we finally got out of the EU, I was one of those voices saying to the Government, “Let’s scrap all that. Let’s not have those Maastricht tribute debates”—although I think we had one even after we left—“and let’s have our own UK framework.” That is what we should be debating tonight.
The Government have come up with a charter for budget responsibility, which I welcome, but reading the detail, it has a familiar ring to it. What are the two main rules in the charter? One is that we must keep the budget deficit down to 3% or below. It has been repackaged in relation to investment, but it is basically the 3% Maastricht budget deficit rule. The second rule is that, by the third year, debt should be falling as a percentage of GDP. Of course, our debt is well above 60%, and it will be quite a long time before we get back to 60%, if at all. It is now built into the framework as a regular review item, although it has the extra twist that it is a three-year average, so there is a bit more scope for flexing things.
I think we can do better than this Government. We could come up with an economic framework geared to the modern needs of an independent country, and I would suggest that our charter should embed two great aims of economic policy. The first aim that it should definitely embed is controlling inflation. It is right that the so-called independent Bank of England—this House regularly changes the rules and shows that it is actually in charge of the Bank of England—is charged with the duty of keeping inflation down to around 2% on average. I have no problem with that as a target, but the Government need to adopt it as a target as well, because as Ministers must well know, we cannot do all of the heavy lift through monetary policy—we cannot do it all through interest rates or quantitative easing. We also need to have a sensible fiscal policy.
Above all, the Government, who control such a huge chunk of the economy, need to manage their own affairs well, in terms of productivity, sensible real wage growth and so forth, and they have a duty to follow an anti-inflation strategy for the public sector directly under their control as a back-up to what the Bank and monetary policy are trying to do. I think that we should embed the inflation policy more firmly in the charter and that the Treasury should have to tell us how it is contributing to controlling inflation. It will be very topical this year, because clearly inflation is considerably above where we would all like it to be and there is no immediate sign that it is about to drop down, although I think it will drop down towards the end of the year, unless policy is particularly foolish.
The second criterion or objective that I would put in the charter is a growth objective. Labour made an entirely fair point by saying that what matters is growth. The faster the growth—as long as it is not inflationary—the more we would solve our deficit and debt problems. Our economy and our figures are incredibly sensitive to the growth rate. In the first half of the current financial year, we had very fast growth. It was a recovery phase and things were going fairly well from the covid lockdowns. As always, the OBR and the Treasury completely misjudged what favourable impact growth has, so they overstated the deficit for the first six months of the year by a whopping £50 billion. The deficit tumbled by £50 billion more, with no tax rises. But there was a huge tax rise—it was called tax on growth. More people went to work, and more people earned higher wages, bonuses or salaries. More people spent more money, so there was more VAT. So income tax receipts, VAT receipts and other receipts in the economy greatly outperformed the OBR and Treasury forecast, demonstrating that, if we can go for growth, we will make much better progress on the debt and deficit, which we need to do, than if we go for austerity economics, slowing the economy with tax rises and a too abrupt monetary deceleration.
I urge the Government to look again at whether they can improve on the objectives in the charter, to reflect on it and to see how an independent Britain can have a growth policy. If the Government established a growth target—they would not always hit it, but they could establish it—it would start to inform the actions of every Government Department that has a bearing on the strength of our economy, new jobs and all the rest of it. That is what we want. We want a Whitehall that is positive about Britain, not one that is trying to hold it back. We want a Whitehall that thinks Britain can achieve things—can invest here, have more jobs here and substitute for imports—rather than a negative Whitehall that says, “Gosh, there is too much borrowing, What can we cut? What can we tax? What can we stop?” We want less stopping and more positive going. We want more ability, generated by a growth policy, to show that an independent Britain can produce more of its own energy, grow more of its own food, catch more of its own fish, and make more of its own personal protective equipment and of its own medical requirements.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
That speech would perhaps have done even better with “Jerusalem” on in the background. The right hon. Gentleman speaks about growing more food, but can he tell me who is going to pick that food from our fields?
John Redwood
It will be picked by people paid decent wages, and if that requires wages to go up a bit, I have no problem with that. It will also be picked by the growing mechanisation of agriculture. Our agriculture is not as fully mechanised in a lot of farms as it is possible to do when there are better capitalised farms, like those that have been growing more food elsewhere. How pessimistic that was—why is the hon. Gentleman not proud of the United Kingdom, Scotland or wherever, thinking that we can achieve more and do more? Why do we always have to be stopping people doing things, and saying that nothing is going to work and so let us import all our vegetables from Spain, all our flowers from the Netherlands and all our energy from Russia, Germany or the Netherlands or wherever because we are not able to do it here in Britain? It is just not good enough. We have this huge opportunity. We have a very talented people. We have many natural resources. We have a perfectly good temperate climate for growing most of our own food. So, Government, get on with it. Having a growth target would help energise a Whitehall that still seems to be very disappointed in the country it is trying to govern and seems to be trying to hold it back.
One other thing that the Chief Secretary mentioned in his remarks, which is mentioned briefly in the text we are debating tonight, intrigues me. It says that balance-sheet items are being worked on but have not yet reached a state of development where they can be shared with the rest of us. How long does it take? Why do the officials to the Government not know the asset and net asset position for the country? I believe there are some figures we can get from public sources that show that we do have some guesses about all that, but is it not rather important that when we debate the state of the nation’s finances, we understand the balance sheet as well as the income account and that we know whether the public sector is adding value and long-term wealth or not? If it is, why do we not claim some credit for it? If it is not doing enough of that, we need to ask the difficult questions about the wisdom of the investments, the productivity of the schemes and all the things that go into making that a success.
I did ask the Chief Secretary about a balance-sheet item. I think it actually makes a difference if you have bought in your own debt, because you owe the debt to yourself. I am not asking for anything imprudent to be done. I understand why we have gone through this rather tortured process, as has the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve Board, and as, for many years, has the Bank of Japan. But we should not then fool ourselves into thinking that we have a worse problem than we have. The fact is that all these countries and currency areas spent a lot of money and created a lot of money to buy in debt over the pandemic, and we have got away with it, with a caveat that we have a little too much inflation. That debt is purchased; it is now both an asset as well as a liability of the state, so it is wrong to think that it is just a liability. The new argument is, “We owe the Bank of England and if the short rates go up, we owe the Bank of England more interest and so forth”. Yes, but it gets the receipt. If we want to do the transaction, the Treasury pays the Bank and the Bank can pay the Treasury back, because the Treasury owns the Bank. If I had bought in my mortgage from a mortgage company, I would probably just forget the whole thing. However, on Bank of England and Treasury logic, every month I would pay interest to myself because I still owe the mortgage, but then I could take that money back and spend it because I own the mortgage company and it is no longer a proper debt.
I think we have to understand that something different has occurred with quantitative easing, and I do not think we should go on doing it. It is normally very inflationary and very dangerous. In the strange circumstances of a covid lockdown in which a huge amount of demand and activity were taken out of the system, we could get away with it; indeed, it was right to do it, and I supported the Government at the time and praised them for the stimulus they offered. However, that has gone, and we now need to have sensible finances. To run those well, I strongly recommend a firm inflation target—inflation is a little too high at the moment, and needs to be taken very seriously—coupled with a much more optimistic growth target, because that is the way to grow the balance sheet and get the debt and the deficit down.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Let me first extend my condolences to colleagues on the loss of Jack Dromey, and my condolences to his family and friends. I know how much he will be missed, because he was a brilliant Member of this House.
How nice it is to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury here again in place of the Chancellor! It would seem that when the going gets tough, the Chancellor goes missing, or at least to California. I am not quite sure where he is today, but I am sorry we are not seeing him. Having looked at the reports of previous statements of this kind, I know that it has always been the custom for the Chancellor to make them here. It is disappointing that while he talks big in the Budget, he disappears when it comes to these debates.
No one is denying that the past 18 months have been very trying times, and that, as all Governments around the world have done, the UK Government have spent big to try and get us out of the pandemic with as little scarring as possible. Fiscal policy provided more resilience during the pandemic than we have experienced in recent memory, but as we have seen with the emergence of omicron, and as I have said repeatedly in this place, covid is not done with us yet. We are still facing considerable challenges and a period of uncertainty, so why would the Government want to tie their own hands by setting themselves some new rules?
As we have seen from Westminster Tory Governments in the past, it looks very much as though the reasons for a move back to austerity are ideological rather than economically sound. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) also opposes austerity, although for different reasons. Cutting support too soon poses a big risk to our economy, especially when the UK is facing a 4% expected reduction in GDP owing to Brexit—twice as much as the scarring expected from the covid pandemic.
The OBR has said that the Chancellor has left himself with very little fiscal space. Richard Hughes told the Treasury Committee that
“Just a 1% interest rate rise could easily wipe out the Chancellor’s headroom.”
It is clear from the OBR report that the Chancellor has already missed all four of the existing legislated fiscal targets. It states:
“The fiscal mandate was missed by £274.7 billion (13.1 per cent of GDP).
The supplementary debt target was missed by 12.5 per cent of GDP.
Spending subject to the welfare cap is on course to exceed the legislated cap in 2024- 25 by £7.9 billion and to exceed the cap plus margin by £4.1 billion”—
more than in March 2021—and
“The legislated fiscal objective is on course to be missed by £46.4 billion (1.7 per cent of GDP).”
In the face of all those missed targets, what have the Government done? They have, of course, set themselves a bunch of shiny new targets, on which, interestingly, the OBR has commented:
“In our central forecast, the proposed fiscal mandate and all three supplementary targets are more likely to be met than missed”.
That leads us to wonder whether this is yet more sleight of hand on the part of the UK Government. If they cannot meet the old targets but can meet the new ones, something smells pretty fishy to me.
The targets that the UK Government set themselves are also on a three-year rolling basis. If you were cynical, Madam Deputy Speaker, you could guess that there is a bit of an incentive to game those targets. Richard Hughes of the OBR told the Treasury Committee:
“The risk of having the target for it to fall is that there can be an incentive to get it to rise in the first two years, so you can get it to fall in the third.”
With this UK Government, little would surprise me. The rule to restrict Government investment seems absolutely bizarre. How can the Tories claim that they want to level up, while squeezing spending? That will have an impact on already woeful growth and productivity levels. The UK will lag behind other nations with no real plan to get back out of it, if these rules are to be believed.
Moving to the welfare cap, we can see yet more sheen for the way in which this policy works in the papers than for how it works in practice—talking tough instead of supporting those who need it most—and as with so many things that this Government do, it is all just smoke and mirrors. The OBR points out that the welfare cap
“has been raised at each of the four occasions that it has been substantively reset: twice under Chancellor Philip Hammond (in Autumn Statement 2016 and in Autumn Budget 2017); and twice under Chancellor Rishi Sunak (in Spring Budget 2020 and in this Budget).”
If we look at page 158 of the Red Book, we will see that the UK Government have moved jobseeker’s allowance, the state pension and universal credit payments to jobseekers outside the scope of the welfare cap. Yet again, if the Government do not like the figures, they simply change the rules.
The Government have also said:
“The cap will only be breached if, at the point of formal assessment, spending within scope is forecast to be above the level of the cap and margin for any reason”,
and that if the cap is breached they will nod it through Parliament. Who would vote against that? But it is an entirely false narrative and it does not even meet the needs of those who depend on social security, who should be the real priority.
The UK Tory Government are happy to take money from the poorest families to appease the right wing of their party and to get a cheap headline, and they are happy to do so again now, during the worst cost of living crisis in our lifetime. All this talk of the rules that the UK Government set themselves in order to have the sheen of fiscal responsibility is a million miles away from the reality of life for so many of our constituents right now.
Our constituents are facing a cost of living crisis. According to the Office for National Statistics, two thirds of people have already said that their cost of living has increased in the last month, and polling released by YouGov this morning reveals that 33% of people are worried about their energy bills rising by more than they can afford. There are three main drivers of this crisis: energy price rises, general inflation and tax rises, culminating in the prediction that households are expected to experience the worst rise in living costs in a generation this year.
Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:
“The combination of substantial tax increases and big increases in prices, particularly energy prices, will be a larger shock for households on average earnings than anything at least since the financial crisis and possibly for a long time before that.”
Household electricity bills are likely to increase by more than 50% in April, when the Government’s cap on bills is lifted. Investec suggests that the price cap will rise by 56%, pushing the average bill from £1,277 to around £2,000 a year. That will disproportionately affect those at the bottom end of income distribution, who spend a larger proportion of their income on utilities and food. It will have a much bigger impact on discretionary spending for that group. The Financial Times estimates that
“the rise would reduce family discretionary spending by nearly 7 per cent for the poorest households, almost 4 per cent for people in the middle of the income scale”,
and by only
“2 per cent for the richest.”
Combined with that, the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out the impact of the increase in energy costs on small and microbusinesses. Those small businesses are not inside the energy cap and may well have to pass the costs they face on to their consumers, again driving up the cost of living. Imagine a small corner shop, where prices are already often more expensive than those at a large chain supermarket—if that shop faces increased fuel bills, where will that cost go? It will go on to the prices at the till for the consumers who depend on that local shop.
In another of Brexit’s great rollbacks, the Prime Minister said in 2016 that one of the great benefits of Brexit would be the UK’s ability to cut VAT on energy bills. Now he says that
“it is a bit of a blunt instrument and you end up cutting fuel bills for people who don’t need the same help.”
Well, many people up and down this country, in all of our constituencies, are crying out for that help while this UK Government stick their fingers in their ears.
Rises in electricity prices will happen alongside planned increases in tax, impacting already squeezed families. The Chancellor is presiding over a £12.7 billion increase in national insurance at a time when incomes are already stretched. That is an average of £400 per employee—a tax on jobs at the very worst possible time—and an increasing number of Tory Back Benchers, as well as the Leader of the House, want the Prime Minister to scrap it. If those on the Treasury Bench will not listen to me, they should at least listen to some of their own.
On top of this, all income tax thresholds and allowances are to be frozen, bringing £1.6 billion into the Treasury coffers. The Chancellor often likes to point out that this affects higher-income taxpayers, and while it is obvious that it will affect them by the greatest absolute amount, as a proportion of income there is no doubt that poorer families will feel the effect of this policy as its eats further into the diminishing disposable income of those who had any money to spare to begin with.
Prices are rising faster now than at any time in the past 10 years. Goldman Sachs estimates a 6.8% rise in prices in April, even if the Government offset the increase in energy bills. The forecast increase in inflation is much larger than the expected increases in earnings and pensions, even factoring in the 6.6% rise in the minimum wage for those on the higher rates. Benefits are to increase in April by 3.1%, but that is a real-terms cut in income for universal credit claimants, even when offset by the most conservative of forecasts of inflation.
This has all the hallmarks of a crisis, and it is a crisis that lies at the doorstep of the Chancellor and of this UK Government. The people of Scotland did not vote for this crisis, this Government and this increased cost of living. They want to see action to protect them at this most difficult time that all of us are facing. Ordinary families are bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis, while the Prime Minister claims he cannot get by on his £157,000 salary, living in a flat redecorated with Tory donor cash.
The UK has the worst levels of poverty and inequality in north-west Europe. It is clear that action must be taken now or the Tories will push millions more into hardship. Rather than pochling the fiscal rules to get a good headline, the UK Government must bring in an emergency package of support—introducing a low-income energy payment, matching the Scottish child payment across the UK, reversing the £20 a week cut to universal credit, raising the minimum wage for all to a real living wage and raising statutory sick pay to the real living wage level of £9.90 an hour. Rather than a series of meaningless targets that shift whenever it suits the Government, building an economy where citizens can get through the winter without relying on food banks and fuel banks ought to be the true definition of fiscal responsibility in government. SNP Members will be voting against both the motions tonight.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
One of the primary reasons a Parliament was established was to protect property owners from the excessive claims of the state, and over the last quarter century this is a duty that successive Parliaments have spectacularly failed to fulfil. Encouraged by benign trends and with the irrepressible pressure of the media to spend more and take on more responsibilities, while hampered by a globalisation of capital that has moved the ownership of property offshore and therefore made it harder to tax, the political class in this country and in this Parliament appears to have lost any sense of the responsibility to pay for what they spend.
As speakers have said in this debate already, the UK now has the highest peacetime tax burden since world war two. The UK Government have direct debts of £2.6 trillion. In addition, there are unfunded pension liabilities and other off-balance sheet liabilities that take that total closer to £4.6 trillion, yet speaker after speaker, even in this debate, says, “Spend more, spend more.”
Since 2009, the Bank of England has been printing money, and notwithstanding the very clear points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), that £895 billion of quantitative easing is a potential debasement of the currency. Even though it may have been moving interest from one hand to the other hand between the Treasury and the Bank of England, there is a long-term understanding from capital markets that if Governments and sovereigns are quite happily able to print their own money, those who wish to lend money in the future will ask for a higher interest rate to cover that risk. UK Governments over the last 30 years have benefited from at least a 30-year decline in the yield curve, and perhaps we have grown used to an expectation that a lender will, in real terms, actually pay for the privilege of funding public expenditure.
To me, this is a very precarious financial situation for the UK Government, so what of our prospects? The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about economic growth somehow being the magic cure, saying that the United Kingdom was doing uniquely poorly and that they had a special plan. But the truth of the matter is that economic growth across all the developed OECD countries has declined from an average of over 3% per annum in the 1970s and ’80s to an average of below 2% in the period since 2000. The relative position of the UK to the OECD is better now than it was in the ’70s and ’80s, so the argument that the UK Government are missing something in their growth strategy that other countries have found is without foundation. I have heard the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East make this point before, and it is a neat point. That is why I went to check the figures, and I would encourage him to do likewise.
Geopolitical risks are growing, partly driven by a 50-year strategy to integrate China economically and politically into the democratic system. That is now at least in question, if not in reverse. We should think very carefully about the fact that disengaging China and its productive capacity from the global trading system risks adding to inflationary pressures. Demand from sovereign borrowers among all developed countries has risen from 70% of GDP a few years ago to over 200% of GDP—not just the UK but all developed countries. That is a level not seen since world war two, and it puts pressure on international global liquidity that increases expectations that the 30-year decline in yield curves may well go into reverse.
I am yet to see any evidence that all of us politicians have really learned how to stand up to the constant demands to spend more and involve the Government more as the answer to every single question that the media put to us. I would only hope that we pay more attention to those who have to pay for that rather than to getting the credit for saying that we can solve every problem.
Greater risks, rising interest rates, higher inflation expectations and a political class that has not really focused on the need to pay for things are the context in which we have the Government’s charter for budget responsibility. It is a welcome addition, because it makes changes that start to confront some of those pressures. There is an additional focus on assessing the affordability of public debt. It is rather a surprise that we did not have that as a focus previously. It has also added a cap on investment expenditure of 3% of GDP. I take the good point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham that that sounds a bit reminiscent of the European Union plans. However, there does seem to be a problem of Departments bidding to the Treasury based on expectations of the rate of return they are going to make and the Treasury then having to stand back and be a barrier against all those demands on the public purse. The cap on investment expenditure is a prudent addition to make.
The charter adds a new key indicator of public sector net worth. I encourage the Minister to move very quickly to let us have the details on that. New Zealand put this together in the last millennium, so it cannot be that hard to do, although I recognise that it can be misleading as well as insightful.
One thing that is not in the charter is the consequences for breaking fiscal rules. This point was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. It is good to write certain fiscal rules but it is also good for there to be consequences on behalf of taxpayers for Governments who do not meet those rules, and that should be more than just a new rewriting of the rules.
Finally, I want to make a point about long-term trends in the Bank of England. Paragraph 3.20 of the document says:
“The Treasury’s objective in relation to debt management policy is…to minimise, over the long term, the costs of meeting the government’s financing needs, taking into account risk, while ensuring that debt management policy is consistent with the aims of monetary policy.”
I like the phrase “over the long term”, which hides all sorts of problems. I thought I would try to find the long term, so I turned to the January 2020 working paper by the Bank of England, “Eight centuries of global real interest rates,” to see what it might tell us about the Bank’s thinking. I am concerned that the Bank of England has had a view about inflation rates that is a little too benign. The working paper says:
“Against their long term context, currently depressed sovereign real rates are in fact converging ‘back to historical trend’…real rates could soon enter permanently negative territory.”
This is the big question I would like the Minister to answer: is it the expectation that we are living, for the foreseeable future, in an era in which we anticipate that interest rates, in real terms, will be negative and declining? Or will that be the long-term trend, but subject to major fluctuations in the short term? People’s livelihoods depend much more crucially on that expectation than on other things we might debate in the near future.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will be brief. The debate has roamed over more than just the fiscal rule and the welfare cap, and I will not tread on those other parts of the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) demonstrated the economic and political farce of the current Government. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made much of the role of Bank of England debt, which would be interesting to pursue in another debate, and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pertinently drew attention to the iniquitous nature of the welfare cap. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) made an interesting contribution, but his definition of Parliament’s role as being to protect property is something of a 17th-century view of democracy that we might want to debate elsewhere.
In our debates during the banking crash there was a popular understanding that the cause of the crash was the way in which the system had operated as a result of the finance sector’s greed and incompetence, alongside the mismanagement of financial regulation over decades. The Conservative party made a big argument at the time and subsequently that we were in a weaker position because of our deficit at the time of the crash. That is a feeble argument, but there is some substance to it, and I argued at the time that the reason for the deficit was that we did not have an adequate taxation policy to match our overall expenditure.
That argument is for another time, but I say to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire that I remember George Osborne ripping into Gordon Brown and others when even the concept of a fiscal rule was raised. George Osborne then ripped into the ludicrousness of a fiscal rule that no one would ever abide by and that had no sanctions. When he was appointed Chancellor in 2010 under the coalition and proposed the fiscal rule process, some of us thought it was ripe to say the least.
However, the most iniquitous bit of that debate was the combination of introducing the individual benefits cap and the overall welfare cap. The individual benefits cap is egregious, and it has forced people into poverty and hardship. In many of our areas, it has affected people’s mental health in a way that has pushed many over the edge and some into taking their own life—that is the tragedy of that element of the cap.
The overall welfare cap is part of that political direction. The point has been made time and again that austerity was a political choice, not an economic necessity. Part of that political choice was the introduction of the cap. After austerity was introduced, people woke up to the fact that public services were being cut on a scale we had not seen before. This was impacting on the health service, education and local council expenditure, and in addition to that, there were pay freezes and in the end, because of inflation, pay cuts. There was an understandable reaction against that. I can remember the deep unpopularity of the coalition Government in those early stages.
I think that a cynical decision was made; in fact, I know that a cynical decision was made because Lord Freud, who was responsible for welfare policy and supposed welfare reform, has exposed in recent months that a cynical decision was made. It was not made on the basis of welfare reform or economic management; its purpose was to find a scapegoat. The scapegoat that was unfortunately chosen by the then coalition Government was the poorest in our society: the unemployed, the people with disabilities and, tragically, children as well. I remember the language that was used, and I have to say that it permeated many sides of this House too. Strivers were set against skivers. I remember the tales of the twitching curtain, where some would stay in bed while others went to work. That certainly did not reflect what was happening in my constituency, because everyone I came up against was desperate for a job, and more importantly, they were desperate for a job that paid a wage that would keep a roof over their head and put food on the table for their children.
That is where the welfare cap came in. Of all the expenditure, that was the area that had to be capped in some form. Other areas of expenditure that were equally demand-led were not debated. This was done specifically because a scapegoat had to be found, and we went back almost to the attitudes of the poor law and the workhouse. I remember those debates. I was offended by them, I was made angry by them, but above all else I was shamed by them and by the fact that this House could stoop to that level. That is what happened, and people suffered as a result.
This welfare cap, associated with the fiscal rule, is a base anachronism that should no longer exist. For as long as it exists, as we go through a period where the economic pressures will impact on any Government—the cost of living crisis is easy to say as a phrase, but there is a reality to it and it is already causing hardship in many of our constituencies—I fear that this Government will want to find another scapegoat, and that it will be the poor again. It will be the disabled. It will be those who cannot find a job or cannot get enough hours in a job to keep them out of poverty. The Government will use the same mechanisms, and the welfare cap will be part of them as long as it remains in statutory form. That is why I will be voting against the welfare cap tonight. In principle, this is an appalling piece of legislation. It has proved to be inhumane in its impact, and it is a weapon that will be picked up again to attack the working-class people that I represent. That is why I want to put on record tonight why I oppose it and will continue to oppose it until we have hopefully secured a Government that will throw out this abysmal piece of political weaponry against working-class people.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I agree with everything he said. He is right to take aim at the coalition Government. I note that there are no Lib Dem MPs here tonight to defend their role in that Government, particularly in relation to the welfare cap.
In the interests of time, I will focus my remarks largely on the second motion before the House tonight, but I think that this Government will at some point have to confront the blatant contradiction of their mantra on budget responsibility and fiscal discipline and how it correlates with their new buzzword of levelling up. If I understand the Government right, levelling up either means giving more money to the traditional red walls seats at the expense of the traditional Tory shire seats—something the Government deny and have denied off the back of the by-elections in North Shropshire and Chesham and Amersham—or it means spending new money in the old red wall seats, which flies in the face of the fiscal discipline this Government and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury like to talk about. They cannot have both. That is a fact that the Chancellor will need to realise, especially when he has one eye on a Tory leadership race against the Foreign Secretary. I do not know where the Chancellor is tonight. Maybe he is planning his next series of Instagram posts.
I thought it was interesting that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) spoke about the importance of adhering to these fiscal rules once they are set in place. Perhaps the Government’s approach will be the same as that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which is that it is okay to break rules in a very specific and limited way.
I rise primarily to indicate my opposition to the principle of the welfare cap, which I will vote against tonight. We are also being asked this evening to vote on a charter for budget responsibility, but I would like the Government to bring forward a charter for societal responsibility, because it is clear that the contract between Whitehall and the most vulnerable in my constituency has been eroded to the point of breaking down entirely.
Yes, there has been limited devolution of social security powers to the Scottish Parliament, which excites me and gives me hope for the future, not least because we can implement social security policies that are underpinned by dignity, human rights and respect, but the inescapable constitutional reality is that 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remains the responsibility of this institution and the British Government.
However, as constituency MPs we know that an arbitrary cap on welfare is neither useful nor adequate, as has been demonstrated by previous breaches of the cap. Quite simply, the welfare cap does not address the fundamental and clear structural issues that leave people relying on social security: issues such as low pay, gender inequality and wider labour market inequality.
I understand that it is easy for me, as an opposition MP, to stand up and pan the British Government’s policy agenda without offering solutions on how we can strengthen the social security net, so I want to set out where the SNP would do things differently. For a start, I think the British Government need to spend less time obsessing over the ideological plaything of a welfare cap and instead fix the fundamental flaws in our social security system. Straightaway, at the stroke of a pen, they could end the sanctions regime and conditionality. They could abolish the five-week wait for universal credit. They could end the bedroom tax in other parts of the UK. They could reinstate the £20 uplift in universal credit. Indeed, they could extend the uplift to the 2 million legacy benefit claimants who were so heartlessly left out in the cold at the beginning of the pandemic, because people with a disability have increased extra costs, and that £20 uplift should have applied to them too. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke earlier about putting arms around people during the pandemic, so I remind him that those 2 million legacy benefit claimants certainly did not feel the embrace of the Government’s hug then.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I want to focus specifically on the role of the devolved Governments in social security provision and, in particular, offer some thoughts on the Scottish context. I mentioned before that, with limited social security powers, Scotland is already making clear its intentions and priorities when it comes to supporting the most vulnerable and tackling poverty. One such example is the game-changing Scottish child payment rising to £20 per child per week. That equates to an investment of £197 million and will help lift 40,000 children out of poverty in 2023-24. Absolutely, that goes some way towards undoing the damage of years of Westminster actions to undermine and weaken the social security net.
But people in Scotland have to wake up to the fact that fighting poverty and inequality will only be hindered, not helped, by a Government in London who are fixated on a welfare cap and removing vital financial support for the least well off, because in many respects devolution is increasingly having to act as something of a sticking plaster to mitigate the very worst effects of Tory austerity and Westminster’s welfare cuts. Yes, the Chancellor—wherever he is tonight—might be a wealthy multimillionaire who thinks that £20 a week here and there does not make much difference, but for my constituents in Carmyle, Carntyne and Craigend, £20 is an awful lot of money. That £20 can mean the difference between cheap ding dinners and proper nutritious meals for their children that help fuel them to learn and grow healthily.
Yes, devolution in Scotland means doing things differently, with a focus on greater free school meal provisions, abolishing the bedroom tax, or indeed introducing the Scottish child payment. But there are limits to devolution, especially when it comes to the lack of borrowing powers. I believe that tonight’s debate again makes the case for Scottish independence, because Scottish independence means we will not have an arbitrary cap on welfare, thereby capping our ambitions to tackle structural inequality and poverty. Scottish independence is about creating a charter for societal responsibility and looking after the most vulnerable people in our communities.
Tonight’s motions show that Scotland being governed from London, and by London, will not achieve that. It was noticeable that even the Labour Front-Bench spokes-person, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), made hardly any reference to the welfare cap. It is clear that regardless of which party is in power, that will be an issue for people in Scotland. Only independence can tackle poverty and inequalities that are prolonged and perpetuated by an arbitrary Westminster welfare cap, which I will oppose tonight.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
We are here this evening to discuss the welfare cap that is referred to in the autumn Budget. Introduced in 2014, it is designed to limit spending on social security. This is notable as it reflects the Conservative hostility to properly fund a social security safety net for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society.
The welfare cap is repugnant and regressive, and is driven by a Conservative ideological approach to stigmatising those in poverty and experiencing hardship. It does absolutely nothing to tackle the underlying causes of people’s reliance on social security, which is a failure of the economic and social policies of successive Tory Governments.
When it was introduced in 2014, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said in this Chamber:
“Everyone in the House wants to bring down welfare spending, because welfare spending is the price of Government and social failure…This benefits cap is arbitrary and bears no relationship to need, as our benefits system should.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 389.]
She was absolutely right. The cap was also condemned by economists from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, and the New Economics Foundation. Even the OBR questioned whether the welfare cap has any meaningful impact on spending plans and outcomes.
The cap covers carer’s allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payments, universal credit and the winter fuel payment. It is wrong in principle to subject these to an arbitrary cap. The cap itself does not reduce the need for social security.
As others have said, we are facing a crisis in the cost of living. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates a third of low-income households—some 3.8 million people—are already behind on their bills, and 4.4 million households took out new or increased borrowing during the pandemic. If inflation stays at its December rate into April this year, the number of people being pulled into deep poverty will be around 200,000. Do the Government believe that this amounts to a negative shock? At what point do they consider rising poverty a shock? In the coming months, I expect—indeed, I know—that many more people in my constituency of Cynon Valley, and across Britain, will face a negative shock.
The covid pandemic has had a devastating effect in my constituency, and it will be exacerbated by the continuation of the welfare cap. That is partly why I recently commissioned independent research by a think-tank in Wales—the Bevan Foundation—on my constituency, called “The Cynon Valley after covid: action for recovery and renewal.” The findings are absolutely shocking.
In Cynon Valley, the rates of unemployment doubled during the pandemic and by March 2021 we had the highest rate of economic inactivity of all constituencies, not just in Wales but in Britain—a staggering 42% of people of working age. Many of these people, through no fault of their own, are now reliant on benefits that come within the scope of the welfare cap. We have 6,000 people on universal credit and over 5,000 still on legacy benefits. They are also now suffering from the £20 cut to universal credit.
How many more are going to have to join them this year due to the Government’s failure to lift minimum pay to a real living wage, end insecure work and zero hours contracts, control rip-off energy bills or properly invest in building sufficient affordable and suitable housing? I could not visit my local citizen’s advice bureau in Mountain Ash or the local food bank in Aberdare and say that I backed this welfare cap. It is gesture politics of the worst kind, grounded in demonisation and hostility to social security recipients—the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society who need our support. The priority must be to lift incomes, reduce reliance on social security and maintain a sufficient safety net for those in need. That is why I oppose this welfare cap.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I say respectfully to the Minister that I want to speak on the welfare cap and endorse the comments that others have made, using cases from my own constituency of Strangford. I see the issues very clearly. To be fair to the Minister, I absolutely understand the rationale behind capping the amount that the state spends on welfare. We cannot hold on to what we do not have in our hand, and we cannot give what is not ours to give. We do have to be responsible, but we also need to ensure that the funding that we are allocating to NHS reform and to the latest stages of the covid battle is adequate, while keeping an eye on the amount borrowed, which is beyond belief in my opinion. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said that it is hard to understand just how much money has had to be borrowed.
However, at the same time, it must be said that people are struggling and that they need more help, and that is what I am going to say on behalf of my constituents of Strangford. For many people, the withdrawal of the covid lifeline of the £20 uplift to universal credit has left them in a precarious situation. I can see that. I know that. Let me provide the evidential base for what I am saying; others have done so and I want to do the same. I know because the number of referrals to the food bank in my constituency has doubled. I spoke to the guys there just last week. I asked whether I was right in saying that the number of people applying to the food bank this year was greater than ever before. The answer was yes. I can see that statistically from my office. I can also see the levels of hardship and poverty to which the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) referred. People are struggling. They are the working poor. They are the people on low wages who are finding it incredibly difficult to make ends meet. I see families whose income has stayed the same and yet, in Northern Ireland, they are facing increased costs due to the Northern Ireland protocol. Let me give Members an idea of the prices that are being asked and where they are going—where they were before and where they are now.
One local business in my town is renowned for bargains. It carries a range of £1 products. The business owner informed me that his range of 600 £1 products now cost between £1.15 to £1.29 each. That is for bleach, dishcloths, toilet rolls—the things that people need every day. These are not luxury items; they are the essentials. The owner informs me that he has not made 1p more on these products. His income is up because prices are up, but his profits are down because people cannot afford to be buying his goods. The impact is felt even in a pound shop where the products are sold for only £1 or thereabouts.
There has been a 15% rise on groceries alone. Add into this a 30% gas rise and a 20% electric rise, and the problem is clear. This is why it is right and proper for this Government to review the welfare spending cap and then lift it due to the dire circumstances that working families and those who are ill and vulnerable find themselves. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to those who are disabled. Things are hard enough for those who are able-bodied, but it is even worse for the disabled.
I wish to pose a question to the Minister—I do it respectfully and he knows that. This is a genuine question and not a political point. Will the rise be sufficient to make a meaningful difference to families on the poverty line? Is the increase proposed today enough to do the job and to do it right? The cap set at the spring Budget 2020 was restated following some methodological changes. In 2024-25, it was set at £126.8 billion, with a margin of 3%. The new aim is that the cap in 2024-25 will be £138.3 billion, with a margin of 2%. Will that be enough for those who need it?
I know that all families in Northern Ireland are bearing the brunt of the intransigence of Brussels in its refusal to do the right thing and allow us to trade with the rest of the UK. This is not the debate on the Northern Ireland protocol, but its effects are felt in my constituency. There can be no discussion about people on the brink of the poverty line without acknowledging the effect of the protocol on the finances of every person who buys anything in Northern Ireland. This is about every mother unable to purchase gifts on Amazon and paying astronomical amounts for Christmas presents for their children as they were outside delivery areas, and every business owner paying more for products to cover the cost of the procedures. All those people show that Northern Ireland is much poorer financially for the protocol, as well as culturally.
I support the uplift of the welfare cap. I am no smarter than everybody else, but I understand the issue because my constituents tell me. I understand the reservations of those who do not want to borrow more, but we must get our local businesses back to earning and paying tax, which covid has removed. Wages for the working poor mean disposable income that is spent in the local economy, and people having enough to heat their homes and clean them. There is work to be done on the economy of this nation to encourage business and enterprise to tap into the global market. In the meantime, we must have enough money to spend on our vulnerable and needy. I have never seen anything quite like this year, and if this measure is needed as a first step, we must take that step today.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate seems to be the definition of a pointless exercise. While there is total economic uncertainty, we are setting out fiscal rules that, if the Government break them, they will change next year. I am here to put on record and speak in opposition to the welfare cap. I represent some of the most deprived communities in England, and the welfare cap is simply a continuation of a policy that is designed to appease those intent on demonising the least well-off. It is political weaponry of the worst order. People are struggling with day-to-day costs, and there is a cost of living crisis that soaring energy prices and inflation threaten to make much worse—this year, next year and the year after.
What possible sense can there be in wasting time here and now, putting arbitrary caps on the winter fuel payment, on cold weather payments, on carers allowance, on support for the disabled, on in-work universal credit or on support for people’s housing costs? It is nonsense. Even the Government’s own organisation, the OBR, has questioned the welfare cap’s usefulness.
The Government have broken the current cap twice in recent years, so they are left continually raising the cap and changing its scope, for no other reason than it is not prudent, and it does not work. If the Government wanted to bring down the nation’s welfare bill, they would focus relentlessly on tackling the causes of the cost of living crisis; by tackling insecure, low-paid work and boosting wages; by controlling extortionate rents; and by ending the scandal of rip-off energy bills that only fuel corporate profits. Instead they choose to waste time playing games and posturing.
The people I represent need a social security system that supports and enables them, not one that punishes them and strips away their dignity. In these difficult, uncertain times, the Government are not being serious by continuing with this unworkable, arbitrary cap.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Today could have been a chance for Treasury Ministers to come to the House and set out plans to help people facing the rising costs of living in 2022. They could have come here to offer immediate help to people now, alongside a plan to invest what is needed in the long-term future of our country, but that is, sadly, not what we have seen. Despite widespread anxiety across the country about soaring energy bills, we have heard nothing on that front from the Government today.
Nor it seems did the Chancellor reflect over Christmas on the Government’s plans to ratchet up national insurance contributions in April. Treasury Ministers could have come here today to announce that they would not go ahead with the tax hike on working people and their jobs, but we have heard nothing from them on that front, either. Instead, we have seen Ministers defending their harmful and economically illiterate cap on investment in our country’s future.
Treasury Ministers should be using their first outing of the new year at the Dispatch Box to explain how they will help with the rising cost of living, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) all pointed out, is affecting so many of our constituents. If the Government do not know what to do, they are welcome to use Labour’s plans. As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), set out over the weekend and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) set out earlier, our plan would bring energy bills down this year, partly funded by a one-off windfall tax on North sea gas and oil profits. It is a bold and balanced package that would help everyone in the country, and it is a fair and fully costed plan that would help families on low incomes the most.
The Government could also follow Labour’s lead when it comes to their national insurance increase on working people and their jobs. As we set out in September last year, that tax hike is wrong when the burden should be borne by those with the broadest shoulders. While the Conservatives’ failure to help people now will cause hardship for many in 2022, their failure to invest in our country’s future will cause damage for years to come. Their approach shows that they have learned nothing from their failures of 12 years in power. They are not listening to business groups and economists, who have made clear how vital they think investment in our country is, and they have learned nothing from countries overseas. Even if the Government get investment up to their 3% of GDP target, we will still be at the bottom of the OECD countries behind Ireland, the US and Mexico. Is that really their vision for global Britain?
The truth is that the Government’s position simply confirms that Ministers do not understand what our country needs for the future, and their failure to invest has a direct impact on people’s lives. Their failure to invest what was needed in the past 12 years in gas storage and additional energy sources has made the jump that we face in energy bills far worse. Their failure to invest in safe and affordable housing has made the housing crisis that we face far worse. Their cap on investment now means that they will fail to invest what is needed to decarbonise our economy, making the damage to our country in the long run far worse, too.
Ministers could have come here today to follow Labour’s lead by committing to £28 billion of capital investment in our country’s green transition in every year of this decade. Our fiscal rules set out how we would make that investment in the future while balancing the books and getting debt falling. That level of capital investment is needed to tackle the climate crisis and to create jobs for the future, from insulating homes across the country to ensuring that wind turbines are manufactured here in Britain. However, that would not be possible under the Chancellor’s charter, which as a result will cost our economy and our country more in the future.
When the case for investment is so strong, why is the Chancellor so keen to stop it? We would ask him, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East drew to the House’s attention, he has not turned up. We wondered where he was and whether he was in California again. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he has been spotted in the building. He is so contemptuous of his own fiscal rules that he has not even bothered attending the debate. I suspect he has realised that he has called it wrong—the stunt has not worked—and, true to form, when he finds questions too uncomfortable or too difficult, he is nowhere to be seen. He may have thought it was clever to have a parliamentary vote to distract from the Government’s record of high taxes, high prices and high levels of waste, but his plan to cap investment will only make things worse by stunting the economy and trapping us further in the Tories’ low-growth cycle.
The Tories are putting up taxes on working people in 2022 despite energy bills being set to soar, and they are spending their time struggling to defend their damaging investment cap rather than tackling the climate crisis, creating jobs and heeding calls from business to invest in the future. The Opposition will not vote to lock us further into a low-growth, high-tax cycle. We will back British businesses and workers by supporting the investment needed in net zero growth to create jobs for the future, fund first-class public services and improve living standards for everyone in our country.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I would like to start by agreeing with the remarks of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), concerning the great sadness at the passing of Jack Dromey at the weekend. I debated some legislation with him three years ago and he was a man of the greatest integrity. He was one of the best of us and he shall be missed across the House. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, especially the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), at this difficult time.
It is a privilege to close the debate on behalf of the Government and I thank Members, who have made informed contributions. In a few moments, I will turn to the substantive points that they have raised.
The pandemic has left us with levels of borrowing unparalleled in our peacetime history. Without considered action, something that was necessary in the short term could easily become unaffordable in the long term. The British people look to us now for a clear commitment that we will address that threat. As a Government, we will always be responsible with their money and, once the crisis has passed, deliver on our promise to strengthen the nation’s finances.
The charter represents a world-leading framework to guide us—a clear path back to fiscal sustainability—and it sets out a route to prosperity. On the one hand, we will get debt falling and rebuild our fiscal defences. On the other hand, we will support the economy to the best of our ability and invest in the future. To do otherwise would mean failing to fulfil our own potential and denying future generations the chance to fulfil theirs. Instead, we choose a plan that will enable us to rebuild the fiscal buffers, create the conditions for a strong economy and deliver on our historically significant investment plans. It also provides a sustainable welfare system while increasing the level of the cap, to reflect the impacts of the pandemic on our society, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in his opening remarks. In the plainest terms, to vote for the welfare cap motion is to vote simply to increase its level.
I want to turn now to some of the substantive points made in the debate. I do not recognise the characterisation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) of this debate as a “Maastricht tribute debate”, but I do recognise his enthusiasm for growth and his desire to target growth. That is obviously a critical element of the Government’s strategy. It is absolutely clear that we need to focus on greater productivity and it is important that, as set out in our plan for growth, with a focus on skills, infrastructure and innovation, we will deliver the key priorities of levelling up and net zero. I do not think that we disagree about the importance of economic growth and productivity, but because of the actions that we took to support our economy, we have been more successful than previously feared in preventing the long-term economic damage of covid. In its latest forecast, the OBR revised down its scarring assumption, from 3% to 2%.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) were echoed in part by the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I make it really clear to the House that the £10.5 billion increase to the cap provides the headroom above the forecast to allow for fluctuation in cap spending, and the cap only formally applies in 2024-25. The hon. Lady referred to rolling rules. Obviously, they can absorb some of the shocks and endurable challenges we face. I also draw her attention to the remarks of the Institute for Government:
“The rationale for a rolling target is that it provides flexibility should the economic situation change.”
I turn now to the very thoughtful and characteristically well-informed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who set out the historic perspective but also recognised the changing macro-economic realities globally.
I thank hon. Members for their speeches. None of us in this House takes stewardship of the public finances lightly. It is important that we recognise that we take all steps that we can to ensure that this country is set on the right course. Therefore, I commend the motions to the House.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6 and 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Armorial Bearings, Ensigns and Flags
That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 23 November 2021, be approved.
International Immunities and Privileges
That the draft International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (Legal Capacities) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 2 November 2021, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.
Simon Hinchley-Robson: Discharge from the RAF
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Over the last few years, I have been supporting Simon Hinchley-Robson in his pursuit of justice for the way he was treated when he was discharged from the RAF in 1986 for being gay.
Mr Robson signed up to serve his country for 22 years in the Royal Air Force in 1980. He came from a family with a tradition of serving their country: his brother was in the Army, his father had been in the Navy and his grandparents had served in the RAF. In 1986, while he was serving as a chef at RAF Brawdy, Haverfordwest, Wales, he became ill and was diagnosed by RAF medical staff as having glandular fever. After the diagnosis, he continued to lose weight and then requested a test for AIDS. The doctor who was examining him became extremely angry, and he was transferred to a civilian hospital, where he took the test. After 10 days, he was discharged from hospital back to RAF Brawdy. Immediately on his return, he was arrested by the RAF police—the Special Investigation Branch. The request for the test was taken as an admission that Mr Robson was gay.
I will read Mr Robson’s own words, which describe what happened to him from the moment he arrived back at RAF Brawdy:
“What happened next was the most horrendous and awful experience no one should ever have had to endure. I was led to an interrogation room, this, unknown to me, was to be my home for the next 4 days. I was denied food, I was denied sleep and only given small amounts of water.
I was immediately searched, asked to strip and searched internally. They said that this was procedure. As a young 21-year-old, terrified, what do you think was going through my mind?
I was asked to list every person in any of the services I had some sort of relationship with, this I refused. On refusing, I was assaulted and again instructed to strip, the medical gloves went on and I was again subject to what I can only say was ‘RAPE’, while I was again internally searched.
After about 12 hours I was taken, handcuffed, to my billet and the SIB (Special Investigation Branch) then searched all my belongings and personal letters, my mattress was slit open and I was told this was because they were looking for drugs.
My mail was taken away and read...they said, I was most likely being blackmailed and as such, they needed to make sure Defence secrets were not being passed on”—
and this is Mr Robson’s emphasis—
“Hello I am a chef, no access to data, aircraft, secrets etc.
After this humiliation in front of many camp personnel as I was paraded to my billet, not driven, in handcuffs, and for all to see, I was then taken back to the interrogation room. I was thinking that this was the end, and that would most likely be the end of my career, how wrong I was.
It was change of shift, and the process started all over again, searched, told to strip, medical gloves on, internal searches again. At this point, I was now convinced this was happening for their…pure sadistic satisfaction, yet I had no recall to complain to any officers in charge as the SIB were a law unto themselves.
With the change of shift the process started all over again, they wanted names, none were given, and I was slapped for not helping them.”
I should add here that Mr Robson has explained to me that the shifts changed every four hours, and on every change of shift he was stripped, searched and searched internally. We must ask what the purpose of these searches was. Given that he was in custody all of this time and had no means of obtaining drugs, how could he have anything to hide? What was taking place was a form of torture of Mr Robson for being gay. The question has to be asked: was this sanctioned by the RAF? This seems likely: after all, there was remarkable consistency in the pattern of behaviour between the shifts. How common was it for gay personnel to be abused in this way, or does the Minister believe, as Mr Robson asks, that it was to satisfy the sadistic pleasures of those inflicting the humiliation?
Mr Robson continues:
“They pulled out a number of birthday cards and a get-well card. In one it read, ‘Hurry up back to the kitchen Si, Paul is missing you’ with a big smile. This comment refers to a colleague chef, who I didn’t see eye to eye with, it was a joke message.
The SIB were now convinced he was involved. This person was married was serving overseas in Cyprus with his family and that, would be the next port of call.”
I should add here that, according to Mr Robson, two members of the Special Investigation Branch were flown to Cyprus to interview this other chef. They interviewed his wife about his sexuality, and they interviewed his primary school aged daughters.
Returning to Mr Robson’s words:
“Throughout the interrogation I was handcuffed and treated like a terrorist, how was this allowed to happen in Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force.
I was a Chef, no access to any classified material unless they wanted the recipes for a lasagne, all this humiliation went on for 4 days, and to their sadistic satisfaction, it wasn’t until the 4th day we had a new female doctor arrive in camp [who] intervened and stopped the interrogation. I was immediately sent home on sick leave to await my discharge.
I had been spat at, hit, examined by individuals that were plain animals, and all because I had admitted I was Gay.”
Mr Robson states that officers from the SIB told him:
“We don’t have gays in HM Royal Air Force”,
and that they
“should all be put on an island and nuked.”
He was also told that he was
“the lowest level of life.”
The irony of all this is that, at the end, when he went back finally to sign his discharge papers, which he had to do to avoid going to prison for 18 months, he was required to sign to join the reserves for three years, meaning that, if needed, he could be called up to serve in an emergency.
At the time that this took place, none of Mr Robson’s family was aware that he was gay. That meant that he effectively lost his job and home and risked being outed. This left him mentally distressed and suicidal. He has told me of others he knows who went through the same treatment, for whom the distress was too much and who went on to take their own lives.
Mr Robson had signed up for 22 years with the RAF and he considered this to be his life and career. He would have received a full pension and lump sum when he left the service, but instead he receives a minor pension. As a consequence of his forced discharge under threat of being charged and imprisoned, Mr Robson lost his income and the pension that he would have been entitled to.
Mr Robson made clear what he wants from the Government in a 2018 letter to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May):
“I want the Government to admit that these interrogations and humiliation of gay people were wrong. I should be compensated for this now that it is accepted that LGBT people can serve in the armed forces.
I want my pension, as if I had served my full term, is that not rightful thing to do?
I want a public apology for what I went through and many others and for those who did not have the strength to see it through and took the suicide road.”
At the time of Mr Robson’s ordeal, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 had ended prosecutions against civilians who were gay. This did not apply to members of the armed forces until 1992. Subsequent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights clearly demonstrate that armed forces personnel were discriminated against and had their rights denied at this time. Many suffered the additional personal and physical abuse that Mr Robson endured, and have had no recognition of their treatment or compensation for the salaries and pensions that they have missed out on.
I am aware from answers I have received in letters from Ministers that section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was in force at the time of Mr Robson’s discharge and that although it was subsequently rescinded, this was not applied retrospectively. In a recent answer, the then Minister for Defence People, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), quoted the Limitation Act 1980, section 11 of which provides a three-year period after the date on which the cause of action accrued in which personnel can make a complaint.
My view is that those regulations cannot be used to deny Mr Robson his right to justice. I would point to the illegal actions of the RAF’s Special Investigation Branch when Mr Robson was in its custody. He was physically assaulted on at least 12 occasions by multiple individuals, he was denied his right to legal representation, and his human rights were violated.
I would argue that there is no statute of limitation that excuses this criminal behaviour and can prevent Mr Robson from being compensated by the country that he wanted to serve. Although 36 years have passed since Mr Robson was discharged from the RAF, I urge the Minister to go away and reflect on his unacceptable treatment at the hands of the SIB, and, having done so, to accept that the Government are morally bound to compensate him for being denied the chance to serve his country as he had planned, and for the physical torment that he suffered for being gay.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Alan Mak)
Let me begin by associating myself with the tributes from Mr Speaker and many others to Jack Dromey. He will be missed across the House, and I send my condolences to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the rest of Jack’s family.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on securing an important debate on an important issue. I know that he is a long-standing and formidable advocate for the LGBT+ community in his constituency, and the issue that we are discussing tonight clearly has broader implications for the way in which Defence treats its people. That, however, should in no way diminish the harrowing experiences of Mr Hinchley-Robson in the 1980s. I have no wish to defend that behaviour. It was plainly appalling. It was inexcusable, it was wrong, and it unfairly tainted a promising career. It is certainly to Mr Hinchley-Robson’s great credit that despite receiving that treatment, he has been able to go on and serve his community with distinction, as he once served his country.
I want to address the issue of compensation from the outset. As the hon. Gentleman noted, at the time of Mr Hinchley-Robson’s service in the RAF, section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which barred members in Her Majesty’s forces from pursuing common law claims for compensation against the Ministry of Defence, was in force. As the hon. Gentleman also noted, section 10 was subsequently repealed by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, but that was not made retrospective.
However, in 1999 the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the MOD had discriminated against service personnel in relation to sexuality as a protected characteristic. That led to the Court directing the MOD to provide a remedy for those who were affected, with most pay and pensions claims being settled by 2008. As regards new claims for compensation, the MOD would always advise that independent legal advice be sought. When common law claims are received, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the MOD has a legal liability to pay compensation. When there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid.
We should not forget that, shocking though Mr Hinchley- Robson’s case is, it is historical. The MOD of 2022 is a very different entity from its 1980s incarnation. Mr Hinchley-Robson was discharged from service in line with the policy in place at the time. That unjust and retrograde policy was rightfully changed on 12 January 2000, and the RAF, in line with the other services, now has a range of policies and processes to ensure that such unlawful discrimination is eliminated.
Clive Efford
I did point out in my speech that those regulations were in place at the time, and they have been quoted to me in previous correspondence with Ministers. What I am also highlighting, however, is the physical abuse that Mr Robson suffered at the hands of the Special Investigation Branch, which went way beyond just applying the rules and regulations that existed at that time. Surely the Government have some responsibility to him as a consequence of that behaviour.
Alan Mak
I have seen the correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I am aware of the allegations that have been made. They are very serious, and, as I said earlier, my advice is for Mr Hinchley-Robson to make a formal claim to which the MOD will respond.
In 2012, power was conferred on the Home Secretary to formally disregard certain convictions for specified repealed homosexual offences and, in 2017, automatic pardons were introduced for individuals who had had their convictions disregarded, as well as posthumous pardons for those who had died before the provisions came into force. I am proud to say that, at the start of this year, the Government unveiled plans to expand those powers so that more veterans could benefit. Amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will enable individuals who have been convicted of same-sex activity under any offences that have now been repealed or abolished to apply to the Home Secretary to have those convictions disregarded. The scheme is also being extended to all general disciplinary offences that were used to prosecute men and women for same-sex activity.
At the turn of this decade, 20 years after military personnel were allowed to serve as openly lesbian, gay or bisexual, the MOD main building was lit with rainbow colours and both the RAF and the Army were listed among Stonewall’s top 100 employers. In February last year, we began returning medals to veterans who had been forced to forfeit them for reasons connected to their sexuality. And, last November, I was proud to see our LGBT+ military and civilian personnel marching with pride in the Remembrance parade. Today we have a thriving LGBT+ network in the MOD, and all serving personnel and veterans can access a range of support mechanisms, from the 24/7 anti-bullying and harassment helpline to the Veterans’ Gateway.
The fact that things have changed out of all recognition does not mean we are complacent. On the contrary, reports such as those released by Air Chief Marshal Wigston in 2019 and by the House of Commons Defence Committee last year act as constant reminders to keep doing more to ensure that all armed forces personnel can thrive. That is why the MOD’s leadership, from the Secretary of State for Defence down, has been crystal clear in stressing that there is a zero-tolerance policy on unacceptable behaviour or discrimination of any kind within the organisation. Today, all personnel are encouraged to call out such bad behaviour, whether they are a victim or a witness. They will never be penalised for doing so. I also want to reassure the hon. Member that our upcoming veterans’ strategy action plan will include further steps designed to address past wrongs.
Today we are looking to build a force fit for the future, but we will not succeed if we exclude parts of our community. Nor can we claim the moral high ground as a proud defender of global freedom, tolerance and justice if we fail to show the same regard for our own people. Yet our desire to make the MOD a more diverse, more inclusive and more welcoming place has less to do with operational imperatives and much more to do with a fundamental respect for human dignity. Every individual, no matter their sexuality, their gender, their colour, their race or their religion, deserves to be treated with consideration. This commitment to diversity and inclusion is one that I take personally and seriously, as the first ever Member of Parliament of British Chinese heritage and the first ever Government Minister of British Chinese heritage to speak at the Dispatch Box.
We should be especially proud of those courageous individuals who are prepared to stand up and, if necessary, lay their lives on the line for their country. Individuals such as these are the best of us—individuals such as Mr Hinchley-Robson. The fact he and others within the LGBT+ community faced discrimination in the not-too-distant past remains a cause of shame and huge regret, but it is now incumbent on us to use this case as a powerful reminder that such shocking incidents must never happen again.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Ocado Zoom
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Police Powers to Suspend Driving Licences
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are advised by the House to have a covid lateral flow test before coming on to the estate. Could Members please give each other and staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room?
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 548682, relating to police powers to suspend driving licences.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship Mr Hosie. As a member of the Petitions Committee, it is an honour to open the debate. The e-petition is about Tom’s law and was created by Christina Worsfold, Tom McConnachie’s partner. The petition closed on 25 March 2021 with 104,868 signatures. It states:
“We want police officers to be able to provide a suspension notice from the moment an offender is caught drink, drug or dangerous driving until they appear in court. It would then be for the Judge to decide whether a ban continues or they are able to continue to drive again… With Tom's Law we want police officers to be able to issue a suspension notice to an offender when arrested at the Road side to stop them from driving until they attend court to protect other road users.”
I met Christina and Charlotte McConnachie, Tom’s mother, who told me of the absolutely tragic circumstances of Tom’s death., Charlotte, Christina and Christina’s mother, Sandra, are in the Public Gallery this evening. Christina and Charlotte told me that at 3 am on 24 February 2019, Tom, aged 34, was killed in a hit-and-run incident on Budshead Road in Plymouth, Devon, by a drink driver who left Tom fatally injured in the road. The driver continued his journey to Okehampton, approximately 53 miles away, where he set fire to the vehicle to destroy the evidence.
Tom was returning from a night out with friends to celebrate the forthcoming wedding in August 2019 of one of the friends, at which Tom was to be a groomsman. Tom had taken a taxi home in the early hours of the morning and was hit by Lewis Seamen, who was driving a black Kia Rio car, which he had borrowed from a friend in order to pick up this friend’s partner. The taxi driver said that he helped Tom—who he described as “happy drunk”—out of his taxi and shook hands with him. When he got back in his car, he saw Tom walking along the nearby pavement. He then saw Tom standing in the middle of the road with his arms raised high. That is when he saw a black car hit Tom. The taxi driver got out of his car to help Tom and called 999.
A witness who was out running along Budshead Road said that he saw a man talking to a taxi driver before the taxi started to pull away. Then, a car travelling at around 30 mph with high revs came from behind the runner and hit the man, who was knocked 10 or 12 feet down the road. The runner stopped to help the injured man. The police officer who gave evidence at the inquest into Tom’s death, which was held on 11 February 2021, said that the police reconstruction of the fatal collision showed that the car that hit Tom was travelling at at least 29 mph and that the driver, Mr Seaman, may have been using a mobile phone, although the police officer could not confirm or validate this.
Tom was taken to Derriford Hospital, where tragically he died from serious head injuries shortly after being admitted. Tom was much loved in his community. He was an accomplished footballer and a Liverpool football club supporter. Everyone who had the privilege to meet Tom soon became friends with him.
On 6 January 2020, Mr Seaman pleaded guilty to drink-driving, failing to stop, driving without insurance and perverting the course of justice after a collision, but not guilty to failing to report, because he attended a police station at about 11 am on 24 February 2019, approximately seven hours after Tom had been hit. Mr Seaman was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving. In his defence, Mr Seaman said that he had drunk three cans of lager and two single whiskies at about 9 pm on 23 February. He thought he was fit to drive in the early hours of 24 February. Mr Seaman claimed that his view of the road was hampered by fog, but other witnesses at the scene who provided statements that were read out at Tom’s inquest said that the view was clear.
On 31 January 2020, in Plymouth Crown court, Mr Seaman was sentenced by Judge Paul Darlow to 10 months’ imprisonment and a driving ban of three years and five months, with an extended retest condition. The court heard that a doctor had concluded that the level of alcohol in Seaman’s system
“would have been such that it would have impaired his ability to safely drive”,
but added:
“It cannot be said that it (the level of alcohol) contributed to Mr McConnachie’s death.”
Judge Darlow said:
“I can tell you straight off that if there was a suggestion on any sensible and fair basis upon which it could be said the amount of alcohol had contributed in any way, the outcome would have been entirely different.”
He said to Mr Seaman:
“The surest thing about this case is that you will have to live with the consequences of your actions and that is something that will not go away when you have served your prison sentence.”
Mr Seaman should have served half the sentence. In fact, however, he only served three months and three weeks. Tom’s family believe that Tom’s life was worth so much more than 10 months, so much more than five months. and so much more than three months and three weeks. Tom’s family appealed against the 10-month sentence under the Government’s unduly lenient sentence scheme, but a single judge sitting in chambers decided that there were no new grounds to put the case forward to the Court of Appeal to reconsider the sentence.
Tom’s family found it extremely distressing and concerning that the offender was allowed to continue to drive from 24 February 2019 until he was eventually banned by a judge at the Crown court hearing 11 months later. They are asking for police to be given powers to suspend a driver’s licence when the suspect provides a positive drink or drugs test over the legal limit until that suspect attends court, when the judge can decide whether the driving ban will continue.
Tom’s family told me that it was disclosed at the Crown court hearing that Mr Seaman had previous drink-driving offences. He had been banned for 18 months, which was subsequently reduced to 10 months after he completed a driver awareness course. Tom’s family believe that Mr Seaman had not learned from his previous driving ban and that being able to drive is not a human right, but a privilege. If someone abuses that privilege, it should be taken away from day one.
Tom’s family told me that many families in the same situation, where an offender has been allowed to drive while an investigation is ongoing, have pledged their support. They have also been contacted by police officers from across the UK who support Tom’s law because of the need to protect the public and save lives. Tom’s family want laws regarding driving offences to be toughened, and they want zero tolerance. They have worked closely with the Saltern family, who are campaigning for Ryan’s law. I had the privilege to open the debate on Ryan’s law, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, in this Chamber on 15 November 2021.
Tom’s family want to thank all the people who tried to help Tom: the taxi driver, the runner who gave Tom CPR at the scene, the police, the paramedics, and the staff at Derriford Hospital. They extend their sincere gratitude to SCARD, the Support and Care After Road Death and Injury charity.
The Department for Transport produced a UK Government response to the petition on 11 February 2021. It stated that,
“Turning to the suggestion that in certain circumstances a driving ban should be imposed pending investigation and trial, under the Bail Act 1976, the police can impose bail conditions for particular purposes, one of which is to ensure there is no further offence committed while on bail. A driving ban as a condition of police bail may be appropriate for some cases. Decisions on when to use these powers are operational matters for the police, and the rights of a defendant, not yet convicted, and the potential benefits to public safety from reducing the risk of further offences have to be balanced.”
I will be grateful if the Minister answers some questions about the current law, and about statistics concerning pre-charge bail and released under investigation—known as RUI. How many alleged suspects have been released on pre-charge bail from all police forces since 2017 for the following periods: up to 28 days; 29 days to three months; three months to six months; six months to 12 months; and over 12 months? How many alleged suspects, released on pre-charge bail for the periods I referred to, have had a driving ban imposed as a condition of that bail? How many alleged suspects have been released on RUI for the periods I referred to? Has RUI been successful in its aim of reducing the number of alleged suspects being released repeatedly on bail? Has RUI been overused by overstretched police forces so that complex cases are shelved because simpler cases have a better prospect of conviction, with the unintended consequence that alleged victims and suspects do not receive regular case updates, and so are left in limbo for months or years?
I hope the Minister has listened this evening to the requests of the petitioner. Will she consider introducing the power for police to immediately suspend a suspect’s driving licence in the circumstances set out in Tom’s law? Finally, will she meet Christina and Tom’s family to discuss the matter further? Tom’s family are still seeking justice.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for her clear précis of the case and her clear, direct questions to the Minister, which I want to add to. I will not speak for long, but I want to pick at a couple of key issues in this case that the family want to understand, as would I and any ordinary citizen who sees such a tragedy and the response from law enforcement, the law of the land or, indeed, Parliament to that loss.
We have heard about Tom and what a lovely man he was. I pay tribute to Christina, his partner, and Charlotte, his mother, who have campaigned long and hard in the two years since Tom’s death. I also pay tribute to the police and emergency workers involved that night and particularly to Jason Mullard, a police liaison officer for the family who has done an exceptional job.
There are a couple of key points that I want the Minister to explain. Although she might not be able to answer our questions this afternoon—I accept this broaches issues for different Departments, such as the Home Office, Justice and so on—I want to get these answers from Government. If you commit an offence with a firearm—unfortunately we had one of those in Plymouth this year as well—or are involved in a domestic abuse incident, orders can be put in place to preclude contact between the protagonists in the case. If you drive without insurance, your car can be seized, but it seems that if you commit an offence such as the one that we are talking about today, you can be taken in for the night, sober up and get everything come out of your system, then pick up your keys and just carry on driving.
In situations involving domestic violence, which are complicated, terrible events, it is often hard to understand what is really going on, but with the technology we have available now, drink-driving or drug-driving are binary. They are black and white: people either fail a test or they do not. So it is hard to understand how the scenario can present itself wherein police officers operationally decide—we have heard it is an operational decision—that an individual who has abused their privilege of driving can just crack on the following day as though nothing has happened. I have concerns that the family of the individual who has lost their life—in this case Tom—wherever it may be in this country, will see those individuals carrying on as though nothing has happened, waiting for a court appearance. They are not being served by the law, and I totally understand their pain and frustration. Where that is the case, we have a duty, as Government, Ministers and MPs, to represent them and address the problem.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just death caused by driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs that we are talking about here? Careless driving, rather than dangerous driving, with all the subtleties around that, can cause massive injuries. I had a constituent, Thomas Gill, who suffered massive injuries due to a drug-driver, but the nuances in that case were such that the driver ended up with a pathetically light sentence. This issue is important in more cases than those involving death.
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because there is a serious point here. I have heard it anecdotally, speaking to prison officers and others who spend their time in prison, that if is often said, “If you want to kill someone, run them over,” because the sentences are such as joke. We have known about that for such a long time in this country that it is hard to understand why it still exists.
Even police officers who have seen Christina’s campaigning in this case have said that they need this power. We have been working with the family and Government, with the to-ing and fro-ing that happens in this space, and the Government have said in response that the police have those powers. They may well have them, but when the figures requested by the hon. Member for Neath come out of the Government, we will see that they are hardly ever used, so there is clearly a problem. Either the police do not know about it, or the problem is with their training and understanding that seeing a perpetrator driving round for the next 12 months without any sanction whatever, having seriously injured or killed one of our constituents, is clearly not acceptable, and not only for us as MPs who represent these cases. Imagine being a family member seeing that. We clearly have to address something there.
I reiterate my request that the Minister meets the family. It is so important that these voices are heard. As MPs, we see a lot of injustices and so on, but this one appears particularly egregious. Think about your son or partner losing his life in the way Tom did, with the perpetrator leaving the scene of the accident, admitting perverting the course of justice, drink-driving and so on and going to prison for three and a half months for killing your son or fiancée. That is not right. We all know it is not right, but no one has quite been bold enough to grasp the nettle on this. I commend the Government for increasing sentences from 14 years to life for some crimes, but that needs to be broader. At the moment, there does not seem to be a clear delineation between the damage someone can cause by, for example, knocking off a wing mirror and failing to report it and actually killing a human being. It is pretty basic stuff, but we do not often see it until it is clearly painted by seeing one of the families, as we have here today.
What do I want on behalf of the family? I want the Government to take this issue seriously and really address that core point. Leaving the scene of an accident is not a normal reaction. In other instances, such as an athlete failing to take a drugs test, it will be pretty obvious why they have done that. We need to make the sanction for leaving the scene of an accident as bad as being done for the crime, so that people are actually honest and victims can actually get some sort of justice.
Ultimately, we are all accountable, and police officers are public servants too, and I am a huge fan of them, but where operational decisions cause this much pain and injustices of this scale, we have to intervene and ask what is going on with these sentencing provisions. A person can essentially kill someone, using a car as a weapon, leave the scene drunk or high on drugs, go and hide and then hand themselves in the next day and get away with three and a half months in prison. That is extraordinary. It reflects really poorly on all of us. Crucially, think about if that happened to your son, partner or fiancé. You would be absolutely livid if that was the price that we, as legislators, or the House of Commons or the police put on your son’s or fiancé’s life.
I urge the Minister to think about those things in her response. I reiterate the request that she meet the family. We will continue with this campaign. If someone fails a binary drugs or drink test at a roadside with calibrated equipment and is therefore clearly not fit to drive, they have not taken their privilege of driving responsibly enough, and I can honestly see no clear reason why they should not therefore lose their licence. If the judge decides afterwards to give it back, fine, but there should be some sort of mandate whereby someone loses that privilege—it is a privilege, not a right—to drive if they are caught over the limit for drink or drugs. That is a very low bar for a Government that is committed to victims and to upholding the rule of law to achieve.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for the way she introduced the debate and so clearly put the case, on behalf of the petitioners, that change here is necessary. It is also good to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Due to our various appointments over the past few years, we have not been in many debates together. I hope this will be the start of our coming together on Plymouth issues, which this indeed is.
We remember Tom in this debate. He is remembered not only by the family but by the 100,000 people who signed the petition, including the 1,162 people who signed the petition from Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I also pay tribute to Christina, Tom’s fiancée, and Charlotte, Tom’s mum, for the way they have run this campaign. They have spoken with dignity, compassion and clarity about what changes they would like to see.
Paul Howell
I understand how important this particular issue is for Plymouth, which is the focus today. In my constituency, well over 200 people supported this petition, and it is more than just a Plymouth issue. It is so important, and I thank people who have brought this petition for debate today.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He underlines the fact that, when a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, that does not happen by accident. It happens because there is an issue of concern. It normally happens because there is a campaign and passionate people behind it. The fact that we have signatures from all over the United Kingdom speaks volumes for the case that the family are making.
I do not intend to repeat everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View have said, but I will raise a number of aspects to highlight my concerns to the Minister. The rather brilliant Library brief that was put together for this debate put a stress on bail conditions. It is true that if someone is arrested for drink or drug-driving, bail conditions can be applied to the individual to ensure that they cannot drive. The difficulty in this case and many other cases is that bail conditions are not being applied to those individuals, because those individuals are released under investigation.
I have significant concerns about RUI and the effect that it has, not only in parking many crimes, but in not giving victims and their families justice or updates. It elongates the process. We know that there is a crisis in our courts, and our police are stretched, so RUI does give them with the ability to provide longer periods for investigation. That is certainly true, but justice delayed is justice denied. My fear about the increased use of released under investigation, especially in cases of drug and drink-driving, is that it is not giving the police and the authorities the pressure to deliver swifter prosecutions, nor is it delivering the important justice for the families to see someone charged for their crime and that crime brought forward to a court.
Johnny Mercer
I think the police would say that they have a certain period of time in which they can hold people, pre-charge, on bail, and that is why they use RUI. When it comes to the issue of drink and drug-driving, the technology is now so good that someone will have a test on the roadside and it will be clear whether they have failed. It is not like investigating an assault or something where there are two sides to the story. It is black and white, and there is no real reason why a bail condition cannot be imposed that someone is not allowed to drive, having abused that privilege by being caught drink-driving.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member raises a good point. One of the difficulties the Minister has in replying to this debate is that, as a Transport Minister, she will only be able to speak on behalf of the Department for Transport. However, this issue stretches across the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. The 11 months that Tom’s family had to wait for justice is far too long. That is because of pressures on the court service and the police. As much as I would love to put the responsibility on the Minister herself, it is the responsibility of other Departments. We need to see a joined-up approach to make this work.
Release under investigation is a particular problem that is delaying justice. It is delaying justice in cases like this and in many others. That is why the police and the authorities can attach those bail conditions to individuals. If someone is released under investigation for something that happens many times in the future, there are no such bail conditions attached to a release under investigation status. Therefore, the provisions that exist in law, quite correctly, to limit the behaviour of an individual—in this case, probably to ensure that another crime is not committed in that way—do not apply.
From my interpretation, that is effectively why Tom’s law is seeking to backfill and repair some of the legal fabric that has been changed by release under investigation. If the suspect in this case were bailed, I suspect those bail conditions would have been attached. That is one of the difficulties we have in this case. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet the family to discuss this, but I would also be grateful if she would put in a good case for a meeting with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I think there is a cross-Government approach that needs to be adopted here.
I mentioned the short sentence. I, too, welcome the increase in the tariff in the sentencing for those people who kill via drink-driving from 14 years to life. However, that did not apply in this case, and I think it is entirely legitimate for any family who have been robbed of the life of their loved one to look at the sentence that has been afforded and say, “Three months and three weeks is not justice.” I have sympathy with the family for the way in which they seek to pursue that aim through the courts, and now through politics as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath mentioned one of the remarks of the judge in this case: that “the surest thing” was that the offender would have to live with the consequences. No, the surest thing is that the family will have to live with the consequences for much longer, and with a much deeper sense of pain and loss, than the offender. That is why there is a real difficulty in relation to this issue.
My hon. Friend echoed the words of the family: driving is a privilege, not a right. One of the questions that we must ask ourselves in this place is, “To what extent does that privilege apply where a vehicle has been used to either kill or maim someone and the driver has been under the influence of drugs or alcohol?” At that point, it is reasonable for us as Parliament to take a view as to whether there should be a legal ability to prevent that person from driving. Indeed, to a certain extent, we have already taken that view: long before I or my neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, was in this place, Parliament passed legislation that put bail conditions on those individuals. There is precedent here, but that view has not been applied to release under investigation in the same way, so there is a sound argument for looking at whether RUI has changed the social contract—the deal—between the state and victims as to what applies in the event of someone being maimed or seriously hurt when a driver has been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It is important to look at that issue.
The challenge in this debate is not only how we can remember Tom, and give the family who have campaigned so thoroughly, professionally and compassionately in his memory the justice that the courts, through the low-bar sentencing, did not deliver. The challenge is also how we can we prevent this from happening in future. The responsibility and obligation that falls on parliamentarians is to ensure that no other family goes through what Tom’s family have gone through. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View has been pursuing that aim with the family for some time, and I act as his assistant in this respect to support the measures he has taken.
I would, however, like to add some words of caution. I am concerned that if we give extra responsibilities to the police or the courts system without adequately resourcing them, justice could be further delayed. If steps are to be taken, I would like them to be accompanied by the proper resources, to ensure that doing so does not elongate the process in relation to any cases and that we continue to reinforce the primacy of the courts in this matter. The ability of the police themselves to deliver restrictions on the kerbside or from the point of charge should always be tempered by the ability of a court to judge the person involved. Drink and drug-driving is one of those offences that is peculiar among cases in the criminal justice system, in that the courts see people from every single walk of life. It is important that when applications are put in, everyone can have justice when their cases are heard, but most importantly, that the victims and their families in those cases can have justice at the same time.
I would be grateful if the Minister could look at some of those aspects of this issue. I appreciate that, as a Minister in the Department for Transport, many of the aspects I have raised are not her responsibility. However, there is a need to join up with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the right questions are being asked of the competent Departments in relation to this issue, so that Tom’s family can truly have justice and the likelihood of something like this happening again can be reduced.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for having secured this debate on behalf of over 100,000 petitioners, and for the time she has spent with Tom McConnachie’s family, working with them to get to this point. I also thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for his very logical and clear demand that action be taken, showing how simple it could be to make a huge difference. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who spoke so passionately and raised a number of serious questions that need to be answered, and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for making sure we all realise that this debate affects every corner of the British Isles.
Following the touching and heartfelt contributions from Members across the House, no one can doubt how loved and admired Tom McConnachie was by his family and friends. I am glad that they are able to be here today to hear legislators in the House of Commons take this issue seriously, as he and his legacy deserve. The manner of his death is a tragedy beyond words: a young man, happily returning from a night out—a groomsman’s fitting ahead of a friend’s wedding—struck and killed by a drunk driver. I have read what his mother, Charlotte, has so powerfully said about the immense pain caused by his loss, and how she, along with Tom’s partner, Christina, is now living her own life sentence.
Drink, drug and dangerous driving destroys lives—it is as simple as that. Last year, 230 people shockingly lost their lives in drink-driving accidents, destroying the lives of hundreds of families forever. For many, the sentences handed down to offenders seem not to reflect the devastation caused by these crimes. The families’ grief in these cases is immeasurable, and seeing their relatives’ killers escape with limited sentences simply adds to that anger and grief.
We need a justice system that recognises the life sentences given to families who lose loved ones. That is why Labour—in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who could not be here today—and other Members in the House, such as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), have fought a long campaign to extend the maximum sentence to reflect properly the seriousness of the crime.
The urgent need for this change is illustrated by the fact that, in 2019, more than 150 people were sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving. Some 95% of those offenders received an immediate custodial sentence, of whom more than 15 received a sentence in excess of 10 years—that is only 10% of offenders already being sentenced near the maximum threshold. It would appear that the time is ripe to provide the courts with increased sentencing powers for these offences, so that offenders are dealt with consistently and fairly.
It is right that the courts are given a wider range of penalties to ensure that sentences are proportionate and reflect the seriousness of the offence. It is clearly time for action. No more families should have to come to the House of Commons to hear legislators not taking action when, as we have heard, there are so many logical things that can be done to make people’s lives safer, such as simply removing an offender’s licence, which should be taken away after the crime.
Turning to the suggestion that, in certain circumstances, a driving ban would be imposed pending investigation and trial, I commend the campaign for Tom’s law and all those who signed the petition that we are debating. The excellent House of Commons Library briefing notes that at present
“the police can impose bail conditions for particular purposes, one of which is to ensure there is no further offence committed while on bail. A driving ban as a condition of police bail may be appropriate for some cases.”
However, due to the lack of available statistics, we simply do not know in how many instances that has been used to suspend a licence while someone is awaiting a trial, or whether police forces are making use of these powers, or even regularly considering them. We only know from an answer to a parliamentary question from 2015 that the power is rarely used.
However, there are clear potential benefits to public safety from reducing the risk of further offences. We know that drink-drinking tests have a high degree of accuracy, so there is a compelling case to be made for the precautionary powers made available to the police to be much clearer.
Last year, a former Transport Minister said that the Department was closely exploring options that could be pursued in this area. Can the Minister update us on those conclusions? Will the Department consider a broader power for police to revoke licences, as happens when a driver fails an eyesight test at the side of a road, as has been said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View? Given that bail conditions are rarely used, is the Department working with the Home Office to ensure that police forces are made better aware of their ability to revoke a licence as part of the bail conditions for someone awaiting trial? If police forces are more aware, perhaps that option could be used more often and more effectively.
It seems sensible that, by working with the National Police Chiefs Council, a new, thorough review could swiftly establish how often these powers are being used and whether guidance for police bail could be updated. Is that also something that the Transport Minister would be willing to consider? The tragic case of Tom McConnachie and the evidence that powers to revoke licences are poorly understood and rarely used demonstrate that the status quo is continually failing to protect the public. I urge the Minister to consider the calls across the House to act swiftly to protect the public from the scourge of drink driving, drug driving and dangerous driving.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for the way in which she opened this debate on e-petitions relating to police powers to suspend driving licences. Those petitions raise specific concerns about allowing drivers who are suspected of committing road traffic offences to continue driving.
I also put on the record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for his effective and convincing portrayal of the situation and for his work with Tom’s family. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for noting that although Plymouth has been well covered in the debate, the issue affects the whole country. I thank all Members for the way in which they have contributed to the debate.
I reassure Members that the Government take road safety seriously; it is at the core of the agenda of the Department for Transport. Any death or serious injury is, of course, an absolute tragedy, and our deepest condolences go to Tom’s family, who are here today. My ministerial colleague with responsibility for roads, Minster Baroness Vere of Norbiton, has met the families of victims of similar incidents, and is aware of the devastating effect on the families involved. I am not the roads Minister, but I can confirm that Baroness Vere is willing to meet Tom’s family. I understand the tragic circumstances surrounding Tom’s death, and I extend my sympathy to all.
I recognise the concerns that in some cases the police should be able to issue a suspension notice with effect from the moment an offender is arrested at the roadside until they appear in court. Although we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads, we must not, in an attempt to resolve perceived problems with the way in which the law operates, make a decision that could ultimately make things worse or have other unforeseen effects.
Let me turn to the current offence of failure to stop and report, and the calls for the suspension of driving licences. Currently, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police can impose bail conditions for particular purposes, as was mentioned earlier. One of those conditions is that no further offences are committed by the suspect while on bail. I asked the very question that the hon. Member for Neath raised, but I was unable to get the answers that she wants, so I will endeavour to write to her with that information. That might not be possible, because the information may not be collected in the first place, but I understand the need for more information, which it might be possible to seek through the courts. I assure Members that we will work with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
The criminal courts also have the power to impose an interim driving disqualification before sentencing in a case involving discretionary or obligatory disqualification from driving, or when transferring such a case to another court. I want to make it clear, however, that the Government do not dismiss at all the concerns that have been raised. We are, of course, aware of the traumatic effects of such incidents.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members appreciate that this is a complex issue that should fit within the current driving offences framework. Department for Transport officials have been exploring options that could be pursued, and they will consider with interest the points that have been raised in the debate as part of their consideration of road traffic matters. In respect of any potential law changes for road traffic offences, we will consider the triangulation of interests—those of the victim, the suspect and society. A call for evidence will enable issues to be fully explored, so as a next step, the Department will conduct a call for evidence on parts of the Road Traffic Act 1988. While details on its scope are being worked on, I am sure close attention is being paid to the points raised and to the campaign for Tom’s law.
Johnny Mercer
I appreciate the Minister’s response. She said that her officials will look at this debate and build it into a consultation. Will she ask her officials to write to me, as the constituents’ MP, with a reflection on today’s debate? The points raised are clear. I do not know if she has a reason, but there appears to be no clear reason why, with the technology available today, if someone fails a drink and drive test by the roadside, they should retain their licence. I would be interested to hear the Department’s position on that.
Trudy Harrison
I will endeavour to do just that. I will ensure that we write to my hon. Friend with that information as far as we can.
Most of all, I would like to thank Christina, Charlotte and Sandra for their bravery and courage campaigning for Tom’s law, and for being present for this debate. I expect the issue of police powers in serious road crime to form part of the call for evidence.
Luke Pollard
It is welcome news that the Minister’s Department is looking into this matter. I think she made a commitment for a consultation, and it is welcome that it will be included. Her officials may say that the suspension of a driving licence should be a Home Office matter, but in her Department, would she look at penalty points notices? As it stands, someone who causes death by careless driving with alcohol and drugs above the limit can be subject to three to 11 points on their licence, and over that their licence is removed. The option of suspended penalty points means they can be applied to the licence in the period before conviction, which is another means of achieving what Tom’s law seeks to do. That is not necessarily a licence suspension, but an application, albeit temporary until a court process, of penalty notices or penalty point endorsements.
Trudy Harrison
I thank hon. Gentleman for making those points. He will understand that I am not the roads Minister, and I am responding on the behalf of the roads Minister, Baroness Vere of Norbiton. Officials in the Department will be listening closely to what he says and will endeavour to take that into account. He is correct to mention a consultation; a call for evidence will be taken forward.
Christina Rees
I thank the Minister for her magnanimous delivery, which is very measured. However, I have trouble with three things. First, if someone is released under investigation is that under guidance rather than under statute? Secondly, she referred to the data for which I asked—is that because it is not collected nationally, or because separate police forces do not have the IT or the staff to do it? Thirdly, I have a problem with RUI as opposed to police bail. The Minister must be aware of the tragic case of Kay Richardson, who was murdered by her estranged husband after he was released under investigation. He had previous domestic abuse convictions, but bail conditions might have protected her.
Trudy Harrison
I am afraid I cannot answer the wider questions on RUI. When I asked for the information, I was led to understand that it was not collected, which is why I am seeking further information through the courts system. We will get that information and I will endeavour to respond to the hon. Lady on those specific requests as soon as I can.
I thank hon. Members again for raising this important issue and for the campaign for Tom’s law.
Christina Rees
I thank Members for their contributions, and give special thanks to the two Plymouth MPs who represent Christina and Tom’s families and have served them well in this debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Most of all, I thank Christina and Tom’s family for campaigning for Tom’s law, so that other families will not have to suffer the grief and injustice that they have gone through for nearly three years.
When I met Christina, Charlotte and Sandra this afternoon, Christina reminded me that on 24 February this year it will be the third anniversary of Tom’s tragic death. They are still suffering. On behalf of Christina, Charlotte and Sandra, I thank the Minister for confirming that Baroness Vere will meet with them. I look forward to receiving in writing the statistics that I asked for. Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 548682, relating to police powers to suspend driving licences.
Grand Committee
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. In addition, you may be aware that the heating is down, but I can assure you that the air quality is being monitored. If it goes above 1,000 parts per million, we will have to adjourn, but at the moment it is at 700, so we should be fine because there are not many of us in the Room. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes or earlier in agreement with the people in the Room.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Monday 10th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 View all National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 48-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (6 Jan 2022)
Baroness Kramer
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure employers have declared the beneficial ownership of goods or assets in the freeport before being eligible for zero-rate contributions under this Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall try not to add too much to the hot air in the Room so that we can crack through all of this.
Free ports have historically been a magnet for illicit activity, including, and these days almost especially, money laundering. Some of the UN reports give people a sense of how large the scope of money laundering is; the reports reckon that something like $800 billion up to $2 trillion a year—2% to 5% of the world’s GDP—is put through the laundry machine. In May 2020, RUSI’s Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies said in written evidence to the International Trade Committee of the other place:
“there is evidence of criminal activity taking place in multiple freeports around the world. It often involves trade in counterfeit goods, drug trafficking, smuggling of untaxed goods or trade-based money laundering”.
By definition, free ports do not require declarations that are associated with customs, excise or tax, which are the principal ways in which transparency as to the nature of imported items, their origins, destinations and ownership, is achieved. When extensive processing of those imports is also available in the free port site, especially when, as in this case, the processing is granted all kinds of fiscal favours, including the waiver of national insurance contributions, the lure for criminals and money launderers is very much magnified. Obviously, the more processed the illicit product, the harder it is to trace or track and the harder it is for enforcement. Exploring safeguards against illicit behaviour is the motive behind Amendment 1, which I recognise is very much a probing amendment.
I thank the Minister and his office for taking this issue seriously in our meeting last Thursday. It was a very useful meeting, and we appreciate it. The follow-up information provided has alleviated some of my concerns, because, as the email from the Treasury explained, some relevant measures were included in the freeports bidding prospectus, which says:
“the Freeport Governance Body will be required to maintain a record of all the businesses operating or applying to operate within the tax site.”
Up to date information will be held on the “beneficial owner” of each business and the body will be required to make
“reasonable efforts to verify the beneficial owner”.
This information will be made accessible to HMRC, the NCA and Border Force. However, as it stands it will not be available for public scrutiny; the Minister will correct me if I have got this wrong. HMRC will spend little effort looking at what is happening in free ports; by definition, there are no customs, duties or tax requirements. Therefore, the NCA becomes, as it were, the strongman for enforcement in this case. This led me to look at the National Crime Agency inspection report from July 2021. I will quote from the summary—it was a fairly scathing report:
“There is insufficient capacity in the investigations command to meet the demand being developed by the intelligence command and the reactive demand (such as seizures at the border).”
In other words, we have a problem. The National Crime Agency, even without the addition of free ports, is significantly underresourced and needs to upskill, although this is less to do with the capacity of the people; there is also a lack of technical resource. We are turning to that body at the same time as introducing new avenues for money laundering and other illicit behaviours.
This House and this Government have always taken the view that it is the public nature of any register of beneficial ownership that brings the necessary scrutiny and deterrence to make that register effective. The UK already has a public register of the beneficial ownership of UK companies, and the Government have promised a public register of the beneficial owners of UK property. In addition, the Government insist that they have been working very hard to achieve public registers in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, so it seems really odd to create a new situation here where one of the primary tools will be a register of beneficial ownership that is not being made public. At the very least, this undermines those discussions with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.
I would very much like the Government to have a rethink and see whether they can make this information publicly available, at the very least. It would also be really helpful to know whether some additional resource will be put into the National Crime Agency, because without that we will be on a very uncomfortable wicket in this world where money laundering is frankly a growth industry, not a declining one.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I start by reiterating the Labour Party’s position on the Bill, as originally stated at Second Reading. We have never understood the Government’s fanaticism over free ports and are sceptical that they will deliver the scale of economic benefit promised in recent years. Nevertheless, we do not intend to oppose the various measures, some on free ports and some on other issues, contained in the legislation. The Government will get their Bill through and it will be up to Ministers to prove that their way is the right way. If that proves not to be the case, they must own their failures of judgment.
As a general point, there are several important questions that the Government were unable to answer in the other place or at Second Reading. Today is an opportunity to explore some of those concerns in more detail. It is also a chance for me to record my thanks, along with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to the Minister and his officials for their engagement between Second Reading and today. Not all our questions were answered, but I hope they will be addressed as the Minister responds to the nine amendments before us.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has enabled a short debate on beneficial ownership. As she noted in her introduction, we have been waiting for quite some time for the Government to deliver on their numerous promises in this area. I am sure the Minister himself has delivered assurances on at least a few occasions. The case for stronger action has been made time and again. Light is cast on shady practices, yet despite stern warnings from the Chancellor, meaningful action never seems to materialise. I hope colleagues will forgive the slightly dry analogy, but as we are in January it is almost as if the Treasury and BEIS are treating this like a new year’s resolution. It sounds positive, and we are promised that the Government will follow through, but within weeks or months the ambition quietly falls away. Questions about beneficial ownership are not best dealt with in this Bill, but I appreciate the noble Baroness’s efforts to raise them. I doubt the Minister will be able to offer all the assurances that we seek, but I hope he can go some way to proving me wrong.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising these important points. I also found it useful to have a discussion prior to Committee on the points that both noble Lords raised, which are being taken forward today. Ensuring that the free-port tax reliefs are effectively targeted is a government priority, and this will be the general theme of my remarks.
Before I go into the detail of the specific amendment, I will provide a brief overview of what the Government are looking to achieve through free ports, and I hope this will be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in particular. It is, first, to establish national hubs for global trade and investment, intensifying the economic impact of our ports and generating increased economic activity across the UK. Secondly, it is to deliver jobs, sustainable economic growth and regeneration in the areas that need it most. Thirdly, it is to create centres of innovation that bring together innovators to develop and trial new ideas and technologies.
To these ends, each free port will contain specific tax sites where businesses can claim reliefs on new investment and jobs, including the national insurance contributions relief discussed here today and as part of this Bill. Each free port will also contain specific customs sites where importers, exporters and manufacturers can benefit from duty reliefs and simplified customs procedures. Also, each free port will receive a capital grant for infrastructure improvements, alongside planning flexibilities and trade, investment and innovation support.
Amendment 1 seeks to support the government’s commitment that only legitimate businesses operate in free ports. I can assure the House that the Government have taken steps to ensure that only those whom this policy is intended to benefit will benefit. Specific to this policy, the Government have included conditions requiring free-port employers to have a physical business premises in the free-port tax site, so that only employers that are investing in free ports can benefit from this relief. Next, employees are required to spend 60% of their working time in the free-port tax site. Both these conditions ensure that the relief is effectively targeted.
In relation to free ports more broadly and the specifics of the amendment, the Government have three stages before businesses can claim reliefs in tax sites. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned the bidding process. I am pleased that we have got to this point in the debate. The bidding process, run by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, considered a wide range of criteria, including what steps the bidders would take to ensure that their free port would be secure against illicit activity. As I think the noble Baroness picked up, eight out of the 14 bids were taken forward, which means that six were not.
Secondly, each free port has to agree its proposed tax sites with HMT and HMRC, with consideration given to HMRC’s ability to enforce the conditions of the tax reliefs within each site. So far, three of the free ports have had a total of eight tax sites designated. Thirdly, each business within a tax site will need to submit a return to HMRC to claim this relief and demonstrate that it has met the relevant conditions. Compliance checks will be carried out to ensure that only those who are eligible for the relief benefit from it.
To support all this, as part of successful bids the Government have required free-port governance bodies to undertake rigorous efforts to verify the beneficial owner of businesses operating within the free-port tax site. This is a proportionate approach that means that the local area can take effective measures to ensure the security and propriety of operations within the free port. In practice, many free-port governance bodies are taking further steps to ensure that firms moving into tax sites will support delivery of the free ports’ overall objectives. Similarly, for the customs sites, there are three stages: first, the overall free-port bid process that I referred to earlier; secondly, HMRC approval of each customs site; and, thirdly, HMRC approval of each business operating within each customs site.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will indeed withdraw the amendment, but I put the Minister on notice that when every opportunity occurs I will keep pressing, as I suspect will others in this Room, for public, not just private, registers of beneficial interest. I am convinced that until we do that we will not crack this problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the regulations that could be made under section 3(3) to those that would ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations with respect to subsidy control.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this amendment reflects the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I suspect that everyone, including the Minister, is familiar with its comments, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response above and beyond the letter that was sent to us. The position of the DPRRC, which has a great deal of logic, is that the powers conferred by Clause 3(3) are inappropriate. They would enable the Treasury to rewrite the conditions that employers must meet to receive NICs relief.
The Treasury in its memorandum asserted that it had two purposes behind those powers. The first is a potential change in economic circumstances, although that must apply to every Bill that comes through this place. It is impossible to conceive of urgency when it comes to the nature of free-port rules. However, should that urgency arise, Parliament is frankly very good at dealing with urgent legislation, as we have proved over the last couple of years.
The second purpose the Treasury discussed is the need to make the relief compatible with a subsidy control regime that is not yet in place. The committee recognised that concern, as do I, so the amendment allows powers to make changes to achieve that compatibility.
But the powers sought by the Government are actually much wider than either of the purposes mentioned by the Treasury. Indeed, they can be exercised for any purpose. In effect, regulation can almost without limit change the primary legislation that designates the character of free ports. This amendment therefore fundamentally seeks to limit the untrammelled nature of the powers. I say to the Government more broadly that they need to mend their ways, because we constantly see legislation of this kind—Bill after Bill. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is also speaking on this amendment because it is clear that the Labour Party would benefit from untrammelled powers should there ever be a change in power. Perhaps it is a salutary thought for the Government that, if they constantly pursue the shift of power to the Government away from Parliament, it will not revert when the day eventually happens and Governments change.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 2 and several other amendments to be discussed later today, which aim to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It goes without saying that the Government and the DPRRC will not always see eye to eye on these matters. However, we have long trusted the committee to take a balanced approach to the scope of ministerial powers, so that the Government can meet their objectives while respecting the vital role of Parliament. I will pick up the noble Baroness’s challenge about the hazy days of summer when we are in power. I am old enough to remember when we were in power, and we almost always implemented the recommendations of the DPRRC or whatever was its equivalent at that time, so I am sure we will receive her approval in how we behave.
The power in Clause 3(3) does not appear to strike the appropriate balance. As the committee notes in its 11th report of the Session, the current draft is significantly broader than required to fulfil the indicative purposes listed in the Treasury’s memorandum. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has adopted the terminology suggested by the DPRRC and we support that. Maybe there is some middle way, which will give the Treasury some but not all of the flexibility that it seeks.
I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy of his response to the committee, enabling us to have a more informed debate today than would have otherwise been the case. Sadly, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I was disappointed by his response, particularly in relation to the power in Clause 3(3). I continue to side with the committee in relation to the non-binding status of the Treasury’s memorandum. While the historic example of the 2014 Act was somewhat interesting, I am not sure that makes the argument persuasive. I hope that he can provide some further detail today, but what we will really need in the run-up to Report is a change in attitude from the Treasury.
It would be better if the department were to think again of its own accord but, if that is not possible, I would not be surprised to see a similar amendment tabled at a later stage of the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for raising this point, which reflects a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
As background, Clause 3 ensures that the Government retain the flexibility to react to the economic realities of free ports and to protect the taxpayer, and it therefore contains a number of regulation-making powers, in subsections (3) and (4). Free ports are novel in the UK. The Government have undertaken an ambitious plan to invest in underdeveloped areas and level up the UK. So that the Government can continue to meet their international obligations and retain the power to exclude employers that seek to abuse this policy, they have taken a power to add, remove, or alter the conditions set out in Clause 2, which is contained in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 3. A similar approach was taken with other free-port measures legislated for in the Finance Act 2021. My point is that there is a precedent here.
I turn to the substance of Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. It seeks to limit the regulations that could be made under Clause 3(3) to those that would ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations with respect to subsidy control. This is in response to the report of the DPRRC, which recommended that this power, which may amend Part 1 of the Bill and which is subject to the draft affirmative procedure, should be restricted to specified purposes only.
I would like to explain to noble Lords why the Government consider this amendment unnecessary, and will go into the reasons, as the Committee would expect me to. Examples of when this power could be used are provided in the department’s delegated powers memorandum of ensuring compliance with the UK’s international subsidy control obligations. The Government believe that this amendment would be overly restrictive and could result in primary legislation being needed in the near future. The subsidy control landscape in this case is complicated, uncertain and difficult to predict, and the power needs to be capable of dealing with a wide range of possibilities. The Government believe that it would be difficult to narrow it while at the same time allowing it to be flexible enough to deal with a wide range of possibilities within the subsidy control landscape.
I shall go further. It may help the Committee if I also explain what in the Government’s view is a clear precedent for this power, in Section 5(1)(b) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014. This measure provides a power exercisable by the Treasury to make regulations to add, reduce or modify the cases in which a person cannot qualify for an employment allowance or in which liabilities to pay secondary class 1 NICs are excluded liabilities. It enables the Treasury to make changes to Sections 2 and 3 and Schedule 1 of that Act. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 18th report of Session 2013-14 considered the delegated powers in the NICs Act 2014 but, interestingly, did not comment on the power in Section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
The power in Section 5(1)(b) has so far been used three times, including to exclude companies with employer NICs over £100,000 to focus the relief on small businesses. This policy change was not foreseen when the power was introduced and, if there had been a similar restriction in the legislation on the use of the power, such a change would have subsequently required primary legislation. This could have risked a delay to implementing the policy as, unlike Finance Bills, NICs Bills are not guaranteed to be annual.
In view of the above, and that similar powers are also included in the Finance Act 2021, the Government believe that the draft affirmative procedure remains appropriate without further restrictions on the power. With this rather lengthy explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, once again, I shall at this stage withdraw, although I am sure that the Minister heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on this issue a few moments ago. It is salutary constantly to hear the word “precedent”. I am sure that when the terms were drafted for the national insurance Bill dealing with employment allowance, there were constant reassurances that the power would be used very narrowly and only to deal with very particular circumstances. That is the problem—it then becomes a precedent for the door to be opened more widely and yet more widely. The clause here is a particularly wide one. We have underlying concerns that, once again, we are getting a design of legislation that is not appropriate—but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Kramer
“Review of the impact of section 1
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of section 1 of this Act.(2) The review in subsection (1) must cover but is not limited to—(a) an estimation of the loss in National Insurance revenue as a result of section 1;(b) the number of jobs created as a result of section 1; and(c) the impact of section 1 on small and medium-sized enterprises.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of section 1 of this Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I must apologise—three in a row, here—but this amendment deals with rather a different issue from those which we have so far discussed. Your Lordships will be well aware from Second Reading and other comments that I have made that one of my main concerns about free ports is that they displace growth in businesses, jobs and opportunities from other areas of disadvantage rather than create additional growth. There is a very interesting study by the Centre for Cities, which showed that in the first five years of enterprise zones in the UK—2012 to 2017—only a quarter of the predicted jobs were created but, of those, a third came as the result of displacement, and the jobs were overwhelmingly low skilled. That ran counter to all the expectations, discussion, promises and arguments. Other experience also suggests that SMEs do not benefit: if anything, it is larger companies that benefit, so it is not a pro-SME strategy.
We have plenty of global experience to demonstrate that free ports do not aid economic growth. Very few people would look at existing free ports and argue that they have contributed in any significant way. There is now a different argument about the United States, which has intermediate taxes on processing, an entirely different situation which does not exist in the UK. That is usually the only example anyone can come up with that has any weight behind it, but its circumstances are so utterly different that it does not apply in this case. We have really no evidence that free ports aid economic growth, and neither do we have evidence that enterprise zones create economic growth. In effect, this policy combines the two in one location. That is pretty unlikely to overcome the weaknesses of either. Because of that, I am very concerned that we have a prompt review of the impact of the Bill, because we will have to see whether a course correction is required. That is what the amendment would do in a number of different but, to anyone reading the amendment, obvious ways.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very straightforward amendment, and one which mirrors the Labour Party’s text tabled at this stage in the House of Commons. I shall not detain the Committee with a lengthy contribution, as the case for a review of the NICs relief enabled by Clause 1 has already been well made. We may quibble over the timescale and precise details of any review, but it appears sensible that the Treasury outline whether the realities of this policy live up to the expectations. As stated earlier this afternoon, Ministers must own their decisions. An amendment along these lines would significantly increase the accountability attached to this tax break.
Although I am sure he will argue that such a review does not need statutory underpinning, I hope the Minister will respond positively to the proposal. A concrete commitment to a review along these lines would be of great comfort. Others, including the National Audit Office, will no doubt analyse the performance of free ports in the months and years to come but, in the interim, it would be a shame if the Treasury were not open about the successes or otherwise of its measures.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I in turn thank the noble Baroness again and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising these concerns. In particular, I will address the point she made about displacement slightly later in my remarks.
Amendment 3 would require the Government to conduct a review, six months from the date this Act receives Royal Assent, into the effectiveness of the policy. The Government acknowledge the importance of monitoring reliefs of this nature and evaluating ambitious programmes such as these free ports. It is for that reason that the Government have already committed to reviewing the use and effectiveness of this relief before deciding whether to extend it further. This review will look at the data available through HMRC’s systems.
More broadly, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities—the department responsible for delivery of free ports, as I mentioned during an earlier debate—is leading the monitoring. It will work closely and collaboratively across government to ensure a robust and rigorous evaluation. Given that the free ports policy is focused on generating long-term benefits to local areas, six months is unlikely to be an appropriate timescale for any review, as free ports will not have fully reached their operating potential within that six months. For example, ports will still be looking to attract additional investment and continuing to develop their sites. In addition, this policy relates to new employees. As I imagine the noble Baroness will understand, the hiring process can take a number of months, which would take us well beyond the six months she suggests.
The department for levelling up has committed to publishing its monitoring and evaluation strategy in spring 2022. This strategy will be in line with key principles and best practices from the Magenta Book, which provides guidance on evaluation within government, and will ensure a robust and rigorous evaluation of the free ports programme.
Furthermore, the Government have taken on board suggestions and feedback from stakeholders and the public as part of the consultation process to ensure that the UK has an ambitious and attractive offer for businesses. Our new free ports offer is far more ambitious than our previous one, including simplified customs processes, targeted tax measures to incentivise private business investment, carefully considered planning reforms and targeted funding for infrastructure. This new, ambitious free ports policy offer is already proving attractive to domestic and international investors looking to start or grow their UK operations.
Throughout the development and delivery of the free ports policy, the Government have taken steps to ensure that the tax, spending and policy levers deployed in free ports are used effectively. That takes us back to the first debate we had this afternoon. For example, to minimise displacement of economic activity, we required bidders to explain how their choice of tax locations would attract new economic activity to the area which would not have been possible without free ports. Subsequently, tax sites were not designated until the Government were confident that this had been successfully demonstrated. This approach has been recognised by the OBR in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which says that
“the Treasury has taken steps to try to reduce displacement through the bidding process, requiring bidders to demonstrate how they would generate additionality and minimise displacement from other locations.”
We are already seeing positive evidence of new investment at free ports. For example, DP World announced an investment of £300 million to support the Thames free port.
It is prudent to work within these existing frameworks so that we can get a holistic view of the success of free ports. We believe that conducting the review less than six months from when the relief comes into effect will produce an incomplete dataset and will not give a fair reflection of the policy. With this explanation and these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Once again, I will of course withdraw the amendment. I note with some irony that the Minister suggests that a review in six months is way too soon, yet here we are with a piece of legislation and we do not even know what the monitoring criteria will be. We are already putting horses and carts in the wrong order.
I am very concerned that there really should be a rigorous review of this process because we will see some significant losses in forgone national insurance contributions, which will have some serious consequences, particularly at a time of such fiscal constraint. We ought to have a running and prompt evidence base to be able to judge whether those forgone taxes are justified by the change in behaviour that is taking place. I hope we will see something vigorous in terms of a review. I am not very convinced. I am slightly distressed that the review is apparently being thought of after the legislation and not before it, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the conditions attached to zero-rate relief for armed forces veterans, ensuring that such relief is available for a period of three years after the veteran begins civilian employment, rather than one.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her support. The amendment provides me with a rare opportunity to combine two of my great loves in life: helping veterans while studying the minutiae of fiscal policy. On the face of it, it is a simple amendment and reflects a question asked of the Government at Second Reading: why, given that they have chosen to offer a three-year tax break to businesses operating within free ports, are they able to fund only a single-year incentive to firms hiring Armed Forces veterans?
Let me be clear from the start that, like organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Labour Party welcomes the new form of NICs relief. In my view, even if it were to help only a small number of veterans into civilian work, it will have been a success. However, as I have given more thought to the question in recent weeks, I am increasingly sceptical that this form of time-limited NICs relief is the right one. It feels more like a means for the Government to say that they are delivering on their duty to former service personnel, as enshrined in the Armed Forces covenant, rather than a scheme that matches the realities of veterans’ lives.
Many service personnel leave the Armed Forces with a variety of fantastic experience and skills. This may not have been gained via traditional learning routes, but employers know that veterans bring with them practical know-how and a first-class attitude. Some veterans readjust to civilian life immediately. They will be lucky enough to find stable accommodation, apply for jobs and find themselves with a new career. However, for others, this period of adjustment is particularly difficult. Finding a permanent place to live may prove tricky, or they may struggle integrating into the labour market in their chosen area. For every veteran who settles into a job within 12 months, there is likely to be another who, for a period of some years, finds themselves moving between living accommodation or jobs.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
This new NICs relief will be hugely beneficial for veterans in the first group, but I fear that it does nothing for the second. Indeed, I worry that, if you are an individual who cannot get up to speed with civilian life within 12 months, there is the chance that you will be left behind as firms seek the savings of hiring somebody from the next batch of new veterans.
I have always been concerned about the covenant. I feel that I have been representing the Labour Party on defence ever since it was first mooted. I have always been deeply suspicious that it is all about words and very little about resources. However, the forces’ charities, particularly the Royal British Legion, have argued that it is a force for good. Here, we have something real; we have real resources being devoted to the covenant to make it work. The Government clearly believe that it will make a difference. Clearly they have accepted the principle. All we are debating is the price.
It seems to me that three years would be fairer. It is difficult to see why a very generous three years will be there for free ports, whereas people who have laid their lives on the line for their country will have to manage with one year. It would be better for society as a whole. Unfortunately, too many veterans do not fit into society very well. They become if not a drag on society then nothing like the contribution that they could make. Time is required to make a difference. I know and meet some of these individuals. I suppose I tend to meet the ones that have successfully merged into civilian life. They talk about how difficult it is at first and how surprisingly long it takes them to settle down and into jobs that are productive for society and good for themselves as individuals. The extension to three years will be especially useful for what I loosely call “difficult cases”.
I am very committed to this and will undoubtedly come back on Report if no progress is made in any discussions that we might have in the meantime. All that is clear to me at this stage is that the scheme, although a step in the right direction for veteran support, is also a missed opportunity. Let us seize the opportunity and do better. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my comments will be brief, but I hope the Minister will not read that as meaning that I lack an interest in this. I am passionately supportive of this amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for bringing it forward.
We all know that military veterans have a wide range of skills to offer civilian employers, especially SMEs, but we also know that quite a few—although far from all—veterans need support to make the adjustment to the civilian workforce, whether that be in updating skills or dealing with the adjustment back to civilian life or with service-related trauma. I have always looked at the zero rating that the Government propose not as a saving for the company as an incentive to employ the veteran but as a means to enable that company to provide the necessary support—the upskilling and the more social forms of support—to enable the veteran much more quickly to belong and be part of the company that he or she has joined, and to be successful in that role. For that reason, three years seems eminently sensible. The idea that it is a virtually instant process for someone to make that transition from military to civilian life is, I think, artificial.
If I understood it correctly from some of our off-piste discussions, the cost of providing support is in the range of £20 million a year. That is trivial in terms of any departmental budget. To, in effect, triple that, which is what this proposal is doing by calling for three years, does not seem an unreasonable ask—nor does the amount of money involved. It will disappear somewhere to the right of the decimal point in the Treasury accounts. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to rethink. It would look well for the Government to take a more generous approach, and it would also underpin the success of what is, I think, a good strategy.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seeks to extend the veterans relief from one to three years, as has been pointed out.
Stable and fulfilling employment is a vital part of a successful transition from the Armed Forces to civilian life. The Government provide an effective career transition package to service personnel leaving the Armed Forces, which, the latest figures indicate, supports 84% into employment. The training, experience and resources available to service personnel ensure that veterans have a valuable skill set to offer employers, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, described so eloquently. However, 7% of veterans using this service remain unemployed up to a year after leaving the Armed Forces.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both put it well. To an extent, their thoughts chime with mine. This relief has been introduced to support veterans as they transition into civilian life and to encourage employers to utilise the vast skill sets of veterans. Between 10,000 and 15,000 people leave the Regular Armed Forces each year; their employers will be able to benefit, in the 2021-22 tax year, from up to £5,500 worth of relief.
This measure fulfils the Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment and builds on the UK-wide Strategy for our Veterans, launched in November 2018, which includes specific commitments to support veterans to “enter appropriate employment”. The Government have also established an Office for Veterans’ Affairs and have launched initiatives including the Civil Service’s guaranteed interview scheme for veterans. In March 2021, the Government also announced the Op COURAGE service, creating a single point for veterans to access mental health services, and NHS England published Healthcare for the Armed Forces Community: A Forward View, which included commitments to help the transition to civilian life and to improve veterans’ and their families’ mental health.
Although the free port relief is available for three years, as is well known, employers of veterans have a higher threshold before they pay any NICs. These reliefs have been designed in this way because they serve fundamentally different purposes. The free port relief is part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and is aimed at incentivising long-term investment and employment growth. By contrast, the veterans relief is aimed at reducing the barriers to employment that some veterans face when they leave the forces to transition into civilian life. Therefore, it provides a relief for a shorter duration but at a higher threshold, providing employers up to £5,500 in savings per veteran they employ, as was mentioned earlier.
The Government consulted extensively on the relief, including a policy consultation which ran from July to October 2020 and a technical consultation which ran from January to March 2021. A significant number of respondents agreed that this relief was a positive step towards supporting the recruitment of veterans and could break down the barriers and negative perceptions surrounding veterans. The cost savings were also welcomed by stakeholders, with the Federation of Small Businesses and X-Forces Enterprise jointly welcoming the announcement.
If such an amendment were passed by this House, it would reduce receipts into the National Insurance Fund and therefore create a cost to the Exchequer. Financial matters are normally the responsibility of the other place, as both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will know. With those reassurances and broader explanation of why we see one year as appropriate as opposed to three years, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge that the Government have made some good progress in improving the services to veterans, but the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, touched on an important point about the social form of support. We are not talking about a single firm; we are talking about a three-year period to adjust. It is all very well to say that many veterans leave the forces with attractive skills, but a rather important number of veterans leave with the skill of how to kill people, and there is not a great deal of call for that in civilian life. A very structured society under military laws has, in a lot of cases—not the majority, by any means—been good for people who come in with a difficult lifestyle and a certain waywardness; it works for them. But if they come into the civilian world and that falls away, without a specific set of skills they find it difficult.
We are talking about not just settling down but building up a CV in these three years. As I said, I conversed with some individuals, and a point made to me by one person—it was some time ago—was that his CV for employers was rather weak. He needed to prove not only that he was a good chap in the military but that he had been a good citizen in perhaps not particularly exciting jobs, which then allowed his career to progress. I would hate the Government to get into a position where they had to argue for this programme being, in a sense, underfunded—that they thought it generally speaking a good idea, but would look too mean and, in saving a little, would allow victory to escape. As ever, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
“Reimbursement of the National Insurance Fund
In section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993 (payments into National Insurance Fund out of money provided by Parliament)—(a) after “not exceeding in aggregate” insert “—(a) ”, and(b) at the end insert “, and(b) the reduction in secondary Class 1 contributions in that tax year arising from the provisions of section 1 and section 6 of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2022.””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause is to probe whether it might be desirable for the Secretary of State to pay to the National Insurance Fund from the Consolidated Fund the reduction in contribution income that will be received by the National Insurance Fund due to the zero-rate relief in secondary Class 1 contributions introduced by the Bill for employers of Freeport employees and the employers of forces veterans.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, the main function of this amendment is to offer brief respite to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend. However, the amendment is on a serious matter and I want to take this opportunity to raise it and see if I can elicit a response from the Government. It could be argued that it is on more of a Second Reading point, but it occurred to me only subsequent to Second Reading, and the amendment fits here.
I also accept that it is a probing amendment and far from perfect. In practice, I would have to rewrite extensive legislation to achieve what I want, which would probably fall foul of the rules on financial privilege anyway. However, I am still raising a point that is important, although I do not intend to detain the Committee overlong.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be quite quick. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, does himself a disservice; this is a very important issue. I certainly missed it, and I think only someone with his expertise and acuity would have picked up this very fundamental point of principle. The National Insurance Fund and its Northern Ireland equivalent are used to pay social security benefits, as the noble Lord said, including the state pension. Messing with the state pension certainly reverberates with the general public. Without the change proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, these funds are in effect being raided by the Government to pay for economic growth subsidies. Is that now their purpose?
The Government may argue that their new national insurance contribution social care levy, to be used for the NHS and perhaps eventually for social care—many of us doubt we will ever get there—sets the precedent for raiding the fund. We come back to the word “precedent” yet again. I doubt that this has been declared openly to the British people. It matters not just because of the promises inherent in the fund and its role but because NICs fall on workers earning well below the tax threshold. To raid their contributions—which they will have thought are paid towards benefits and pensions—to provide a subsidy for businesses is certainly a fundamental change of purpose.
I hope we can have some explanation from the Minister, because this seems to me a point of principle. With precedent established, I very much question where this whole track will take us. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for raising a very fundamental point of principle which needs to be answered and dealt with openly.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will not make much of a speech because it would dilute the excellence of the points made in the debate so far. It seems that we are on an edge here; if we do not do something about this, we will throw away these terms. They will become meaningless unless we preserve them.
There is a big debate about what I loosely call hypothecation, and so on; sometimes we wander into it and sometimes we do not. However, if you are going to wander into this area, you should keep it clean. The use of this fund in this way pollutes the concept and is a retrograde step. I hope that the Government will think twice about it. We do not object to what is being done in the Bill but, somehow or other, a device needs to be found to keep these terms clean. I support the amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for raising these interesting points. I hope that I can provide for him, as I wish to do, a full and rounded answer.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the National Insurance Fund, or NIF, remains in good health by allowing a transfer of funds from the consolidated fund to account for the reduction in revenue as a result of the zero-rate relief in secondary Class 1 contributions as introduced by the Bill for employers of free ports employees and the employers of forces veterans. I would like to explain to noble Lords why the Government consider that such an amendment is unnecessary. However, to start with, it may be helpful to provide some background on how the National Insurance Fund operates. Obviously, this is for the benefit of the Committee; I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be well versed in this particular matter. I will not go into the history too much, but it may be helpful for the Committee.
The majority of NICs receipts are deposited into the NIF, which in turn funds most contributory benefits, including the state pension. The NIF is funded on a collective basis, meaning that today’s NICs receipts pay for the benefits being paid today. In 2021-22, the Government Actuary’s Department estimated that total NICs receipts in the NIF would equate to approximately £122 billion, exceeding the £112 billion in benefit payments and associated costs. The cost of the veterans and free ports reliefs are therefore small in comparison to the NIF’s surplus and will not impact on the NIF’s ability to pay out contributory benefits.
Furthermore, the Government already have an established process in place to ensure that the NIF always maintains a sufficient working balance to continue to pay out contributory benefits. It has been the practice since 1983 to maintain a balance of at least one-sixth of projected annual benefit expenditure—in broad terms, two-months’ worth of benefit expenditure—to be able to deal with unexpected contingencies. As the NIF has no borrowing powers, Section 2 of the Social Security Act 1993 permits the Treasury to pay a grant from the consolidated fund into the NIF up to a specified percentage, at almost 17%, of estimated benefit expenditure.
Before the start of each financial year, the Government use the information provided by the Government Actuary’s Department in its uprating report to determine a ceiling for the grant that may be paid in the following year which is then subject to approval by Parliament. For example, in the 2021-22 financial year, the Government legislated for a Treasury grant provision of 17%, although, given the current surplus of the NIF, this provision is not needed to be drawn upon. This secondary affirmative legislation was debated by noble Lords on 8 February 2021. Therefore, we feel that such a provision that the noble Lord has proposed is unnecessary as the Government already have the ability to top up the National Insurance Fund should they need to.
A wider point has been made, particularly by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the legitimacy of this. However, there are already reliefs in the NICs system with regard to the employment allowance, the under-21 relief and the under-25 apprentice relief. I therefore reassure the Committee that this policy and the thinking behind it is not new, and that obviously it is used for different purposes.
Finally, if such an amendment was passed by this House, it would likely engage the financial privilege of the other House.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment in his name.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I will withdraw the amendment. I will read carefully what the Minister said, but I maintain my position that there is a point of principle here. I agree that there are precedents for using national insurance relief, but I was not here then so I was unable to raise it. I am raising it now because, as I said in my introductory remarks, I believe in a national insurance system and the National Insurance Fund. If it is to be treated as just a source of general taxation, which effectively this does, it dilutes the principle. I shall read what the Minister said, and I thank him for his reply.
Baroness Kramer
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Treasury to make a designation under section 10(2)(d) by regulations, as recommended by the DPRRC.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Tunnicliffe, for a little relief from leading off. I shall be very brief. Amendments 6, 8 and 9 again revert to the recommendations of the DPRRC.
I start, briefly, with Amendment 6. I really do not understand the Government’s argument that they should be able to create new self-isolation support schemes and make them exempt from NICs without even alerting Parliament, never mind providing any public notice or any means of scrutiny. That is the problem that Amendment 6 seeks to tackle.
The Treasury’s view, as I understand it as written in the legislation, is that it can create as many schemes as it likes without a statutory instrument, provided that, in its view, they are “similar” to the schemes listed in the Bill. I deal on such a frequent basis with the Treasury, and the Treasury’s view of “similar” is, frankly, as long as a piece of string.
This turns into yet another precedent for being able to create all kinds of schemes, with just some sort of underpinning or general linking theme, without any scrutiny. All that the DPRRC asks is that these powers should be subject to a negative resolution. At least then there would be something that the public can look at and some element of scrutiny. That is not a big ask and one that the Government should be prepared to provide.
Amendments 8 and 9 are rather different, in that they would require affirmative rather than negative resolution for all of Clause 3, not just Clause 3(3), all dealing with free ports, and Clause 6, which deals with NICs relief for veterans. I cannot understand the Government’s position that the Henry VIII powers they seek are, again, trivial; I am entirely with the DPRRC on this. The various subsections in Clause 3 enable free ports to be extended to 2031 and widely change the conditions to be met. Surely that needs affirmative resolution. Similarly, in a strange way, Clause 6 sets no limit on the number of years that can be added to the veterans scheme and how often. Again, surely that is sufficiently significant, as the committee said. With the free ports issue, I would say that in some cases it is even controversial. I am very grateful to the DPRRC for its vigilance, and the arguments for Amendments 8 and 9 is that the provisions are of a standing that meets the test for an affirmative rather than a negative resolution.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, once again, I welcome the various amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I am pleased to support them and remain disappointed that the Government are refusing to accept any of the DPRRC’s modest suggestions. As with the previous amendment on this topic, we will hear the Government’s defence arguments for these additional delegated powers. The Minister suggests that, in relation to Clauses 3(1) and 6(6), considering the extension of NICs relief beyond the original end dates is somehow not a worthwhile use of parliamentary time. I am not sure why the Minister feels able to speak on behalf of Parliament in this matter. I can assure him that I would find a debate on the opportunity cost of extending NICs reliefs for free ports far more worthy of debate than some of the very narrow debates we hold on Treasury instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. He may counter that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, would be welcome to table regret Motions, but this ignores the principle that Parliament should be afforded a proper scrutiny role when it comes to the use of public finances. I will not go through each of the other justifications in the Minister’s letter to the chair of the committee, but suffice it to say that I am yet to be dissuaded from backing the committee’s recommendations.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who is back on her feet again, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their contributions. These amendments are in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. I am grateful for its report and sympathetic to its arguments for the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and consistent publication of primary and secondary legislation. However, the Government believe that the current procedures remain appropriate and that these amendments are therefore unnecessary. I have listened carefully to the remarks from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and, as they would expect, would like to give some explanation for our reasons, at some length.
Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, would make the power in Clause 10(2)(d) subject to the negative procedure, rather than no procedure. I will explain to noble Lords some of the context to this power. Lump sum payments of £500 are available to be claimed under separate schemes in England, Wales and Scotland for people who have been asked to self-isolate by the relevant authority, but who cannot work from home and will suffer financial consequences as a result. Of course, this is subject to the eligibility criteria of the relevant scheme. Payments are intended to provide additional financial support during periods of self-isolation.
Regulations have already been introduced under existing powers in Section 3 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to exempt these payments from NICs for employees and their employers. Therefore, all that Clauses 10(1) and 10(2)(a) to (c) do is specify that the schemes specified are also exempt from self-employed NICs, ensuring consistency. The Government believe that the power designating self-isolation support schemes to be exempt from self-employed NICs is narrowly drawn in that such schemes have to provide support for those who cannot work due to self-isolation. In addition, the Government’s intention is that they will use this power only where further regulations are made to exempt payments from possible similar future schemes from NICs for employees and their employers.
I want to pick up on that point, because the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked how different such a designated scheme would be from those on the face of the Bill. I pick up on the word “similar”, which has been used to provide some flexibility as to the details of any future scheme. This is because the changing circumstances of the pandemic may mean that the detail of a scheme, for example its eligibility criteria, needs to be adapted to account for the latest situation faced by individuals required to self-isolate. Indeed, the three schemes specified on the face of the Bill have changed in their particular detail since introduction and are not identical to one another.
The Government are also of the view that, as the power to designate is necessary to be able to respond to the changing circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic as quickly as possible, the current parliamentary procedure is right given the current circumstances and means that the legislation can be introduced more quickly than the other side of the coin, which is a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure.
Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would make the powers in Clauses 3(1) and 6(6) to extend the end dates of the free ports and veterans relief, and the power in Clause 3(2) to treat a condition of the free port relief as being met, all subject to the affirmative procedure. They are currently subject to the negative procedure. These amendments are also in response to the DPRRC’s report.
The powers in Clauses 3(1) and 6(6) provide flexibility for the Government to extend the reliefs past their current end date. In particular, the power relating to the free ports relief will allow the Government to extend the relief after a review into its effectiveness in meeting its policy intention in 2026, although any extension would be no further than 5 April 2031. Before they are extended, the Government will carry out an evaluation of the reliefs to ensure that they are effective. This takes us back to a previous debate. Once they have been evaluated, and should the Government’s view be that the reliefs should be extended, we believe that the negative procedure offers the opportunity for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny without using more of Parliament’s time than is necessary.
The Government believe that the powers in Clauses 3(1) and 6(6) should continue to be subject to the negative procedure. Both powers are wholly relieving and, as I set out, where this is the case, regulations are usually subject to the negative procedure. To be absolutely clear, the powers cannot be used to decrease the amount of relief that an employer can claim.
As to how the power in Clause 3(2) may be used, the department’s delegated powers memorandum gave an example of cases where people with certain protected characteristics are unable to meet the rule that, to be eligible for the relief, employees must spend at least 60% of their working time in the free port site. For example, a health condition or pregnancy may mean that an individual needs to work just from home for periods of time. The effect of these regulations would be to treat the 60% as being met so that the relief applies to employees who may not otherwise qualify.
In this case, the negative procedure also allows the Government to react much more quickly than if the affirmative procedure applied if external factors become apparent that would prevent employers qualifying for this relief. With that slightly extended response, I hope these reassurances will cause the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, again, I will withdraw the amendment. If the Minister seriously thinks that a review of the whole free ports issue will be so completely uncontroversial that the consequences of that review can be implemented through a negative resolution, then he really misunderstands the sense of discomfort that exists around the whole free ports scheme and really has not been listening to Parliament’s level of concern. As I said, I will obviously withdraw the amendment, but I hope the Government will start to take note much more seriously of the work done by an extraordinary committee, with a great deal of knowledge and a real understanding of Parliament, its wishes and its intentions—as we know, we live in a parliamentary democracy—and pay much more attention to the level of scrutiny that the DPRRC recommends.
Baroness Kramer
“(2) Within six months of this section coming into force the Government must publish guidance to assist businesses in complying with their obligations under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish guidance relating to Clause 11.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I promise I will be genuinely brief on what is our last piece of business in this Committee. I tabled Amendment 7 to seek reassurance. Sitting behind my amendment are actions that HMRC is taking to go after the promoters of tax avoidance schemes. I totally support that, and it makes sense that NICs avoidance schemes are tackled in the same way.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to speak but the eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has persuaded me to say a few words. I do not think the DOTAS legislation, on which this particular legislation in this Bill is modelled, has been that effective. I have challenged the Minister and his colleagues on a number of occasions to name even one big accounting firm that has ever been investigated, disciplined or fined after the courts have said that their tax avoidance scheme was unlawful.
When it comes to national insurance, the Government themselves have created avoidance schemes. For example, there is no national insurance payable on unearned income. Accountants are busy—as they will be in these cases as well—converting income to capital gains as it attracts absolutely none. I sense in this Bill that the Government are playing to the Public Gallery saying, “We are really serious—we are going to clamp down on this kind of avoidance”, but they do not have the means to do so. There is no logic whatever as to why unearned income should be exempt; it is simply a way of avoiding.
When the Government talk about avoidance, I wonder, first, what they mean by that. We have had numerous disclosures, whether in the Paradise papers, Panama papers, or other leaks, which show that many of the national insurance tax avoidance schemes have been marketed by offshore entities. The Government are in absolutely no position to go after those enablers and have not done so.
I am just giving more fuel and ammunition to the arguments put by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Bill is all about public impression management. That is why I have stayed silent for so long and why I did not table any amendments—because fairly soon after this is implemented, we will hear, just as with the previous free port legislation, that it will not achieve very much.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the tabling of this amendment and hope the brevity of my contribution is not taken as evidence to the contrary. Amendment 7 asks the Government to publish guidance relating to the operation of Clause 11. It is my understanding that such guidance will indeed be published later this year; I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that and perhaps give us some idea of when this year. I hope that, with the guidance, there will be a more general update on the Treasury’s and HMRC’s work in this area.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, once again, for her contribution. I hope to persuade her, with the information that I am about to provide, that her amendment is unnecessary. On this occasion, my remarks will be relatively short.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness has raised this point, because communication is extremely important. HMRC will be publishing detailed guidance which will cover the changes to the DOTAS regime, explaining when HMRC can issue a notice requiring promoters or suppliers in the avoidance chain to provide information on suspected avoidance schemes. It will also explain what will happen if they do not provide information, or where they do and HMRC considers the scheme is notifiable, the issue of the scheme reference number—the so-called SRN—their right of appeal against the issue of the SRN, and their right to make representations before HMRC publishes details. Finally, the guidance will explain the obligations of the promoter or supplier if the SRN is not withdrawn.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the new guidance is anticipated for the end of February this year, but it will not adversely impact small businesses that do not participate in avoidance schemes.
I turn to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka —and I appreciate his late intervention and contribution in Committee. First, he asked why NICs are not due on unearned income. He may know this, but national insurance contributions are part of the UK’s social security system, which is based around the long-standing contributory principle and centred around paid employment and self-employment, with employers, employees and the self-employed paying towards the protection of those who have been in the labour market. Payment of NICs builds an individual’s entitlement to claim contributory benefits, which then replace earnings in certain circumstances—for example, if someone is unable to work or, indeed, has retired. Unearned income is generally excluded from liability to NICs, as it is not derived from paid employment.
The noble Lord also asked about tackling the promoters of tax avoidance and what success had been had in that regard. I took note of his points about DOTAS and appreciate his raising this issue. HMRC has undertaken more than 500 compliance interventions on promoters and their supply chains—that takes account of the year 2020-21. However, there is no single approach that will force all promoters to leave the market, and it requires a multipronged approach. This includes HMRC prioritising the most active promoters and their supply chains, and vigorously challenging schemes and promoters under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, or DOTAS, as we are discussing today, the promoters of tax avoidance schemes, or POTAS, and the enablers regime. The Government have taken strong action to tackle tax avoidance and those who promote it, introducing a number of anti-avoidance regimes that have helped reduce the avoidance tax gap from £4.7 billion in 2005-06 to £1.5 billion in 2019-20.
I hope that, with those answers, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I make the slightly ironic comment that, in the speech the Minister just made, he essentially made the case for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, dealing with the integrity of the National Insurance Fund. “Interesting”, as they say.
Yes, of course I will withdraw the amendment. I just desperately hope that, internally, we can try to get HMRC to take a much more interactive view of how to talk to small businesses, in particular. We fully recognise that people are captured by the many different fraud schemes that are around every day. In a sense, these various promoters of tax avoidance schemes use the same psychology, methodology and ability to communicate to identify potential victims. Somehow, HMRC has to be able to get down to that level and communicate with businesses so that they understand the real risks they are taking. I recognise that my amendment would not actually achieve that, but I hope that it created an opportunity for a small discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Hughes of Woodside
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, on 7 January. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Care Workers: Professional Register
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a professional register for care workers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
We will invest at least £500 million in the social care workforce over the next three years. The major investment includes the introduction of a digital care workforce hub. This hub will help identify people working in social care and provide them with access to resources to help them in their careers. It will also include a skills passport to provide staff with a permanent record of their training and development over their career.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. In his letter to us today on NHS resilience, the Secretary of State says:
“Social care is vital for our success in managing Covid-19, working as part of a single system with the NHS.”
We all agree that we need to integrate the NHS and social care and provide a high-quality, seamless service to users, but as long as those in the social care profession are seen as the undervalued poor relations of those in the health sector, such integration is going to be very difficult. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already introduced a registration scheme, offering professional skills and better working conditions for those in social care and making it a more attractive career profession. When will England do the same?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As my noble friend rightly points out, the devolved Administrations have registers in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and they have taken a phased approach over the years to registers of staff working in a variety of roles across social care, because of the complexity of the sector. This is why our first priority is to embed a knowledge and skills framework to clearly understand the current layout of the workforce and the skills required in their roles and to look at potential pathways before we consider mandatory regulation.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that if the pandemic has taught us anything, it has confirmed that those in need of social care are much more dependent now and much more vulnerable. They require very intensive personal care. That being so, is it not time that we recognised carers for what they are, because apart from their commitment, they display enormous skills, day in and day out, and people at the end of their life are dependent upon them?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure all noble Lords will agree with those sentiments, and that is why we have published the White Paper on social care. We are investing an additional £5.4 billion over three years and we want to make sure it is a career that people feel valued in. We also have £3.6 billion to reform the social care charging system, to make sure that all local authorities can move towards paying care providers a fair rate for their care, and a further £1.7 billion to begin major improvements across the whole social care system in England.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I suggest that the Minister introduces a national pay system that reflects the work that these people do and rewards them for their efforts. Unless he addresses the issue of pay, the rest will not make any difference.
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Lord says, pay is one of the important issues when people consider what career to take, but also how much that career is valued. One of the reasons we are looking at this voluntary register, but also the skills passport, is to understand the current layout of the sector. There are a number of different qualifications at the moment and before we consider what should be mandatory and make sure that everybody is aligned in terms of qualifications, we want to understand the care force out there. Some 56% of those in the care sector, for example, do not have any qualifications and we want to make sure that we address that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the Economic Affairs Committee report of some two years ago estimated that £8.6 billion was needed just to get back to where we were 10 years ago. This money, which the Government are promising, is not available now. The need is now and the Government themselves have said that they want to deal with the problem of beds that are blocked in the NHS. That can happen only if the care workers are there and encouraged to be so, and that is about training and pay. At the moment, really good, wonderful people get paid more for stacking shelves in Tesco than they get for carrying out this work. Will my noble friend persuade the Treasury that this money needs to be made available now?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point that we need to make sure that this is an attractive career and that people feel valued. One of the reasons we launched the Made with Care campaign in November, which is running over five months, is to attract more people to the sector. Some of the money we have made available is to make sure that the sector is more attractive to people who want to work in it and that people in local authorities push the care home owners to pay their staff more.
Lord Scriven (LD)
When providing care for some of the most vulnerable in our communities, staff such as art therapists and occupational therapists have to have mandatory registration to practise. What is so different for social care staff who provide professional care as part of a multi-disciplinary team to such vulnerable people?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Only last week we opened a consultation on whether or not to make registration mandatory and to move towards it. When I spoke to people in the department about why it is currently voluntary and not mandatory, they said it was because they did not want to inadvertently put people off registering. They were worried that some people might leave the sector if registration was mandatory now. The noble Lord can shake his head, but this is a very real concern. We want to make sure it is voluntary first and we are consulting on the steps towards mandatory registration.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s Question is timely, with the Government’s consultation on future statutory regulation and the criteria that could form the basis of assessing whether regulation is appropriate. We all want to see care workers given the professional status that they deserve, but, as has been said, this needs a whole suite of key improvements on pay, training, career structure and development. Does the Minister agree that paying staff a wage that truly reflects the importance and value of their work is an essential first step and what action are the Government taking to ensure this?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness will appreciate, many people who work in social care are employed by private care home owners and other bits of the sector. If she looks at the minimum wage, there has been an announcement of 6.6%, effective from 1 April, which means that workers will be paid more, but one of the bases of some of the additional funding that we have announced is to convince local authorities to put pressure on private care home owners and others to make sure that they pay staff more.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Given that the Government have clearly expressed the view that social care must be adequately valued, which is to be welcomed, and the comments about pay scales, what is the Government’s attitude to those employers in the private sector who do not hand on pay at time-and-a-half on bank holidays and so on, to their front-line staff? These front-line staff feel exploited and do not receive any pay or reimbursement for travel time between clients, even though they may spend quite a lot of time on the road. They are paid only while they are actually in somebody’s home in the community.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Issues such as the way private care home owners treat their staff are all part of the consultation that we launched on 6 January. We are working across government and with the devolved Administrations to seek views on the proposed criteria on which the profession should be regulated, whether there are regulated professions that no longer require statutory regulation, and whether there are unregulated professions that should be brought into statutory regulation. The consultation will run for 12 weeks until 31 March, when we will look at the results before taking further action.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, was the Spectator right when it said that 25% of people over 65 were worth more than £1 million, and is it right that these people should have capped care costs of £86,000, which means that taxpayers on much lower incomes have to pitch in and support them?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As my noble friend will appreciate and probably anticipate, there will be debate on the Health and Care Bill for the next few weeks. I am sure that that is one of the issues that will come up.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many care workers there are at work on a given day? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to have a considered, perpetual publicity campaign persuading those in the care service of the importance of gaining qualifications?
Lord Kamall (Con)
To ensure that the profession is attractive, we want to focus not only on making sure that social care staff are paid a decent wage but that they are recognised. The idea behind the skills passport is, first, that we want to understand all the different qualifications that there are with regard to the social care sector; and, secondly, we want to make sure that they can transport that when they move from one employer to another. That is the important thing that we want to look at.
Post Office: Horizon Compensation
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, if any, to expedite the payment of compensation due to postmasters and mistresses as a result of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working closely with the Post Office to ensure that the approach and processes adopted are being designed to ensure that postmasters receive fair settlements as swiftly as possible. Of the 72 postmasters who have so far had their convictions quashed, 66 have applied for interim payments, of which 62 have received offers; 57 of those have been paid. The Government are also ensuring that the historical shortfall scheme is delivering in line with its objectives.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, the Post Office scandal involved some 732 prosecutions over a 20-year period. Many convictions have since been overturned. Can the Minister say how many claims have now been settled, how many remain outstanding and what the total cost will be?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I gave the noble Baroness the figures on those who have had their convictions overturned so far. Interim payments of £100,000 each have already been made to many of them. We are attempting to negotiate with the rest of them; payments will be made as quickly as possible. It will then go to the dispute resolution process, which we think will be quicker than any ongoing further court action, to negotiate appropriate settlements with those sub-postmasters who were wrongly convicted.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, what matters will be covered by the compensation announced last month for those sub-postmasters who have had their convictions overturned? It will include financial loss, obviously, but will it also cover loss of reputation, pain and suffering, and consequential loss? How will the Government ensure consistency over the many different types of cases that there will be?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I start by paying tribute to the work of my noble friend in both this House and the other place in drawing attention to this scandal when many others were not discussing it; he was right to do so, along with many other Members on all sides. I can confirm that, when negotiating compensation for postmasters with overturned convictions, the Post Office will consider claims for financial and consequential losses as well as non-financial losses, such as reputational damage and mental distress. In terms of consistency, each case will necessarily be decided on the particular circumstances of the individual postmaster but, to ensure broad consistency, the Post Office and its legal advisers will seek to agree a consistent approach in assessing the different heads of loss with legal representatives.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell said in her follow-up question that there had been 732 convictions. From the Minister’s Answer, I get the impression that only 10% of those convicted have actually had their cases heard. Is that correct? When does he see that the whole process will be completed?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point but this is in the hands of the court. So far, 72 people have had their convictions overturned. As soon as the others have had their convictions overturned, we will proceed with offering compensation to them as well.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the postmasters and postmistresses were treated shockingly by the Post Office. Can the Minister tell us whether anyone in the Post Office seniority has been reprimanded or sacked or had money taken off them? Has anything happened to anyone? Has anyone in the Post Office taken responsibility for this appalling treatment of men and women?
Lord Callanan (Con)
“Shockingly” is almost an understatement of the full extent of the terrible injustices that went on for sub-postmasters over many years and many different Governments, Ministers et cetera. Most of the senior executives of the Post Office who were responsible are not there anymore, but the appropriate mechanism to find out exactly who was to blame and who was responsible is the independent public inquiry with full statutory powers, which is currently considering these matters.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is not the first time that your Lordships have had to discuss this, and already this year we have this Question again. I am sure that the Minister would agree that, for these people to start to live the rest of their lives, they need to draw a line and be able to move on. This process is dragging on, so does the Minister agree that by setting a target—a political target that the Minister can set—with his department, with the lawyers and with the Post Office, we could get this done? Will he undertake to do that, and make sure that this is done in the first half of this year, so that the line can be drawn?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can speak for my colleague Paul Scully, the postal affairs Minister, that we want to see this settled as quickly as possible in order, as the noble Lord said, to draw a line under it for the benefit of those people who were so badly affected. Of course, we are in the hands of the courts initially for the convictions to be overturned, but as soon as they are—if that is the judgment that the courts come to—we want to use the ADR process to try to get compensation offers to these people as quickly as possible.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I have raised the plight of my friend Rita Threlfall on a number of occasions. She is one of the 555 sub-postmasters and mistresses who initiated the group litigation. They won, and were awarded £57 million. However, £46 million went on costs and funding the action—action that helped lead to today’s situation. They were thanked by the Government, but their compensation was woefully inadequate. Will the Minister ensure that the 554 plus Rita are properly compensated? At the moment, their feeling is not of compensation but of discrimination.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally understand the point that my noble friend is making; we have spoken about it on a number of times in the past. The problem, of course, is that this compensation settlement that was reached in a civil action was in full and final settlement of the claims. However, having said that, my colleague Paul Scully has met with them many times and has said that we are in active discussions with them to see what more could be done. Indeed, officials are meeting this week with lawyers representing them to discuss it.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, will the Minister say whether, following on from that question, those who are currently negotiating compensation with the Post Office for some form of redress are having their legal costs paid, or are they expected to pay them and then try to claim them back later?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure of the precise details of that; I assume the right reverend Prelate means those from the historical shortfall scheme or those who have had their convictions overturned. My understanding is that all of their costs will be met, but if that is not right, I will write to him.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, hundreds of sub-postmasters and mistresses were sacked and prosecuted over the space of 16 years and wrongfully labelled as thieves and fraudsters by the Post Office and by our judicial system. Just to take the noble Baroness’s Question a bit further, what action if any has been, or will be, taken against Her Majesty’s Government’s representatives who sat on the board of the Post Office throughout this terrible situation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord on the first part of his question. The correct answer to that is to wait for the outcome of the inquiry. As we have discussed before, this went on for decades, and exactly who was responsible at the time, and who knew what and when, is a hugely complicated issue. Of course, many of the people responsible at those times are no longer in government, in the department or in the Post Office. It will be important to find out who exactly who was responsible over a long period of time, and then we can pin the appropriate blame.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, to accelerate things and bring an end to the scandal, would the Government consider a scheme similar to that which applies to personal injury cases, to agree guidelines or bands within which a settlement could be reached so that legal advisers can properly give advice to those who have suffered as a result of the Post Office injustice?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I outlined in my earlier answer to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, we will of course take all the circumstances into account, but necessarily it is important to look at the individual circumstances of each of the postmasters who were wrongly convicted and had their conviction overturned. We want to ensure that everybody is appropriately and fairly compensated within the appropriate bands and will do so.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, we hear many tragic cases of people who have lost their liberties and lives and faced years of financial hardship. Can the Minister clarify what role the National Federation of SubPostmasters played in the Horizon scandal, in terms of representing affected sub-postmasters, and the damage that Horizon has caused to the relationship between the Post Office Ltd and postmasters? Finally, will this impact on the post office network, going forward?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The answer to my noble friend’s last question is no. The funding for the post office network is separate to this. It provides a vital service, and we must ensure that it continues. I do not know the answer to her question on the precise role played by the National Federation of SubPostmasters, but from discussions that I have had with senior management of the Post Office I know that they are very keen to ensure that relations with people who provide the day-to-day services for their organisation is improved and they are much better represented in the future than they were in the past.
Prime Minister: Meetings with First Ministers of the Devolved Governments
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Prime Minister last met the First Ministers of the devolved governments, and what matters were discussed at those meetings.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister held bilateral calls with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland on 17 December. They discussed the collective response to omicron, including any financial support needed for additional measures, and confirmed plans for further engagement. The UK Government and the devolved Governments continue to work together during this pandemic to save lives and livelihoods across the UK.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that I speak for many Members of your Lordships’ House when I say that we are disappointed that the four Governments of the United Kingdom continue to exhibit such difference in policy and execution of policy in the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. That said, can we have a guarantee from the Government that there will be proper co-ordination between the four Governments in relation to any post-Covid inquiries, allowing for the economic, social and health impacts of the policies of these four Governments during the Covid pandemic to be analysed for their impact, including, for example, their impact on teenage suicides, which are not publicised uniformly across all four Governments and which should certainly be part of the overall assessment of impact afterwards?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Certainly the tragedies of teenage suicides affect the whole of the UK. The new intergovernment review structure is set up to allow closer co-operation and in-depth discussions between the devolved Governments on strategies to tackle matters such as this very important point that the noble Lord has raised. Engagement going forward into 2022 can be at three levels: portfolio engagement at official level; interministerial standing committee level; and, of course, higher up at the heads of devolved Government council level.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given the recent new customs regulations that came into force for goods moving from the UK to the EU on 1 January, can my noble friend give the House an update on recent developments on framework agreements between the four nations of the UK?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can say that, in terms of Northern Ireland, which is the gist of the question, there are some significant issues to resolve and people and businesses in Northern Ireland are facing these daily. The Foreign Secretary, who has taken over from my noble friend Lord Frost, is committed to finding a resolution and proceeding talks with renewed urgency on matters such as those that my noble friend has raised.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, given that the difference in policy applications across the nations has not led to much difference in outcomes, is not the reality that we need a more co-operative approach across the UK? The Prime Minister said that devolution was a disaster. Does he not have to work twice as hard now to show that it can be a constructive and co-operative partnership and that the devolved Administrations are valued as part of the team?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, indeed. The review, which is due to be published shortly, sets out a fit-for-purpose system that allows for meaningful and effective engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. As I said earlier, this was achieved by discussions occurring at the portfolio level, where possible, and within the particular groups. The package also contains commitments to transparency and a robust dispute resolution mechanism founded on the principle of dispute avoidance.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, since science knows no frontiers—and as New Year’s Eve showed, our citizens travelled between the countries of the UK—what efforts has Westminster made to agree common policies with the devolved Governments for dealing with the pandemic?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the noble and learned Lord will know, there are constant meetings regarding the pandemic with the Chief Medical Officers, but the Prime Minister himself is Minister for the Union and he met the First Ministers three times last year—there were meetings in June and October and bilateral calls in December. But it is more than this: last year there were more than 350 meetings at ministerial level. Co-operation is getting better and will certainly improve in 2022 after all the discussions on the IGR.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister made the right judgment and the right call, and in England people were able to celebrate new year? In Scotland, for the first time ever, hogmanay celebrations were prevented, resulting in people having to go south of the border. It is a bit rich to blame the United Kingdom Government for the mistakes of the Scottish Parliament.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take my noble friend’s point, but of course, as the House will know, it is up to the devolved Governments to make decisions themselves, based on the back of discussions that continue to take place between the four Governments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Crisis has found that the economic aftermath of the pandemic risks exacerbating levels of homelessness right across the UK, but it has also praised the work of the Welsh Government and their measures to alleviate the immediate increase. Have the Government met with the Welsh Government to discuss best practice for reducing homelessness, and, if not, will he press them to do so?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly cannot say that they have talked specifically about homelessness, but, as a result of the improved co-operation and the increased number of meetings between the Governments, all matters of importance will be discussed during the rollout of the IGR during 2022.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, do the Minister and his colleagues recognise the impact on citizens in Yorkshire, the north-west and the north-east of England of the constant discussion of what is happening in London, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and the neglect of what is happening in the other parts of England? Will Ministers take into account the regional dimension of the dominant part of the United Kingdom in the White Paper on levelling up, or will they continue to insist on imposing governors on counties and mayors on other regions?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Levelling up all corners of the UK is at the heart of this Government’s agenda, and the White Paper, to be published early this year, will set out an ambitious vision to improve living standards, increase opportunity and grow the private sector in all parts of the UK. This will take account of the noble Lord’s question on Yorkshire.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am happy that William Wallace got in before me on this particular question. There are issues beyond the pandemic that need to be discussed between the four Governments. Is the Minister aware that there have been terrible cancellations of ferries to the islands of Scotland? Indeed, the other week 13 of the 14 Arran ferries were cancelled in one day. In the meantime, the ferries that the Scottish Government commissioned, which were supposed to be ready two years ago, are now rusting in the Ferguson yard on the Clyde. Will the UK Government put this on the agenda of the next meeting and consider how they can give some assistance to the failing Scottish Government in relation to ferries to the Western Isles?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This perhaps reflects the tone of the question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I have no idea whether ferries have been discussed, but again, this is just the sort of matter that could be discussed, given the greater co-operation that will take place as a result of the discussions over the last two to three years with the devolved nations. I will certainly take back the point made by the noble Lord.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, co-operation is good, as are accountability and dispute resolution. But devolution began as a process. Do the Government agree with that, and do they have any proposals to put before the Ministers of the devolved Administrations about further elements of devolution?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord is right to say that this has been an evolving process. There are no plans to take it further. Obviously, the whole process of devolution and the matters arising from it, and the links and co-operation between the four devolved nations, will continue to be discussed. The idea with the IGR is that all four will be treated equally, there will be transparency, and there will be reviews.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Following up on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, do the Government agree with the previous Labour Government, who said that devolution for Scotland would strengthen the union?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can only repeat that devolution for Scotland has, of course, been rolled out in the same way as devolution for Northern Ireland and Wales. We believe that it works well, but, as I said earlier, we continue to monitor it and to make sure that the effective co-operation and links between the four nations continue as they are.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I invited the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—oh, I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants to speak. You are unaffiliated, are you not, so I shall let you go.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you so much. What a gallant gentleman.
I am quite curious about the dynamics of these meetings, and I wonder whether Westminster goes in with any sort of listening attitude. The Scottish Government are now much greener than the Westminster Government, and I suggest that Westminster could learn a lot.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sure that the new Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, my right honourable friend Michael Gove, will have taken this on board. He, of course, is the one tasked with taking forward the main links with the four devolved Governments. As the noble Baroness will be aware, that has been set up recently—and he is very much up and running.
Authors, Booksellers and Libraries: Economic Recovery
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to support the economic recovery and growth of authors, booksellers, and libraries, in England after the pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are committed to supporting the UK’s world-leading publishing industry. We support all parts of the literary ecosystem, with libraries, for instance, benefiting from the £5 million libraries improvement fund, and authors from the annual £6.6 million public lending right. Booksellers, too, are central to the Government’s build back better high street strategy, which will ensure that businesses are profitable and resilient as we emerge from the pandemic.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, despite the interest in books shown by the public during the pandemic, many authors, like other freelancers, have suffered financial hardship and fallen through the gaps in support. Will the Government consider increasing the PLR fund, which has been frozen for the last seven years? Will they look, too, at business rates, which favour Amazon warehouses over high street bookshops? Bookshops are not just shops: in tandem with libraries and schools, they can, and often do, provide enormous social and educational value at local community level.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly agree with what the noble Earl says, and I am pleased to say that the Booksellers Association reports that independent booksellers have increased in number over the last two years: more than 50 new independent bookstores were opened last year and the year before. That includes the excellent Forum Books in Whitley Bay, thanks to the encouragement of Ann Cleeves, the author of the Vera books, who, I am pleased to say, was awarded an OBE in the New Year Honours List for services to reading and libraries. The noble Earl is right to point to the plight of authors. A statutory instrument is being introduced today increasing the rate for the PLR. Authors also benefit from support from Arts Council England, including through its “time to write” grants—so they are in the Government’s mind.
Lord Cormack (Con)
If the Government genuinely agree with the noble Earl, when are we going to do something about this unfair competition between Amazon and the high street bookshop? Amazon may be good, but people can browse in a bookshop, and they should be able to do it without fearing that the bookshop will close.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the Booksellers Association reports that the number of independent bookshops has grown over the past 22 months. Its membership is up 12% since the pandemic began. As my noble friend knows, we will continue to consider the arguments for and against an online sales tax which, if introduced, would raise revenue to fund business rates reductions.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
I would like to ask the Minister about the current consultation on a change to UK copyright law relating to the UK’s future IP exhaustion regime, the impact of which could be far reaching for authors. Does he share my concern that, according to the Publishers Association, a move to international exhaustion could cost authors more than £500 million a year in lost income? The Minister will know that the author community is very concerned about this. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a publishing house, as stated in the register.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, this matter is being led by the Intellectual Property Office, but it is clearly a complex matter which touches on not just the work of DCMS but other government departments. Officials across government are analysing the responses before Ministers are able to make an informed decision on the UK’s future approach. It is very much a case of measuring twice and cutting once rather than rushing forward into a decision and bearing the consequences later.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, as pro-chancellor of the University of Gloucestershire I am very aware that during the time of pandemic there have been issues with ebooks relating to university libraries. How will the Government address the current issues of excessive pricing, restrictive licensing and lack of availability of academic ebooks?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, that it is a matter for publishers and their academic customers. I am pleased to report that ebook sales have increased during the pandemic, so people are continuing to buy them, but I will take that point back to the department.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that to ensure that authors get fair recompense we should do far more to ensure that readers are accessing legitimate books, not least by removing illegitimate material online? Will he tell us what progress has been made in developing the codes of practice to detect and remove illegal content, as committed to by the Government in the creative industries sector deal of 2018.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
This is a matter which has been touched upon in relation to the review of intellectual property rights. The consultation brought forward concerns in the sector about the unauthorised reproduction of books, so it is being looked at. I will write to the noble Lord on the follow-up work that has been done in the meantime.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the proposed procurement Bill is supposed to make procurement more accessible to small businesses by ensuring that the social value of contracts is considered when choosing suppliers. Can the Minister assure the House that social value will include supporting local booksellers and suppliers when considering the procurement of books for local libraries and schools?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That is a matter for my colleagues at BEIS, but I will certainly take the noble Viscount’s point forward.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, while independent booksellers are indeed showing signs of a hopeful comeback, as the Minister said, it is important to acknowledge that there are closures as well as openings of new shops which are still up against the might of online delivery services and chain shops. What consideration are the Government giving to reducing barriers for small, independent bookshops which are, after all, livening up our high streets and making book buying and reading more appealing? Will the Minister discuss business rates or small tax incentives with his Treasury colleagues to allow independent booksellers to survive and be able to support their local communities?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. Despite the encouraging news, challenges remain for independent booksellers as we emerge from the pandemic. That is why the Government have put in place one of the world’s most comprehensive economic responses worth £400 billion to protect jobs, businesses and public services throughout the pandemic. We have provided support through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, business rates relief for eligible high street retailers, grants for small businesses and government-backed loans. We have also protected commercial tenants from eviction and debt enforcement because of non-payment of rent until March 2022.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it goes without saying that the PLR should be doubled, and that will be an easy win for my noble friend. I declare an interest as I work with the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. On libraries, within central government there needs to be much more co-ordination between the levelling-up department, the Department for Education and the Minister’s excellent Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I urge my noble friend, who has a very busy diary, to meet entrepreneurial figures, such as William Sieghart, who are pioneering new ways of providing library services to ensure that libraries continue to be relevant in the 21st century.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I would be delighted to meet Mr Sieghart and anyone else who would like to make representations on behalf of libraries. Libraries are the bedrock of our communities. I am pleased to say that in the last year before the pandemic there were nearly 180 million visits to libraries. That is more than the combined number of visits to Premier League football games, the cinema and the top 10 UK tourist attractions and, of course, libraries have played such an important role in supporting people through the pandemic. I would be very happy to discuss that further.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend reminded us that the pandemic has been particularly challenging for creative freelancers, including authors and writers. The Minister will also be aware of the challenges to his department in dealing with freelancers as a sector, given the breadth and diversity of the freelance community. What consideration have the Government given to the appointment of a freelance commissioner or the establishment of a freelance creative council to ensure that the concerns of freelancers are effectively represented and clearly understood?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government provided some money just before Christmas to help freelancers working across the creative industries and the cultural sectors who were affected by the omicron wave of coronavirus. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who I saw was making sure that that message was getting out to freelancers. I would certainly be happy to discuss with freelancers and their representatives the challenges that remain as we continue to face the pandemic.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s warm words in support of libraries are welcome, but since 2010 more than 800 public libraries have closed and the number of qualified librarians employed by local authorities has decreased from more than 18,000 to just over 15,000. Warm words are all well and good, but what more practically can be done to support local authorities to keep libraries open and, where that fails, to support local communities themselves to keep libraries open?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not recognise the figure the noble Lord cites. The dataset published by Arts Council England in August last year indicated that there have been around 200 permanent closures of static libraries in England over the decade ending December 2019. New data covering the period up to the end of December last year will be published in the coming months. The statutory duty is on local authorities to deliver a comprehensive system. The Secretary of State has a role to step in and encourage a public inquiry if that duty is not being met. The Government provide not just warm words but significant taxpayer funding to local authorities to deliver that statutory obligation and additional funding through the DCMS such as the library improvement fund and through Arts Council England, as I have mentioned.
Procedure and Privileges
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Debates before second reading in Grand Committee; Update on pass-reader voting; Leave of absence (5th Report, HL Paper 122) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I beg to move that the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper be agreed to. The most significant item covered in the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report is our proposal to formalise a procedure for holding debates before Second Reading in Grand Committee. This change has been proposed by the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip, whose letter is annexed to our report.
We expect that the procedure will be used infrequently and for less complex and less controversial Bills to assist in business management. If a Grand Committee debate has been held before Second Reading, it would be expected that the Second Reading Motion in the Chamber will be taken formally.
The proposal is supported by the usual channels. The procedure itself will be used only following consultation with the usual channels and with the agreement of the House through a Business of the House Motion.
The other change proposed in our report, which gives rise to the second Motion in my name, is to amend Standing Order 21 on leave of absence to establish a process for refusing or terminating leave of absence where this is necessary for conduct purposes.
We made a similar recommendation in our third report in October, but, after the debate on pass-reader voting on 25 October, I withdrew my Motion to agree the report. We have now reflected further, including on the amendment tabled in October by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. We have decided to accept his amendment, and so the proposed new paragraph in Standing Order 21, as set out in the second Motion standing in my name, now says that the House “may” refuse or terminate leave of absence, not that it “shall” do so.
Finally, the report provides a further update on our thinking on the introduction of pass-reader voting. I seek no decision at this time but hope that this outline of our thinking will be of assistance to noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I put on the record a specific point and a couple of statistics relating to the debates before Second Reading in Grand Committee, to which the Minister referred. I note that this measure was proposed by the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip, and relates to government Bills. I can see the case for—and certainly do not wish to oppose—making greater use of Grand Committee. This has been a fairly consistent theme over a number of years and, by and large, successful. If we can deal with more business more effectively, while still keeping to proper scrutiny, that is all to be desired.
Under this same procedure, the Second Reading debate can take place in Grand Committee and then has to be accepted by the House in the normal way; the House can still take possession of it should it wish to do so, but the debate is in Grand Committee. My question to the Minister is this: why does this proposal apply only, as I read it, to uncontroversial government Bills? It does not apply to Private Members’ Bills. I think that it should, and I would like the Procedure Committee to look at the case for that, particularly given the frankly shocking record on Private Members’ Bills.
I have corresponded with the Senior Deputy Speaker in the past about the shockingly low record of success for Private Members’ Bills that start in the Lords. For example, in the two-year Session 2019-21, 86 Private Members’ Bills were presented in this House. None of them received Royal Assent; in other words, none got through all the stages. Very few even get as far as the Commons—of course, we have no control over that. To take it even further, in the eight years since 2014, 363 Private Members’ Bills have been first introduced in the House of Lords. Of these, three have received Royal Assent; that is three in eight years, or an average of roughly one every three years.
One way of looking at this is that almost a deception is being practised on the public. All these Bills are being introduced with virtually no chance of success. Some, of course, do not deserve success, but one or two that spring to mind deserve acclamation.
Whatever one’s views about individual Bills, as the Senior Deputy Speaker said, this procedure would apply only to non-controversial Bills; it would have a limited application. But I can think of no good reason why we should not adopt this procedure for Private Members’ Bills. It would facilitate more of them getting through, earlier in the Session—and the earlier in the Session any Bill gets dealt with, the better its chances of getting through the various stages and into the Commons, where it stands a much better chance. I ask the Procedure Committee to look into this modest proposal, and hope for a successful outcome.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I wonder what sprang to mind when the noble Lord was thinking of Private Members’ Bills. I do not want to touch on that, beyond saying that I endorse in broad terms what he said.
However, I am a bit concerned because of the experience of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill. First, the publicly announced time for the debate was changed on at least two, if not three, occasions, resulting in the list of speakers shrinking because people had made their arrangements and could not suddenly unscramble them. Secondly, it was very much a hybrid Bill—two Bills with almost nothing in common cobbled together. I hope that, if we are going to use this new system—and I am not opposed to it in principle—those who decide on the Bills will take a little greater care on which Bills they put to Grand Committee.
The only other point I make on this report is regarding the use of the proposed new system of voting. When we had the debate in October—my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker’s baptism of fire—he listened, and I want to thank him for that. I want to thank him particularly for the clause in this report which says that Tellers will be reinstated when we go to the pass-reader system. That subject is what upset many of us and it is essential—it was not a particular objection in principle to pass-readers but was rather about that. So I would like to thank my noble friend and the committee for listening to what was virtually the unanimous voice of the House. I also ask him if he can give us some idea of when he thinks there will be a proposal to move to this new system.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to endorse the point made by the noble Lord about Tellers and ask a quick factual question of the Senior Deputy Speaker about recommendations 3(c) and (i). If a Member were, although it is not expected, to move the formal Second Reading in the Chamber and wished to speak, given that paragraph (i) says that debate
“in Grand Committee should count as part of second reading,”
would a Member in fact be allowed to take part both in the short debate that might not be expected in this Chamber and also in Grand Committee?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is very seldom that we have an opportunity to discuss procedures in this House, and I want to raise a particular issue that arises from the three points in the report but goes wider than that.
Nearly half the Members of this House now reside either in London or nearby. It is a growing feeling among those of us who do not that they do not understand some of the difficulties that those of us who live outwith London have in relation to the business of the House, to keeping up with changes and starting times, and to keeping up with changes in the business and Motions before the House, which often, as the Government Chief Whip will confirm—and I know the problems that he has—take place at very short notice.
I wonder whether the people who live in and around London—who are able to have breakfast at home, wander in and participate, and then go home for dinner—understand some of the problems those of us who do not live in London have: that we have to find somewhere to stay, and pay for that; that we have to travel on a Monday and back on a Thursday, with all the problems that that involves, particularly during Covid. I wonder whether they understand the problems we have in relation to access to papers to be able to deal with these matters. I am raising the issue now with the very helpful chair of the Services Committee about being able to run off documents at home, which is a very expensive thing that we are expected to undertake and very difficult when we are not able just to wander in, as people who live in London can—at the weekend, even—to do these things.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats last week raised the issue of voting and got very short shrift from the Leader of the House on the problems that some noble Lords have had in participating in voting now that we have abandoned the ability to vote from home. I know that there are all sorts of arguments for and against that, but I wonder whether Members realise the problems that we have. I do not think people outside this House realise that, let alone Members living in London.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House. I just want to thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for making the amendment and to make one point about the use of the Moses Room and Grand Committee meetings. I am ashamed to say that, after probably more than 20 years in this House, I spoke in the Moses Room for the first time on the subject of the governance of this House. I was grateful that so many points were raised and I know my noble friend will be addressing them in due course.
I think it is quite ridiculous to schedule the debate on the Budget in the Moses Room. Although this House has limited influence in these matters, the Budget is a central part of the Government’s programme and this House is meant to give advice. So I hope we will not see important debates on committees or on the Budget being shunted next door, where I think they have limited exposure.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Senior Deputy Speaker consider the very appropriate plea from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for the greater use of the Grand Committee Room for Private Members’ Bills? I was extremely fortunate to have a private Member’s slot very high up on the ballot last year, but of course, because of the Covid constraints on the timetable, no Private Members’ Bills were taken. These Bills have been used as an extremely successful mechanism in the other place when the Government have wanted to see a minor change to the law and have used a Private Member’s Bill for that purpose.
I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about those of us who have our main home outside London.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Some have perhaps used the opportunity to go a little wide of the report, but that is no matter because, in a sense, I would say very strongly, it provides an opportunity for ensuring that this House is contented and harmonious and works successfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raised the point about the use of the Moses Room. There is actually nothing in the report that says that this applies only to government Bills; as I have said, it is clearly a matter for the usual channels and the House to agree. From that point of view, there is nothing in the report that says it is just for government Bills. As we know, all Private Members’ Bills go through journeys that involve the other place as well, and many Bills that have gone from this House have not being successful in their journey through the other place—but the points are noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised a point about time changes. I am afraid I did not know about them but, from my work with the usual channels and the Government Chief Whip, I do know that every attention is given to making these matters straightforward. If times were changed, I am sure that that was not with intent but from necessity. What is clearly important in what the committee sought to ensure in the choice of Bills, following the letter of the Leader and the Government Chief Whip, is that they should be less complex and controversial, and should have the agreement of the usual channels. So I think it is understood, in this proposal, that great care will be taken on that.
On Tellers, it was clear from what was—yes—my baptism of fire, that the House feels strongly about the probity and importance of Divisions when we are in the right position. We are meeting as a committee on 17 January, but I think it is fair to say that, in the current circumstances, we should not be returning to the Lobbies. However, we will obviously need preparatory work and consideration on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned being outside London. In another life, I spent quite a lot of time supporting rural interests and interests beyond the metropolitan mindset—some people may say metropolitan “elite”. It is desperately important that this House is drawn from across the United Kingdom. That is one reason why the start time on a Monday has always been designed to enable Peers from all parts of the kingdom to assemble here. The point is that this is an assembly; it is where we gather and where we all have the privilege of being able to have this discourse. As I live in Suffolk—not as far away as the noble Lord—I have intense sympathy with him on the interests of Peers making their contribution while living outside London and its environs.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised the use of the Moses Room. Again, it is clearly important that this is used in a proportionate manner. I am very conscious of that in the context of scheduling business, as I know is the Government Chief Whip, particularly in these times when many noble Lords want to make a contribution.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also raised Private Members’ Bills. I have taken all these points on board but, so far as the committee’s fifth report is concerned, I commend it to the House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he threw me slightly by saying that this applies to Private Members’ Bills as well. Having reread the letter from the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip, I think I can be forgiven for not seeing that. The Senior Deputy Speaker is quite right that they do not specifically mention government Bills, but one could reasonably assume, in a letter from the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, that in the front of their mind are government Bills. So if, as he says, from now on people presenting Private Members’ Bills, who normally have to negotiate with the Government Chief Whip about a suitable Friday when a Second Reading can be held—it is often a very long wait—will have this new procedure whereby the Second Reading can be held in the Moses Room, that should be clearly explained as an option to everyone who is successful in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills, and indeed to people who present Bills that are not necessarily in the top 20, or whatever it is. What he is suggesting is a new procedure to most Members and I urge the Procedure Committee to ensure that Members are fully aware of that option when they are successful in the ballot on Private Members’ Bills.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I must reply by making it very clear that this procedure is for less complex and non-controversial pieces of legislation. That is why there is this safety valve for all of that.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, forgive me. The point I was raising was whether a Member can speak at Second Reading in the Chamber and in the Moses Room subsequently, even though it would be counted as one general debate.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I owe the noble Viscount an extreme apology: I was going through my list and omitted my answer—which is yes—because it was so short. The said Peer is able to participate in both.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 21 (Leave of Absence)
After paragraph (7) insert the following new paragraph:
“(7A) The House may refuse or end leave of absence on the application of the Commissioner for Standards or the Conduct Committee, where this is necessary either to enable the Commissioner to conduct an investigation under the Code of Conduct, or to enable the Conduct Committee to impose or recommend the imposition of a sanction on a member of the House.”
Charities Bill [HL]
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Charities Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Charities Bill requires no legislative consent Motions. In relation to Wales, charity law is reserved to Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom. In relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, charity law is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 41 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill. The Bill extends to England and Wales only, subject to certain exceptions. Those exceptions are Clause 24, Schedule 1 and paragraphs 12 and 46 of Schedule 2, which have a different application than the general application of the Bill set out in Clause 41(1). These differences are explained in the Bill and in the Explanatory Notes. Given the limited scope of the applicability of these parts of the Bill, no legislative consent Motions are required. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Motion
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I want to take the opportunity to express some thanks, first to my noble friend Lady Barran, who so ably guided the Bill through its Second Reading and the beginning of the committee’s evidence sessions. Her dedication to and personal experience in the charity sector is evident, and I know that she was pleased to be the Minister to set this Bill on its way. I am grateful also to all Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken on it. I draw attention especially to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who chaired the Special Public Bill Committee which examined the Bill, and to the members of that committee, my noble friends Lord Bellingham, Lord Cruddas, Lady Fullbrook and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Goudie. I also pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who inspired the Law Commission to take on this project in the first place. He has, as ever, eloquently and doggedly conveyed his expertise and experience in these debates. Although I am afraid that we did not agree on absolutely everything, I certainly appreciated the way in which he prosecuted his case and am grateful for his invaluable perspective on the Bill.
I thank all those behind the scenes, the staff in your Lordships’ House and colleagues from the Law Commission, the Charity Commission, Parliamentary Counsel and DCMS, for their work.
The passage of this Bill has demonstrated the passion and expertise of your Lordships’ House and its Members in relation to charities. It will make a great a difference to a number of charities, and I hope to see it on the statute book very soon.
Lord Etherton (CB)
This Bill will be warmly welcomed by the charity sector. As chair of the Special Public Bill Committee, I thank the Minister and, as he said, his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for their membership of the committee and their engagement with it. I join the Minister in thanking the members of the committee, who had to consider some really quite difficult technical evidence, as well as those who gave written and oral evidence. Professor Hopkins and Daniel Robinson of the Law Commission were extremely helpful. Finally, and certainly not least, I know the committee would want me to thank expressly Alasdair Love, the clerk to the committee, who so ably supported us in so many ways.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to mention my involvement. This is an excellent piece of legislation which will be of great benefit to the charity sector. Obviously, I regret that I was unable to persuade the Government of the importance of my amendment, but that particular recalcitrant attitude should not disguise the fact that my noble friend was extremely courteous and helpful in explaining the Government’s position. I am grateful to him for that, and I wish the Bill a speedy passage into law.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I wish to add my name to the sentiments that have already been expressed. I particularly thank the many people, in different roles, who came together to bring this piece of legislation to our attention, after such a long time and a lot of work. This House prides itself on its detailed scrutiny of Bills, and this is the place in which a Bill such as this should have been given the attention that we gave it.
I regret that we did not manage to agree on the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodson of Astley Abbotts, which remains an outstanding piece of technical law and a very important point of charity law. It will have an impact on the Charity Commission, as the regulator of charities, to do its job. I do not imagine that that issue will come before Parliament for a very long time, but I hope that those who have followed our proceedings will not let it go.
Secondly, one other very small issue was drawn to our attention by one of our witnesses during our session: the operation by the Crown law officers and the Attorney-General of an alternative cy-près scheme. Legislation does not come much more obscure than that, but this is an issue that, on this occasion, we could not probe fully. I hope that that will happen when this goes to another place and, more importantly, that when the practitioners and people in the charity sector come to reflect on our work, as they will do in years to come, they will regard those two points as unfinished business. But, in the meantime, I thank everyone, including the Minister, for his patience with all of us—we lobbed some very difficult questions at him.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the sentiments that have been expressed across the House. I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for chairing us so ably. I think that I am right in saying that all of us who participated in Committee had never done so for a Law Commission Bill before, so it was a learning experience for all of us. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is undoubtedly an expert—some would say a leading expert—in this field, and the whole House has benefited from his expertise.
From the experience of my wife, who works in the charitable sector, I know just how lengthy and wide the consultation has been on this Bill over many years. While there are some loose ends, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, this is nevertheless a piece of legislation that the whole House can be proud of. I hope that the impact of the Bill will remain in place for many years to come.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to all the noble Lords for their comments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, charity law can be very complex—not just for legislators but for the charities and organisations that it affects, especially those that do not regularly have access to legal advice. There is a duty on legislators to make the law as accessible as possible, while probing the issues that we have. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that the expert advisers who gave evidence to the committee have helped us to do that and that the Bill has been improved because of the work of the committee and your Lordships’ House.
The Bill leaves this House in very good shape. As I say, it will make a big difference to those who run charities and the many great causes that they support. So, with renewed thanks to all involved and repeating the noble and learned Lord’s thanks to the clerk of the Special Public Bill Committee, Alasdair Love, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Monday 10th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 View all Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 85(a) Amendment for Third Reading - (16 Dec 2021)
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a reference to a paragraph that was removed at Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is minor and technical and is consequential to the amendment made on Report in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes.
My noble friend’s amendment removed the power for the Secretary of State to determine a pension or gratuity for non-executive members. This government amendment is needed to remove a reference to that power, which no longer exists, in paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 1. This paragraph disapplies the power for the Secretary of State to determine a pension or gratuity for the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, who will sit as a non-executive member on ARIA’s board ex officio. The power is of course not relevant in this case due to the Chief Scientific Adviser’s existing employment and pension entitlement as a civil servant. As the original power no longer exists, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this reference needs to be removed to tidy up the Bill before it returns to the Commons for consideration of the amendments made in this House.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, is it in order to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on her success in moving her amendment in Committee? I watched as it went through and I thought how pleasing it must be for anyone to get an amendment accepted by the Government.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to thank all those who have supported the progress of this Bill. I first thank my Whip, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who is currently demonstrating just how good she is at multi-tasking because she is in Grand Committee supervising another piece of legislation going through. It is always a joy to work alongside her with her support, capability and good humour.
As we have debated this Bill, I am of course grateful to have witnessed the shared ambition across the House for our nation to cement its role as a science superpower and for recognition of the important role that additional funding for high-risk research can play within that, through the ARIA model. While this is a relatively short Bill, the debate has none the less been thorough, as is right and proper in this House—from the role of ARIA in the R&D landscape to the definition of gratuities. It has demonstrated once again the important function of this House.
To that end, I join the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in thanking my noble friend Lady Noakes for her efforts in sharpening the governance arrangements set out in the Bill, and my other noble friends Lord Willetts, Lord Lansley and Lady Neville-Rolfe, among others, for contributing their considerable experience.
I thank, on the part of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for her constructive challenge on many parts of the Bill. I think we worked well together, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on future Bills. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and members of the Science and Technology Committee for their very thoughtful contributions. I particularly welcome the thoughtful debate we have had on, for instance, intellectual property and the importance of retaining its benefits. I thank all noble Lords who spoke on these important issues. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, especially, will closely follow the words of the Science Minister as the Bill returns to the other place.
It would be remiss of me not to also thank, once again, the excellent team of officials who have been behind me on this Bill. As always, I am just the front guy, as it were. Their support has been invaluable and a tribute once again to the finest traditions of the Civil Service. I particularly single out my private secretary, Hannah Cowie, for her support; the Bill manager, Andrew Crawford, and his deputy, Salisa Kaur; and Katie Reardon, Alex Prior, Robert Magowan and Charles Norris for their work over the last 18 months—a considerable time—to take this Bill forward and, hopefully in the near future, get it on the statute book. I also thank the broader ARIA team and colleagues across government who are undertaking the programme of work to make it a brilliant and realistic success.
Finally, let me recognise the exemplary work of the parliamentary counsel in both drafting this Bill and supporting its progress at so many points during its passage so far, and, of course, the House authorities, parliamentary staff, clerks and doorkeepers. As I mentioned, this is a relatively short Bill, but I really do believe its potential impact is profound. I know I am not alone in this House in looking forward in anticipation to all that will come out of ARIA and the benefits it will create for the research community, businesses and the everyday lives of people across this country.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, first I should apologise for not being here to participate in the Report stage of this Bill. My disappointment was alleviated by the knowledge that my colleague and noble friend Lord Clement-Jones would more than compensate for my absence. I thank him for that and for his assistance throughout consideration of the Bill, and my noble friends Lady Randerson and Lord Oates for their work. I also thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the departmental team that has seen this Bill through; and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the Labour Party and their team for working with us and the Cross-Benchers in a collegiate way. This was an example of good scrutiny coming to the fore. Finally, a big thank you to Sarah Pughe in our office for her support.
We still do not really know what ARIA is. Until it is decided who is leading ARIA, we will not know what its purpose is or how it will interact with the rest of the research environment. During the debate the Minister undertook to keep us informed—while enshrining secrecy in the Bill, of course, at the same time. So, I hope he will be able to keep us well informed as this effort unfolds —indeed, perhaps in advance of things happening. Without wishing to rain on the parade, we should keep a sense of proportion about what this is. This primary legislation has put in place a research effort worth about £200 million to 300 million per year. Meanwhile, the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe has more or less evaporated. During the debate, there were many discussions about the effectiveness of UKRI. In accepting this Bill and moving forward with ARIA, we would be grateful if the Minister also addressed these two elephants in the room: the continued participation of the United Kingdom in Horizon Europe and making sure that UKRI is as effective as it really can be, in order to make a big difference to the research effort in this country.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are pleased to see ARIA move to its next stage and we look forward to the inventions and innovations that will come from it. I was particularly pleased to see the amendment from my noble friend Lord Browne, which will secure the intellectual property that comes about as a result of investment by taxpayers via ARIA. I hope that Ministers in the other place see the benefit of it and feel able to support it. We will, of course, be listening very carefully to what is said about that.
As the Minister well knows, we are concerned by the rejection of the amendments on transparency and accountability. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, rightly reminded us, the research environment has changed dramatically since our departure from the EU, and we would encourage Ministers to resolve their outstanding differences and make sure that Horizon participation is secured for the future.
However, for today, I would just like to thank the Minister and his team. He is correct in what he said about the nature of the discussions we had. This is my first Bill in this place and I have learned an awful lot and made some new friends, I think, through the process of the Bill, particularly my noble friend Lord Stansgate, and the noble Lords, Lord Morse, Lord Ravensdale, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones—I have already mentioned my noble friend Lord Browne. I also thank the officers of the House and all other noble Lords who contributed. I should put on record, too, my thanks to Dan Stevens, our political and legislative adviser, who has been enormously helpful to me, as a new Member, in being prepared for the process of seeing through a Bill in this place. I thank all noble Lords who contributed.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 10th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-V Fifth marshalled list for Report - (10 Jan 2022)
16:27 - Division on Amendment 90A - Ayes: 198 / Noes: 163 - Amendment 90A agreed.
17:59 - Division on Amendment 95A - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 95A agreed.
19:07 - Division on Amendment 97 - Ayes: 99 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 97 disagreed.
Lord German
“(8) A local authority may establish and maintain a secure 16 to 19 Academy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities to run secure 16 to 19 Academies, either alone or in consortia.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 90A in my name is to put beyond any doubt that an application to run a secure school by a local authority or local authorities, either working as an entity or acting in a consortium with others, will be treated on its merit, on the quality of the provision it proposes and can provide. In other words, there will be a level playing field for applications of this kind as for those from other, non-local government bodies. This amendment brings local authorities into the tent. It simply allows them to compete alongside other non-local authority organisations in order that the best provision will prevail, from whichever quarter it comes.
Since the debate on this matter, there have been discussions between the Minister, myself and other noble Lords from around the House and it is now clear that there is a legal route open to local authorities to make a bid for running a secure academy, but such a bid would run counter to the Government’s policy. I will return to this matter shortly, as it is fundamental to the rationale for this amendment.
I want to make it absolutely clear that we on these Benches support the proposal to create secure schools and academies. Youth custody, by its very nature, means that those within them are the most vulnerable and challenging young people. That is why Charlie Taylor, in his review, proposed secure schools as a major way of dealing with the problems of the youth custody system. It is worth remembering two points from his 2016 report. First:
“Children who are incarcerated must receive the highest quality education from outstanding professionals to repair the damage caused by a lack of engagement and patchy attendance.”
Secondly:
“Rather than seeking to import education into youth prisons, schools must be created for detained children which bring together other essential services, and in which are then overlaid the necessary security arrangements.”
These two points reinforce the need for the highest quality provision possible.
Further to that second point in the Taylor point report, the absolute importance of integration was emphasised, not only of education but of a wide variety of services within the work of these schools—health, social care and services providing reintegration following custody are required within the school and not external to it. These are services that local authorities currently provide. Following the logic of local authority statutory provisions, particularly those of the duty of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of their children and the need for a new form of integration, there is much that local authorities can offer.
What is clear is that the skills and abilities of the heads and staff of these secure schools are fundamental. They need the best, and only the best will do. That is why this amendment is so important, because it ensures that local authorities are not excluded from providing secure schools, simply because of their nomenclature as academies.
The letter from the noble Lord the Minister to my noble friend Lord Marks makes two fundamental points: first,
“it would be legally possible for a local authority to set up an entity capable of entering into academy arrangements”
with the Government; but, secondly,
“it is the policy of the Government that … no academy in England is operated by a local authority.”
The key issue here, then, is the use of the words “secure academy” rather than “secure school”. It is not a matter of who would be the best provider offering the very best and highest quality of education and integrated services outlined in the Taylor review and accepted by government. It is worth recalling that, when the Taylor review was published, the Government in a Ministerial Statement two days before the publication—which is quite interesting—referred to the setting up of two secure schools, one in the north and one in the south, and used the words “secure schools”. It is only in recent months that the word “academy” has moved into the nomenclature used for what was initially designed to be secure schools and was recognised by the Government as being secure schools.
Local authorities certainly have expertise in the provision required, but this amendment does not seek to favour them. It simply says that if they can produce the best provision needed, they should do the job. In doing so, they would have to follow all the frameworks set out by government, for example, on the devolution of decision making to the head, staff and governors. There would be no difference in the tender requirements, but these secure academies require the very best. To exclude a group of well-placed potential providers is a mistake.
As the noble Lord the Minister says in his letter to my noble friend Lord Marks, it is not a matter of the law but of the Government’s policy. That is why this amendment puts the matter beyond doubt. I and, I am sure, all noble Lords here will want the very best provision, from wherever it comes. I am not arguing that local authorities should win these bids, merely that they are given the chance to try. This legislation should provide the certainty that those who may be able to provide the best will not be left out. That is why I believe this amendment is important to put beyond doubt that all will be available and everyone can make a bid to run these services. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I start by reminding the House that I sit as a magistrate in youth and family courts and, as such, send youths to secure accommodation for welfare reasons and as a result of offences they may have been convicted of in the youth court. To make it clear, the Labour Party supports Amendment 90A, which the noble Lord, Lord German, has just spoken to. My Amendments 90B to 90F look at a different aspect of secure accommodation.
The amendments in my name seek to address national shortage in secure accommodation by placing a duty on local authorities to assess the local need and create a strategy to deal with that need. In Committee, Peers from across the House highlighted the significant lack of secure beds in certain areas that leaves children being dispersed across the country, sent to unsuitable establishments or unnecessarily remanded in custody. The Government responded by saying that they are taking steps to support local authorities to maintain existing capacity and to expand welfare provision in secure children’s homes.
There are currently no secure children’s homes in London, with London children being placed in justice and welfare placements in secure accommodation an average 124 miles from home. This is disruptive for the children, their families and the services supporting them. There are other significant geographical gaps across the country. Currently there are only 15 secure children’s homes in England and Wales. This amendment places a statutory duty—a requirement—on relevant local authorities to address this issue.
Following the Government’s response to the amendment in Committee, the Mayor of London’s office stated that the reality of the £259 million referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, is that it will take some time to translate this into available secure beds. This is especially true given that there is no indication of how that funding will be apportioned across the country to address the geographical gaps to which I have referred. There is also no commitment to ensuring that both welfare and justice placements are provided for within this funding. This is also a gap in the answer given by the noble Lord. Therefore, the additional funding does not remove the need for relevant local authorities to assess the need for secure accommodation and to develop a strategy for any shortfall.
In conclusion, I will repeat a statement given by Lord Justice Baker. This is the ruling on an appeal brought in July 2021 by Just for Kids Law against Waltham Forest Borough Council which successfully argued that the failure by local authorities in London to provide appropriate alternative accommodation for children was unlawful. He said:
“The absence of sufficient resources in such cases means that local authorities are frequently prevented from complying with their statutory obligations to meet the welfare needs of a cohort of vulnerable young people who are at the greatest risk of harm. The provision of such resources is, of course, expensive but the long-term costs of failing to make provision are invariably much greater. This is a problem which needs urgent attention by those responsible for the provision of resources in this area.”
If the noble Lord, Lord German, chooses to put his amendment to a vote, we shall support it. Nevertheless, I have raised other issues which I hope the Minister will respond to in his reply to this group of amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the aim of this exercise is to ensure that children who enter custody leave it better educated, better able to become part of normal working society and better able to function in a family environment. When Charlie Taylor produced his advice, which has already been mentioned, on the education of children in custody, his aims were exactly those: to ensure that the quality of education in custodial institutions, which currently is extremely variable, from the excellent to the terrible, should reach a good standard, comparable with that provided by decent schools around the country.
There is an issue about numbers. I would not like it to be taken that every local authority will be required to provide an educational provision for those children who come from that local authority. I know that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, with all his knowledge of this issue, is aiming at. There are well under 1,000 children in custody—significantly fewer than there used to be—which, after all, is the roll of a typical London comprehensive school as we speak. It would not be in the public interest to have a large number of academies for children in custody around the country because it would not be possible to supply the quality of education. However, as Charlie Taylor emphasised, we need the balance between having good schools or academies—whatever one calls them—for children in custody and local authority provision of the kind envisioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which ensures that they are kept in touch with their communities and their families and where they will probably go back to live after they leave custody.
It seems to me that, if all that is right, it is beyond argument that local authorities should be able to participate in this process without hindrance and establish educational institutions for those in custody, and that there should be as few obstacles in their way as possible. Once that is achieved, they will have to compete with everyone else who is in the area—that is perfectly sensible—but it would be wrong, for policy reasons that are, in my view, poorly conceived, to obstruct a legitimate role for local authorities.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. As some noble Lords will know, I spoke on issues relevant to this amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill.
In quoting the Taylor review, the noble Lord, Lord German, made the case for his Amendment 90A. It would be singularly inappropriate—I think this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—to debar all local authorities from setting up appropriate provision simply because of the use of the word “academy”. This is wrapped up with other aspects of educational policy. If the local authority is capable of providing what would manifestly be the best institution and provision for this group of young people, who need absolutely the best quality of education that can be afforded to them, it should do so. I take the view that the provision in Amendment 90A should categorically be in the Bill to ensure that we do not debar any local authority from engaging in the process to set up an institution. As has already been said, this does not require that local authorities should do it but it does not debar them; debarring them would be unreasonable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments covers Part 9 of the Bill. I will cover the group in two parts, if I may.
Amendment 90A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, would allow local authorities to establish and maintain secure academies either alone or in consortia. The noble Lord kindly mentioned the sustained engagement that he has had with me and others on this matter; in turn, I acknowledge my gratitude to him for his time and commitment. As he mentioned, I wrote to him and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, outlining that, in our view, it would be legally possible for a local authority to set up an entity capable of entering into academy arrangements directly with the Secretary of State, and that this is not prevented by the Academies Act. Therefore, as I set out in that letter, there is no legal bar to what the noble Lord wants to happen. I understand that, as he said, he wants to put the matter “beyond any doubt”, but I have explained in writing that there is no legal doubt on this point at all; indeed, I think I heard him accept this afternoon that it is “clear” there is no legal bar. I therefore say to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that there is no issue of being debarred here. I suggest that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I accept that the Government’s policy remains that academy trusts are not local authority-influenced companies and that our position on secure schools is to mirror academies’ procedures. However, I can confirm that, when considering the market of providers of future secure schools, my department will assess in detail the potential role of local authorities in running this new form of provision. We of course recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, noted, that local authorities have a long-established role in children’s social care and the provision of secure accommodation for children and young people. In particular, the secure children’s homes legal framework may present a more straightforward route than the 16-19 academies framework for the expansion of local authority involvement in the provision of secure accommodation. However, I reiterate that there is no legal bar here. I therefore suggest that the amendment must necessarily be unnecessary.
I now turn to Amendments 90B to 90F, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. Local authorities have a duty, under the Children Act 1989, to ensure sufficient, appropriate accommodation for all the children they look after and to ensure sufficient children’s homes for other children whose welfare requires it, whether or not they are looked-after children. I recognise that some local authorities have sometimes found it difficult to access the most appropriate accommodation, particularly for children with the most complex needs. It is right to say, both from the judgment of Lord Justice Baker, which was mentioned, and indeed from other judgments, that some of these children have extremely challenging and very complex needs. It is also the case that, sometimes, children are placed in locations away from home when they may be better served by a placement in their local area if one were available. We are looking carefully at that, not only in my department but in others as well.
We are taking significant steps to support local authorities to fulfil their statutory duty. We have started a programme of work this year to support local authorities to maintain existing capacity and to expand provision in secure children’s homes to ensure that children can live closer to home and in provision that best meets their needs. In the spending review we announced £259 million to continue this programme to maintain and expand capacity in both secure and open residential children’s homes. We acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, that it may take—I will use the same phrase—some time to see all the benefits of that capital investment, particularly when you are talking about new builds, but it is the case that the capital programme will also result in increased capacity in the secure children’s home estate in the shorter term as we seek to create more beds through investment in a range of projects, including extensions of current buildings, refurbishments and rebuilds. I know that in the judgment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Justice Baker used the phrase “urgent attention”, and that is what we are giving this problem.
Ofsted has also taken steps to support local authorities in this area. It has an amended process to make it easier for local authorities or other providers to apply for registration of children’s homes in emergency situations. It is also now easier to open and run a single-bed children’s home, which can be one of the most commonly needed types of accommodation when the child has very complex needs. It can be almost impossible, sometimes, to have more than one child in that location. Ofsted has now published guidance on these changes, and I hope that will help as well.
Before I sit down, I should also remind the House of two other relevant pieces of work ongoing in this area. First, the independent review of children’s social care, which commenced in March last year, is looking at this whole area in a fundamental way. Secondly, also in March last year, the Competition and Markets Authority launched a market study examining the lack of availability and increasing costs in children’s social care provision, including children’s homes and fostering. It has proposed a number of changes, of which I will not go into detail now, but they are important. We will look at the full reports when they come out. I expect both of those pieces of work to be serious and substantial reports.
I recognise the aims of all noble Lords who have supported these amendments; we all share the same aims here, but I suggest that we have existing statutory requirements and significant, wide-ranging and independent reviews under way, looking at the whole care system, alongside that CMA market study. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will withdraw his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will not press his. I urge them to do so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all who have contributed and to the Minister, who has not been able to go beyond the text of the letter that he sent to my noble friend Lord Marks. Although I understand that, it just reinforces the position that I outlined at the beginning.
To reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, we are seeking the best, and to not leave out a potential bidder who could be one of the best is all that this amendment is about. It is simply to make sure beyond doubt. We understand that there is a legal route through this. I did not read out the exact words that the Minister repeated, but there is a route through—although he does say that it would place burdens on local authorities. Interestingly, and moreover, he said earlier that it also conflicts with the policy of academies.
The one thing the Minister did say, both in replying and in his letter, was that they will keep this issue under review. The problem with keeping something under review is that the process will already have started, and keeping it under review does not mean that there will necessarily be any changes or any scrutiny in this House.
The noble Lord said that there are two routes: the academy route, which local authorities will be excluded from, and secure family accommodation, which they want to encourage local government to do. Charlie Taylor’s review and report seek integration, not silos. It would be sensible to make sure that, at this point, there is absolutely no doubt. For the simple reason that we have to be able to search for the best and get the best, this amendment should be part of the Bill and not part of some future discussion—which may or may not produce a sensible outcome, as far as I am concerned. I am therefore minded to seek the view of the House on this matter.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the threshold for the standard of proof required to impose an SVRO, from a civil standard (the balance of probabilities) to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 90G in my name, and to speak to some of the other amendments in the group—but, with the leave of the House, I shall not speak to all 23 of them. We now come to what the Government optimistically call “serious violence reduction orders”. These would allow the police to stop and search people without any suspicion that those targeted have anything on them that they should not legally have in their possession.
This is yet another form of stop and search without suspicion, which is notorious for three things. First, understandably, it is notoriously ineffective, even compared with stop and search based on suspicion. Secondly, it is, notoriously, disproportionately focused on black people, even compared with stop and search based on suspicion; and, as a consequence, it is notorious for the damage it causes to the relationship between the police and the communities they are supposed to help.
The Minister cited in Committee the fact that young black people are 24 times more likely to be victims of homicide than young white people. That is exactly why the police need to work together with those communities to build trust and confidence, and to demonstrate that they are on their side, and not using powers disproportionately against them, as these new powers, by the Government’s own admission, will continue to do.
It is not just me saying that disproportionate use of powers against certain communities—the very communities that need to work together with the police to tackle knife crime—is “undermining police legitimacy”. Those are the words of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Serious violence reduction orders are likely to make serious violence worse, as they further alienate the very communities that the police need to co-operate with them to identify the perpetrators.
I was a sergeant in Brixton at the time of the Brixton riots in 1981; I was a chief inspector in Brixton 10 years later; and I was then the police commander in charge of Brixton 20 years later in 2001. In my professional judgment, serious violence reduction orders—in fact, any form of suspicionless stop and search—are counterproductive. That is why Amendment 101 would repeal Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Only one in 100 Section 60 searches results in a weapon being found, and black people are 18 times more likely to be targeted by the police than white people—compared with nine times in the case of stop and search, where the police must justify their decision. I remind the House of what I said in Committee: Section 60 is not used at all in Northern Ireland for fear of the damage it would cause to police-community relations. It should not be used anywhere in the UK and should be repealed.
Amendments 90G and 90M follow the well-worn path that we on these Benches have consistently trodden, and where previous Governments have agreed with us. They realise the injustice, as we do, of allowing the breach of an order made on the balance of probabilities to be a criminal offence. When it was realised that ASBOs—the first of this kind of civil order with criminal sanctions—led to large numbers of people being criminalised, the then-Government changed course and replaced them with wholly civil orders and sanctions. The Minister in Committee cynically cited precedent for this approach, but it is an approach that we on these Benches have opposed every single time it has been proposed. Amendment 91C would also apply the higher standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt—to renewals of SVROs. Amendment 90H, which I have signed, would disallow an SVRO being applied on the grounds that someone simply had a knife on them when an offence was committed.
The Minister’s quite extraordinary letter of 6 January tragically fails to answer my criticism, made in Committee, that someone who was carrying a knife lawfully and who did not use the knife in the commission of any offence could still be made the subject of an SVRO. The letter says:
“Whilst you are correct … this could include… where a person is caught unlawfully carrying a bladed article or offensive weapon.”
If they are caught unlawfully in possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon, they can be charged with that offence and then be made subject to an SVRO. Referring to the examples I gave—of a chef, an electrician or a Sikh in lawful possession of a knife—the letter goes on:
“In the examples outlined in the debate it would be difficult to see how a court might consider that an SVRO is necessary to protect the public.”
Is the Minster not aware of the Metropolitan Police gang matrix, where even innocent bystanders at a shooting were characterised as gang members? Any evidence, whether normally admissible in a criminal court or not—hearsay, gossip or rumour—can be given in support of an SVRO.
As the Minister has recently admitted, public trust in the police has been seriously undermined and distrust is even worse among the communities most seriously affected by knife crime. Allowing the police free rein to say whatever they want in support of an SVRO will make a rapidly deteriorating crisis of confidence in the police service even worse. Hence, Amendments 90N, 90P and 90Q would restore the standard of evidence used in the granting of SVROs to that which would have been admissible in the proceedings for the substantive offence. We also strongly support Amendments 90J, 90K and 90L but I will leave others to speak to them.
We have tabled Amendment 91A for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames gave in Committee. There needs to be a reasonable excuse defence for wrongly telling a police officer that they were not subject to an SVRO—something that the police officer could immediately check in any event. Amendment 91B removes the new offence of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty in relation to SVROs as this is already covered by existing legislation. Amendment 91D limits the renewal of SVROs to a maximum of four years, allowing those subject to them to move on with their lives rather than being targeted and harassed by the police indefinitely, even if they commit no further offences.
Amendments 95A and 95B, to which I have added my name, would prevent SVROs being introduced beyond the pilot phase until a report on the pilot had been laid before Parliament and both Houses had agreed to its rollout. We need to be sure that these orders will not be counterproductive. Amendment 95C would strengthen the pilot; I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will explain this further.
If the Government insist on proceeding with this dreadful measure, they should at least limit the damage until they are sure that it will not make matters worse. We support all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 90H and 90J, as well as 95A, 95B and 95C, but, before going into the arguments for those amendments, I express my strong support for Amendments 90G and, indeed, all the amendments in this group. I have such considerable concerns about the detrimental impact of these serious violence reduction orders that I believe that any way in which we can limit their detrimental consequence should be supported.
I begin by addressing why I hope the Government will make adjustments to the Bill in view of those considerable concerns—expressed not just by those of us in this House but by many organisations in the community, including Amnesty International—about the severe consequences of SVROs for so many innocent young people and the need to restrict these provisions appropriately.
As Ministers know, SVROs would expand stop and search powers to enable the police to stop and search someone whenever they are in a public place, without any suspicion of current wrongdoing, simply on the basis of a past conviction that may or may not be a knife offence. The purpose of Amendments 90H and 90J is to put right this apparently unintended wrong.
The Minister repeatedly stated in Committee that
“at the point at which … someone is issued with an SVRO, they will have been convicted by the court of a knife or offensive weapon offence”.—[Official Report, 17/11/21; cols. 310-311.]
However, the legislation as it stands makes it clear that an SVRO can be issued to individuals who have not been convicted of a knife or offensive weapon offence. New Clause 324A(3) clearly allows for an SVRO to be issued if the offender had
“a bladed article or offensive weapon with them”
or, under subsection (4)—this is in many ways much worse—if the offender
“knew or ought to have known”
that someone else had a knife. This could include someone convicted of shoplifting who happened to have a penknife in their pocket. It could also—this is really important, and I hope that the Minister will respond—include people in abusive and coercive relationships, who may have known or, according to the Bill, should have known that their abuser had a knife.
Will the Minister say whether she believes that individuals involved in these ways should be regarded as having committed a knife crime and therefore liable to have an SVRO imposed? I feel quite certain—because I know the Minister and know that she has great integrity—that she will not want these people to find themselves caught up with an SVRO.
There are many reasons to amend the Bill as proposed in Amendments 90H and 90J. First, as Agenda has said, the proposed terms of an SVRO render invisible the impact of coercion in relationships experienced by many young women drawn into the criminal justice system or at risk of criminal exploitation. Ministers need to take account of a study by Metropolitan University and JENGbA which examined 109 joint enterprise cases involving women and girls, the majority of whom had convictions for serious violent offences. The study found that none of the women involved had used a deadly weapon and in 90% of cases they did not engage in violence at all. In half the cases, the women were not even present at the scene. Perhaps the Minister can comment on this study and its implications for Amendments 90H and 90J. We are simply asking the Government to adjust the Bill to bring it into line with the Conservative Party manifesto, which makes clear the aim to make
“it easier for officers to stop and search those convicted of knife crime.”
The removal of new Clause 342A (3)(b) and (4) would achieve this alignment, and I hope the Government may be willing to do that. As Minister knows, the College of Policing has expressed its concerns that the use of stop and search without an intelligence-led approach is unlikely to reduce crime.
In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that SVROs will be effective in reducing knife crime. This point brings me on to the other amendments I have tabled in this group—Amendments 95A, 95B and 95C— which focus on the need for the pilot of SVROs to be comprehensive and meaningful. Amendments 95A and 95B require a vote by both Houses. It is crucial to have this democratic control before these SVROs are introduced. This must happen under these amendments before SVROs can be commenced.
Amendment 95C strengthens the pilot to ensure that key issues are examined. A key reason why these amendments are vital is the experience of a pilot into the relaxation of the best use of stop and search safeguards. The rollout of these changes was announced by the May Government prior to the publication of the evidence arising from the pilot. The Government were forced into a U-turn by a legal action, but they have continued to refuse to publish the evidence on the grounds that they need a safe place in which to discuss changes. Are we going to be up against this sort of argument in this context? Amendments 95A and 95B would ensure publication of the evidence and parliamentary scrutiny before SVROs could be rolled out.
We know that the proposed new measures pose significant human rights impacts, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out. Black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. They do not commit these crimes 18 times more than white people. Also, only 4% of stops find a weapon. The pilot will need to show that SVROs meet their stated aims of breaking the cycle of offending and protecting our communities from harm. The pilot also needs to analyse the effect upon others who will be severely affected by SVROs as the Bill stands—for example, exploited women. It is for them, in particular, that SVROs must not be applicable to people who knew or ought to have known that someone else had a knife. I am sure the Government do not wish to bring these women into the criminal justice system, as others have already said.
Amendments 95A and 95B are hugely important because they ensure that SVROs can be introduced only if Parliament is satisfied on the basis of the evidence from the pilot that they will reduce serious violent crime and that the consequences for the human rights of individuals and communities are proportionate and justified.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
As a Green, I am very concerned about the Government undermining the doctrine that police on these islands gain their authority from the consent of the governed. Overuse of stop and search powers has deeply undermined community consent in many areas of the country. We worry all the time about the police being constantly distrusted. That is no wonder, especially with a measure such as this. There are racial and socioeconomic disparities in who gets targeted by the police—we cannot avoid that. These government severe violence reduction orders will create, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has said, a new suspicionless stop and search power, and once a person is issued with one of these orders they could face unlimited interference from police officers. We have to ask: is this the sort of measure that will bring those offenders back into society or will it turn them further away?
The Greens will support any amendments that improve this system of serious violence reduction orders, in particular Amendments 95B or 95A—whichever amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, comes up for a vote. That the reports from a pilot project are approved by Parliament before these orders can be deployed more broadly seems to me to be common sense. Why on earth would they be brought in before they have been measured? It is essential that the Government prove the efficacy of these measures and demonstrate that they are not being used in a way that is racially or otherwise discriminatory.
I particularly support Amendment 101 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which would repeal the existing powers of suspicionless stop and search. There should not be a power for the police to search without reasonable suspicion.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support Amendments 90H, 90J, 95A, 95B and 95C, to which I have added my name. I also signal my support for other amendments in this group which also seek to control more tightly how serious violence reduction orders will operate. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my work on policing ethics, both for Greater Manchester Police and for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as set out in the register of interests.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has indicated, Amendment 90H seeks to ensure that an SVRO can be applied only when a bladed article or offensive weapon is used to commit an offence, not simply when such an item happens to be present and in the possession of the defendant. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has indicated, as presently drafted, the Bill requires no substantive link between the weapon and the offence. An individual could, for example, commit a road traffic offence while driving home from a church picnic, with their used cutlery on the passenger seat next to them, and the prosecution could ask for an SVRO.
I can see that subsection (5) of the proposed new chapter is intended to mitigate that by requiring the court to consider that imposition of the order is necessary to protect the public or the defendant from possible future offences involving such weapons. However, I do not believe it adequately achieves that objective. Asking a court to conject what might happen in the future can all too easily invite decisions taken on discriminatory or flimsy grounds, especially as no court would wish to face public criticism for having failed to apply an SVRO should later violence occur. To legislate for future conjecture requires a robust link to what has already happened. Subsection (3)(a) gives that; it requires that the weapon was used by the defendant in committing the offence in question. Deleting subsection (3)(b), as this amendment seeks to do, would ensure that any order is based on genuine and evidenced risk. To put it bluntly, it would pass my church picnic test.
Amendment 90J, if I may turn to that, seeks to more closely tie the order to the offence by limiting it to the actual person who used or had possession of the weapon, not some putative third party who
“knew or ought to have known”
that they had it. The de facto joint enterprise element in the current drafting of this clause widens the net substantially for who can be affected, and includes people not convicted of knife crime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said, this is likely to disproportionately affect women and girls, who may well know or suspect that a partner or family member may be carrying a weapon but are far too vulnerable to be able to extricate themselves from a situation where violence involving such weapons may be committed by others.
I understand that the intention may be to provide such vulnerable adults with an excuse to stay away from both people and situations with which violence may be associated, but when I try to put myself in the position of such a person, I cannot really imagine saying to my partner or brother: “Oh, I must not be near you when you have a knife because I might get an SVRO against me.” I think these people are far too vulnerable. I hope I have persuaded your Lordships that Amendment 90J will address this deficit.
Finally, on Amendment 90J, apart from it being grossly unfair by ignoring the impact on vulnerable people, subsection (4) appears to be unworkable. How will the court determine if someone “ought to have known” that some other person had a knife? The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, tease out this point specifically. I will leave others to speak to them at greater length, but if our own Amendment 90J does not win your Lordships’ support, I would hope that her amendments are more persuasive.
I now turn to Amendments 95A, 95B and 95C on the pilot scheme. In order to understand how SVROs operate in practice, these are entirely welcome. SVROs present a major innovation. There are significant risks of dangers from unexpected consequences—dangers that may outweigh any good that SVROs achieve. If we are to roll them out across the country, we need to have confidence that they are doing the job intended and making things better and not worse. For all the eloquence of our arguments in this House, there is nothing quite like having real, practical experience on the ground to draw on if we are going to get things right. These three amendments, taken together, simply seek to strengthen the pilot; to make it a genuine gathering of all the most relevant evidence, and one that will feed into a proper decision-making process here in Parliament, ahead of SVROs being rolled out across the nation.
In my early days as Bishop of Manchester, we had an idea of how we might make better and more locally informed decisions on where we deployed our vicars. We set up a two-year pilot across about a fifth of our dioceses. Towards the end of that period, we commissioned an independent evaluation by outside experts. We learned a huge amount from the exercise, and, in consequence, we never rolled out the substantive project. We did something different; we did something better. A pilot has to have the capacity to substantially implement the eventual shape of whatever is the final product, otherwise it is simply window dressing.
It is clear from speeches already made here today that there is considerable uncertainty about SVROs. In particular, noble Lords have drawn attention to the danger that they become associated with disproportionality and hence diminish confidence in policing and the courts. None of us wants that. We noted the risk that, rather than prevent criminalisation, they may draw more vulnerable people—especially young women—into the criminal justice system. We have remarked that extensive use of stop and search powers, especially in the absence of specific evidence of intention to offend, has over and again proved counterproductive. These last three amendments cover both the process and the content of the pilot evaluation. They will make for much better decisions on how and when, and perhaps most crucially if, SVROs are rolled out across the nation. I hope the Minister will be minded to accept them or to meet us to find an agreed way forward.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister a question about her amendments to Clause 141. This takes forward to one point of detail the comments made by other noble Lords about targeting particular groups of possible offenders. Amendments 92 and 93 would extend the guidance from the exercise of functions by the police to, as in proposed new subsection 1A(b),
“guidance about identifying offenders in respect of whom it may be appropriate for … serious violence reduction orders to be made”.
To me, this reads very much like profiling. Can the Minister tell the House whether “identifying offenders” is about identifying particular individuals or a cohort, class or demographic in respect of whom the Government may see SVROs as appropriate?
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I rise to support in particular Amendments 90H, 90J, 90K and 90L. As has been said, they are critical to ensuring that more vulnerable women are not drawn into the criminal justice system through the de facto joint enterprise element of SVROs. Probably like other noble Lords, I was shocked to read the briefing from Agenda, which states that analysis of
“109 joint enterprise cases involving women and girls”
shows that
“there was not a single case in which women and girls had handled a weapon; in 90% of cases they engaged in no violence at all; and in half of the cases they were not even present at the scene of the crime.”
As we have heard, SVROs will mean that women can be given an order based on a single judgment that, on the balance of probability, they “ought to have known” that someone in their company was in possession of a knife. That key phrase, “ought to have known”, is really troubling. Will the Minister consider how this fits in with wider policy, including the female offenders strategy, to limit the number of women serving short sentences and prevent reoffending?
We have a duty to limit unintended consequences. These amendments would do just that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 90G, 90H and 90J, but I will concentrate on Amendment 90G. I declare an interest: when I was a vicar in Tulse Hill, south London—I was there for 14 years—I was stopped and searched a number of times. I asked the police why, particularly when I did not have my dog collar on because I had gone to B&Q to get some paint to decorate our house. They said that they wanted to make sure that the tins of paint had not been stolen. I had to produce a receipt. I was then let go, but there were other occasions; it was not just a one-off.
I then became the Bishop of Stepney. I had been there for only about 18 months when, one evening, having taken my wife to a selection conference, on my way back, at about 10 pm, on that wonderful hill in London, I was stopped and searched. The man wanted me to open my boot, which I did. As I stood up, he suddenly saw my dog collar and purple shirt and said, “Whoops”.
I was an adviser to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. By the way, it was not the Macpherson inquiry, as people tend to call it. If you look at the book, you will see that it was the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, chaired by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, who died last year.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I generally support this important legislation, but I expressed at Second Reading and again in Committee my sense of unease about the whole concept of serious violence reduction orders but also about the detail of their implementation. It is clear that my arguments have not borne the fruit I would hope to see, because I have read—since she kindly copied it to me—my noble friend’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in which the Government made it clear that they did not see any scope for budging either on the principle or on the detail of the implementation of these provisions. So, rather than engage in a discussion across a broad front, I shall simply focus my few remarks on Amendments 90K and 90L in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, which deal with what might be the most egregious question on this subject, that of “ought to know” or “ought to have known”, depending on how it is phrased in the Bill.
The Government are proposing that people should be subject to these orders, which are serious constraints on their liberties and which have potentially severe reputational consequences. In some cases, these may be merited, but in the case of “ought to have known” it is extremely difficult to accept that the burden on those who receive these orders is merited, on the basis not of their carrying a knife, not even that they knew a knife was being carried but that they ought to have known a knife was being carried.
There are three essential problems. The first is meaning. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, pointed to the difficulties that arise from the variability of language. The expression “ought to have known” is one that we can easily use in different ways in ordinary, natural language. But we are dealing here with language that ought to be drafted in a precise fashion and can be applied in a predictable way in a court of law, because we want our laws to be predictable. We want people to know that, if they do this or that, they will be in trouble, but if they do not do so, then that is okay. I do not know what “ought to have known” means in a legal sense.
The second problem is evidence. Even if you had a clear understanding of what the words “ought to have known” mean, how is that to be established in a court of law when, as I have said before to your Lordships, it is difficult enough to establish in a court of law what somebody did or did not know, let alone what they ought to have known. There is an evidential question here.
The third problem arises from the first two. It will be a decision of this Parliament to adopt this language which throws a huge interpretational burden on the courts. We do not know how the courts are going to interpret or implement this language. I do not want to draw unfair parallels, but when we discussed in Committee and on Report the question of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, it was clear that the Home Secretary of the day, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, did not expect the provision to be applied by the courts with the liberality that the judges felt obliged to apply because of how it had been drafted. I hope I have explained that correctly. In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, thought it would be applied only occasionally, but when the judges read what they were expected to do, they felt obliged to apply it more liberally to far more cases, which had never been his intention when he had proposed it. We are potentially in similar circumstances here. We simply have no idea, if we agree this language, how it is going to be applied by the courts in actual cases: with what breadth or how frequently it will be applied to people who were not carrying a knife and did not know that a knife was being carried but it is felt on some basis that they ought to have known.
I am not trying to detract from the other amendments in this group by focusing my remarks on this narrow point, which has been addressed by other noble Lords. I am focusing on these two amendments because I would hope that my noble friend might, after reflecting on it, be willing to come forward at Third Reading with something that rethought this approach. Or at the very least, if it did not rethink it, she would say that she was going to add words or guidance or some other supplement to the Bill which would make the circumstances in which this applied very specific such that we had that level of certainty that we did not impose this burden on the courts. We should have certainty in law but also certainty in our own minds as to how frequently and commonly this penalty would be applied in the event of “ought to have known” cases.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the general thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve, although I have some sympathy for one or two points that have been raised by previous speakers. I do not speak as a zealot for stop and search. It has dangers, which I hope I can persuade noble Lords I have taken seriously in the past.
The Government seem to be trying to change the culture of people carrying knives, either in public places or sometimes in private. Far too many people have been carrying knives and clearly still are, leading to minor arguments ending up in fatal events. We know that people who are repeat offenders disproportionately account for a disproportionate amount of crime. As few as 10% of offenders, on some occasions, can account for two-thirds of the crime. That applies to victims as well as to the places that they meet, which are repeat locations. Legislation over the years has tried to do something about that and, I think, has generally been well intended.
I agree with many of the things that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, has said. He had a worrying experience, but a lot of it has been London based. For historical reasons, there have been three different types of legislation which have caused real problems in this city, but occasionally in others. The sus law of the 1960s allowed unqualified stop and search. That caused a great many problems and was got rid of.
Then along came Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 44 was precisely intended for locations that were likely to be attacked by terrorists—places such as Parliament. It was intended to draw a line around places and, if someone went into this area, they could be searched without cause. In fact, the Metropolitan Police applied that throughout London. Every one of the 32 boroughs was covered by that piece of legislation, so people who live in London have had that experience of stop and search without cause for tens of years. Whether it be people who are now being stopped and searched, or their parents or grandparents, they have that experience. That is the thing that I am afraid has disproportionately affected how they feel about the legislation.
The latest version is Section 60. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised this and I have some empathy with part of what he said, for the reason I will explain. Section 60 was intended, again, to circumscribe certain areas where there was to be stop and search without cause—perhaps a park where many people had been stabbed or a location where gangs had been meeting and attacking each other. In that area, everybody was warned, “If you go in this area and carry a knife, you are likely to be stopped and searched without cause”, because the idea was to disrupt their offending pattern. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that often these areas are not well described. People are not told that they are about to enter one, so, therefore, when an officer stops someone, they can be suspicious and ask whether they are in a Section 60 area or have they been stopped and searched for no good reason at all.
As I said, I am not a zealot for stop and search. In 2011, when I took over the Met, we had just had the London riots. We never had a public inquiry into those events, but one of the conclusions I drew for myself when I looked at the figures was that stop and search had been very high. In the two preceding years, 2.6 million people had been stopped and searched in London. At the time, there were only 8.4 million people living in London. If we discount people who were not on the streets because they were older or younger, this was a very high number and that worried me. Over the succeeding three to four years, we reduced stop and search by 60% and we reduced Section 60s by 90% because, frankly, they were like confetti scattered around London. Ironically, the more there were, the less they could be policed.
There was a disproportionate amount of vague stop and search. Within that, we had disproportionality: there were very high figures for people of Asian appearance after 9/11 and that was certainly true of the black community as well. Over three years, we managed to get the stop and search disproportionality for people of Asian appearance down, from over seven times more likely than the white community, to less than one compared to the white community. We did not have as much success with the black community. We got better but nowhere near what I would call a more representative look.
I am only trying to convince your Lordships of two things. A targeted stop and search, even where there is not a cause, can be really helpful, either geographically or targeted on the offender. That is where the serious crime prevention orders can make an impact. Generally, they are targeted only at people who have been convicted already of carrying a knife, or who have been carrying a knife and have not been convicted but a court has been persuaded that there is a good reason.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, all of us in the Chamber are united by our desire to tackle violent crime, target police resources better and see fewer victims of crime. If we look at the Government’s own statistics with respect to this, it is worth reminding ourselves that to be fair to the Government, this is what they are seeking to try to deal with. In the impact assessment we see that offences involving knives increased by 84% between June 2014 and June 2020, homicides increased by 38% and gun crime rose by 28%. In the year ending June 2020, 262 people were stabbed to death, with 4,800 admissions for assault by a sharp object. Just recently, we have seen the horrific figure of 30 young people murdered on the streets of London. You can see why the Government are seeking to do something.
Any Government would want to do something, but what is being said to the Government is: are the serious violence prevention orders and the way in which they are set up the way to deal with that? That is the purpose of many of the amendments, many of which we support. The purpose of the amendments today—again, we have heard many arguments from many noble Lords in this House—is to raise those concerns and air those issues about how the orders will be used and the breadth of who they can be applied to. There is some difference of opinion, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in his view of stop and search without suspicion and its use, and others have very serious concerns about it.
If the measures—these orders—are to go ahead, the crucial thing for this House is to ensure that the pilot that the Government have said they will carry out with respect to these orders is absolutely right, and to make sure that it is not just a tick-box exercise that the Government can use to say, “There you are—that proves what we said in the first place.” In particular, we need to look at whether the issues that have been raised, quite rightly, actually occur, in which case the orders would be inappropriate. Most important of all: do the orders work? Will they actually bring down those horrific figures that I just mentioned in the way that we would all want? Do they reduce and prevent violent crime, are they successful at diverting people away from crime and the criminal justice system, and are they a good use of police resources?
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Armstrong who, for good reason, cannot be with us today, for her Amendments 90K and 90L, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her support for them. They raise the issue of women and girls who have been exploited in gangs and are likely to be caught up in the provisions of these serious violence prevention orders, in particular where, in the phrase we have heard from many noble Lords, they “ought to have known” that a companion was carrying a knife. Notwithstanding what has been said, my own experience of this is that “ought to have known” ignores the reality of the coercive and abusive nature of many girls’ involvement in those gangs. It is not the “ought to have known” that we would all think about when we talk about the lives we lead. In the chaotic lifestyle of those gang members, “ought to have known” is an unreasonable expectation. It is absolutely vital that the pilot looks at how those provisions impact on violence against women and girls and their impact on vulnerable and exploited women.
Therefore, because of the importance of the pilot, we strongly support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick: Amendments 95A, 95B and 95C. Amendment 95B in particular brings all of these debates together in ensuring that Parliament not only gets a report on the pilot but a detailed answer from the Government on any issues that the pilot raises. Not many amendments could be quite as reasonable as that. It would provide simple parliamentary scrutiny and allow Parliament then to make a decision on whether these orders work and should be rolled out and on whether the issues that many noble Lords have raised are right.
Amendment 95C ensures the pilot is a genuine evidence-gathering exercise and considers, as I say, all the important issues raised. I raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny in Committee, as did others, and I am grateful to the Minister for writing to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in response to the points raised and copying it to other noble Lords. At the moment, the Bill would provide that certain details of the orders are provided in regulations that would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which is welcome. The amendment would take this one step further—quite rightly, which is why we support it. It would ensure that the decision over whether to introduce the orders, once we have genuine evidence on how they have worked following the pilot, is taken by Parliament and not just by the Home Office. I respectfully suggest that that would not be too big an ask. The Government have already accepted that these orders need to be piloted, so if the principle of piloting has been accepted, surely Parliament should be able to scrutinise whether the pilot has been a success and whether the issues raised by noble Lords and indeed others in the other place are right.
All of us are united by a desire to tackle serious and violent crime, but that does not mean that we should just take any action that this Parliament considers necessary without considering the consequences. Stop and search without suspicion is probably one action that highlights that more than any other, but there have certainly been other issues related to women and girls as well. I ask the Minister to consider parliamentary scrutiny and whether these orders should go forward. I would suggest that is a perfectly reasonable response for this Chamber and others to make.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments are about two things: serious violence reduction orders and stop and search powers more broadly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for setting out the case for their amendments, and to other noble Lords for promoting the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, in her absence. We wish her well.
Amendments 90G, 90M and 91C would raise the threshold for the standard of proof required to impose an SVRO from the civil to the criminal standard. SVROs are civil orders introduced to protect communities and deter offenders from future offending. As such, we think that the civil standard is appropriate to enable a court to consider a wide range of evidence from both the offender and the prosecution when considering whether to make an SVRO.
Amendments 90H, 90J, 90K and 90L all seek to limit the circumstances in which an SVRO may be made. As regards Amendment 90H, it is the Government’s view that an SVRO should be available when an adult has been convicted of an offence where a knife or offensive weapon was present, whether it was used in the commission of the offence or not. But this does not mean that an SVRO will be applied for, or made, in all such cases. The prosecution would first need to consider whether it was appropriate to make an application to the court for an SVRO. The court must consider it necessary to make the SVRO in order to protect the public or prevent reoffending, and it would be very difficult to see how a court might consider an SVRO to be necessary if there was no evidence of risk of harm involving a knife or offensive weapon or risk of knife or offensive weapons offending; the bladed article was not relevant to the offence; or the individual was in possession of a bladed article with a reasonable excuse such as for use at work or for religious purposes—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester gave an example of the church picnic.
Amendments 90J, 90K and 90L would remove provisions in the Bill that would allow an order to be made if another person who committed the offence used or had with them a bladed article or offensive weapon in the commission of the offence and the offender knew or ought to have known that this would be the case. I reiterate that, for an SVRO to be made in any circumstances, the individual must have been convicted of an offence where a bladed article or offensive weapon was used in the commission of the offence or was with either the offender or another individual who was also convicted of an offence arising from the same set of facts. This provision would capture a situation where more than one person was convicted of an offence arising from the same set of facts, but not all the individuals used a bladed article or offensive weapon in the commission of the offence, or had such an item with them when the offence was committed.
In these circumstances, an SVRO may still be necessary to protect the public or any particular members of the public, including the offender, from the risk of harm involving a bladed article or offensive weapon, or to prevent the offender from committing an offence involving a bladed article or offensive weapon—for example, a fight or robbery where the offender in possession of a knife and the offender not in possession of the knife are convicted of offences arising from the same facts. In any such case, the prosecution must consider whether to make an application for an SVRO and the court must consider whether to grant that order. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made that point. Both the prosecution and the court therefore retain discretion to determine the appropriate course of action on a case-by-case basis. On my noble friend Lord Moylan’s point about “ought to have known”, I will undertake to ensure that we address that point in the statutory guidance; it is a good point. I also add that the phrase is used in other legislation, so it is not a new concept that is unknown to the courts, albeit that it is used in different circumstances. I will take that one back.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I particularly thank the right reverend Prelates and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for their contributions. Unfortunately, I did not hear the Minister adequately address their points or the issues that I raised. I asked specific questions about the Minister’s letter of 6 January, but she appeared just to stand at the Dispatch Box and repeat what was in that letter.
As far as I am concerned, I would not be satisfied about the pilots, but that is a decision for the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to take shortly. My understanding is that noble Lords are coalescing around a vote on Amendments 95A, 95B and 95C, so I think we should get on with it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(8A) The court may adjourn any proceedings on an application for a serious violence reduction order even after sentencing the offender.(8B) If the offender does not appear for any adjourned proceedings the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the offender’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the offender’s absence.(8C) The court may not act under subsection (8B)(b) unless it is satisfied that the offender has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings.(8D) The court may not act under subsection (8B)(c) unless it is satisfied that the offender—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the offender does not appear for those proceedings the court may hear the proceedings in the offender’s absence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it explicit that, if an application for a serious violence reduction order is made, the court may adjourn proceedings on the application after sentencing the offender.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment widens the power to issue guidance in new section 342J of the Sentencing Code so that guidance may be issued on any matter relating to serious violence reduction orders.
“(1A) The guidance may in particular include— (a) guidance about the exercise by constables, chief officers of police and the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force of their functions under this Chapter,(b) guidance about identifying offenders in respect of whom it may be appropriate for applications for serious violence reduction orders to be made, and(c) guidance about providing assistance to prosecutors in connection with applications for serious violence reduction orders.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a non-exhaustive list of the matters that may be covered by guidance issued under new section 342J of the Sentencing Code.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Baroness Williams of Trafford's second amendment to Clause 141.
<strong>“342JA </strong> Guidance: Parliamentary procedure(1) Before issuing guidance under section 342J, the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the guidance before Parliament.(2) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the draft guidance, the guidance may not be issued.(3) If no such resolution is made within that period, the Secretary of State may issue the guidance.(4) In this section “the 40-day period”, in relation to draft guidance, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House on the same day, the later of the days on which it is laid).(5) In calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies a negative resolution procedure to the power to issue guidance under new section 342J of the Sentencing Code.
Baroness Meacher
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me if I say a few words in response to the Minister on Amendment 95A. The fact is that Amendments 95A and 95B would require the Government not only to lay the results of a full pilot before Parliament but to enable Parliament to decide whether SVROs should be rolled out across the country. We know that there is no evidence to suggest the wholesale expansion or extension of stop and search where there is no immediate evidence of potential wrongdoing in the situation. Therefore, all we are asking is that Parliament should be satisfied from the pilot that there is evidence that SVROs will reduce severe violence and protect communities—which we want to happen—and that that can be done without disproportionate detriment, particularly to black communities and to very vulnerable women but also to people in general.
We are asking for the pilot to be presented to Parliament and for Parliament to approve that SVROs should be rolled out. Because the Minister was unable to suggest that there should be any such democratic decision-making on this issue, I would like to test the opinion of the House on both Amendments 95A and 95B —but the vote will be on Amendment 95A, with Amendment 95B as the consequential amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Amendments 95B and 95C are consequential and will therefore be taken en bloc.
Amendments 95B and 95C
Baroness Meacher
“(3A) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a response addressing any issues identified in the report produced under subsection (3).(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 178(1) for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the section concerning Serious Violence Reduction Orders can only be commenced once a report on the pilot has been laid before Parliament and both Houses have voted on its commencement.
“(3A) Before making the report under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must obtain, record and publish all reasonably available data, which is relevant to the effect of the operation of Chapter 1A of Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (inserted by section 141) under subsection (2) over a period of no less than 12 months, including—(a) its impact on the extent to which knives or weapons are carried;(b) its impact on the rate of serious violence;(c) the age, race, and sex (within the meaning of section 5, 9 and 11 of the Equality Act 2010) of each person—(i) in respect of whom an application is made under section 342A(1)(b) of the Sentencing Code;(ii) in respect of whom a serious violence reduction order is made by a court;(iii) in respect of whom an application is made under section 342A(1) of the Sentencing Code and the court has adjourned proceedings pursuant to section 342A(8A) or (8B);(iv) in respect of whom action is taken pursuant to section 342C, 342E, 342F, or 342H of the Sentencing Code; and(v) who is convicted of an offence within section 342G of the Sentencing Code;(d) any action which was taken pursuant to sections 342C, 342E, 342F, or 342H of the Sentencing Code, by reference to the age, race and sex of the offender;(e) the nature of, and reasons recorded for, any such action;(f) any complaint arising from the exercise of powers under section 342E of the Sentencing Code, the nature and outcome of that complaint, and the age, race and sex of the person who made it;(g) the offence within section 342G of the Sentencing Code for which any person was convicted and the sentence imposed, by reference to the age, race and sex of that person;(h) for each serious violence reduction order made— (i) the offence identified under section 342A(1)(a) of the Sentencing Code; (ii) whether the order was imposed under subsection 342A(3)(a), (3)(b), (4)(a) or 4(b) of the Sentencing Code; and(iii) if the order was imposed under subsection 342A(4)(a) or (4)(b), whether the order was made on the basis that the offender knew that a bladed article or offensive weapon was used by another person; or whether the offender ought to have known that this would be the case;(i) whether that operation of Chapter 1A of the Sentencing Code had a discriminatory, disproportionate or other adverse impact on people sharing the protected characteristic of age, race or sex;(j) the number of survivors and victims of domestic abuse, including women who have experienced or are experiencing criminal exploitation, coercive control, or other forms of abuse, who are given such orders, broken down by ethnicity, age, and policing borough.(3B) The report under subsection (3) must include—(a) an analysis of the effect described in subsection (3A), by reference to the data identified in subsection (3A);(b) an equality impact assessment of the operation of Chapter 1A of the Sentencing Code as described in subsection (3A);(c) a description of any guidance or codes of practice, to which the operation of Chapter 1A described in subsection (3A) was subject;(d) analysis of data assessing the extent to which the pilot has reduced serious violent crime and reoffending by comparison with other areas;(e) analysis of what evidence is relied on to justify the imposition of serious violence reduction orders, and whether there is any bias in the decision-making process;(f) analysis of information on the reason for each breach of a serious violence reduction order, any defence pleaded, and the result of the breach proceedings;(g) analysis of any impacts, including equalities impacts, of other positive requirements or conditions imposed on individuals pursuant to section 342C(1) of the Sentencing Code;(h) analysis of any impacts, including equalities impacts, of adjournment of proceedings on individuals where the court adjourns proceedings under section 342A(8A) or (8B); and(i) analysis of any impacts of serious violence reduction orders on survivors and victims of domestic abuse, including women who have experienced or are experiencing criminal exploitation, coercive control, or other forms of abuse, who are given such orders.(3C) Statistical information collected for the purposes of section (3B) from different pilot areas must be collected and presented in a form which enables direct comparison between those areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the pilot provided for under Clause 142, with particular attention paid to equalities impacts and impacts on survivors and victims of domestic abuse and criminal exploitation.
“CHAPTER 1AKNIFE CRIME PREVENTION ORDERSKnife crime prevention order on conviction: adjournment of proceedings
(1) In section 19 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (knife crime prevention orders made on conviction), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) The court may adjourn any proceedings on an application for a knife crime prevention order even after sentencing the defendant.(9B) If the defendant does not appear for any adjourned proceedings the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.(9C) The court may not act under subsection (9B)(b) unless it is satisfied that the defendant has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings.(9D) The court may not act under subsection (9B)(c) unless it is satisfied that the defendant—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the defendant does not appear for those proceedings the court may hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.”(2) Regulations under section 178(1) which bring subsection (1) into force only for a specified purpose or in relation to a specified area may—(a) provide for that provision to be in force for that purpose or in relation to that area for a specified period;(b) make transitional or saving provision in relation to that provision ceasing to be in force at the end of the specified period.(3) Regulations containing provision by virtue of subsection (2)(a) may be amended by subsequent regulations under section 178(1) so as to continue subsection (1) in force for the specified purpose or in relation to the specified area for a further specified period.(4) In this section “specified” means specified in regulations under section 178(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it explicit that, if an application for a knife crime prevention order is made following a defendant’s conviction of an offence, the court may adjourn proceedings on the application after sentencing the defendant.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“CHAPTER 4FOOTBALL BANNING ORDERSFootball banning orders: relevant offences
(1) The Football Spectators Act 1989 is amended as follows.(2) Schedule 1 (football banning orders: relevant offences) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (7).(3) In paragraph 1(c) (certain offences under the Public Order Act 1986 committed at premises)—(a) after “any offence under section” insert “4,”, and(b) before “harassment” insert “fear or provocation of violence, or”.(4) In paragraph 1(k) (certain offences under the Public Order Act 1986 committed on a journey to or from a football match)—(a) after “any offence under section” insert “4,”, and(b) before “harassment” insert “fear or provocation of violence, or”. (5) In paragraph 1(q) (certain offences under the Public Order Act 1986 which the court declares to be related to a football match)—(a) after “any offence under section” insert “4,”,(b) before “harassment” insert “fear or provocation of violence, or”, and(c) omit “or any provision of Part 3 or 3A of that Act (hatred by reference to race etc)”.(6) In paragraph 1, after paragraph (u) insert—“(v) any offence under any provision of Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (hatred by reference to race etc)—(i) which does not fall within paragraph (c) or (k), and(ii) as respects which the court makes a declaration that the offence related to a football match, to a football organisation or to a person whom the accused knew or believed to have a prescribed connection with a football organisation,(w) any offence under section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated public order offences) as respects which the court makes a declaration that the offence related to a football match, to a football organisation or to a person whom the accused knew or believed to have a prescribed connection with a football organisation,(x) any offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (offence of sending letter, electronic communication or article with intent to cause distress or anxiety)—(i) which does not fall within paragraph (d), (e), (m), (n), (r) or (s),(ii) as respects which the court has stated that the offence is aggravated by hostility of any of the types mentioned in section 66(1) of the Sentencing Code (racial hostility etc), and(iii) as respects which the court makes a declaration that the offence related to a football match, to a football organisation or to a person whom the accused knew or believed to have a prescribed connection with a football organisation,(y) any offence under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 (improper use of public telecommunications network)—(i) which does not fall within paragraph (d), (e), (m), (n), (r) or (s),(ii) as respects which the court has stated that the offence is aggravated by hostility of any of the types mentioned in section 66(1) of the Sentencing Code (racial hostility etc), and(iii) as respects which the court makes a declaration that the offence related to a football match, to a football organisation or to a person whom the accused knew or believed to have a prescribed connection with a football organisation.”(7) In paragraph 4—(a) the words from “In this Schedule” to “Part II of this Act.” become sub-paragraph (1), (b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) In this Schedule “football organisation” means an organisation which is a regulated football organisation for the purposes of Part 2 of this Act.”, and(c) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) The provision that may be made by an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Schedule includes provision that a person has a prescribed connection with a football organisation where— (a) the person has had a connection of a prescribed kind with a football organisation in the past, or(b) the person will or may have a connection of a prescribed kind with a football organisation in the future.”(8) In section 14 (main definitions), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) “Regulated football organisation” means an organisation (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) which—(a) relates to association football, and(b) is a prescribed organisation or an organisation of a prescribed description.”(9) Section 23 (further provision about, and appeals against, declarations of relevance) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).(10) In subsection (1), for the words from “related to football matches” to the end of the subsection substitute “—(a) related to football matches,(b) related to a particular football match or to particular football matches,(c) related to a football organisation, or(d) related to a person whom the defendant knew or believed to have a prescribed connection with a football organisation,as the case may be.”(11) In subsection (5), for the words from “related to football matches” to the end of the subsection substitute “—(a) related to football matches,(b) related to one or more particular football matches,(c) related to a football organisation, or(d) related to a person whom the defendant knew or believed to have a prescribed connection with a football organisation.”(12) This section does not apply in relation to an offence committed before the day appointed by regulations under section 178(1) for its coming into force (so far as it has not previously been commenced by section 178(4)(ta)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment modifies the list of relevant offences in Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989 which trigger the making of a football banning order to include, in particular, certain offences relating to race or religion and certain online hate offences.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford.
These amendments give effect to a commitment made by the Prime Minister in the immediate aftermath of the final of Euro 2020. The whole of England was disappointed by the outcome, and that is understandable. What was not excusable or acceptable was the racist abuse directed at certain England players. Your Lordships will also be aware of the ubiquitous slow drip of hateful online abuse many high-profile footballers are subjected to. In the light of that behaviour, the Prime Minister announced that we would legislate to extend the football banning order regime to cover online abuse, and that is the purpose of these amendments. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, tabled an amendment directed to the same end. In response, I said that the Government would look to legislate as soon as possible, and that is what we are doing. I hope the noble Lord will feel that his objectives have now been met and will welcome these amendments.
Football banning orders were first introduced in 1989. The intention of these new clauses is to amend the operation of the football banning order regime to enable a court to impose a football banning order against persons convicted of online hate offences connected to football. The amendments will also enable a court to impose a football banning order for other race, religious or sexual orientation hate offences against persons with a prescribed connection to a football organisation where the incident would not fall under the existing coverage. This will prevent such offenders propagating their criminal, hateful views at football matches. I sincerely hope that this measure will also deter others from engaging in similar behaviour that is so harmful to the victims and our national game.
Amendment 96B will amend the Football Spectators Act 1989 to enable the list of relevant offences in Schedule 1 to that Act to be amended by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. A person can receive a football banning order following conviction for a relevant offence. There is no intention to use the new regulation-making power to add to the schedule offences that do not involve violence, disorderly behaviour or harm to others, or a risk or threat of such, nor to add offences which are not football-related. Rather, this will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the list of relevant offences for the purposes of football banning order proceedings can be kept up to date and relevant in the event of amendment to the Acts listed in the schedule or developing trends of harm or disorder relating to football, such as online hate offences.
Finally, Amendment 96C will amend the consideration that a court undertakes in deciding whether to impose a football banning order against a person convicted of a football-related offence under the 1989 Act. It will remove the requirement that the convicted person must pose an identifiable risk of violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches. I must again reference the vile online racist abuse of England players after the Euro 2020 final. Under the current test, courts may not be convinced that offenders convicted of racist online offences pose an identifiable risk of violence and disorder at matches. However, I believe that it is imperative to ensure that such offenders can be prevented from spreading their hateful words at football matches. Courts will retain their powers of discretion if there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or the offender which would make it unjust to impose a football banning order, with a requirement that they state in open court their reasons for not doing so.
We can all agree that there is no place for racist abuse in football—or more widely—and it is right that we should send a strong signal that those convicted of racist abuse or other unconscionable hatred connected to football should not be allowed to attend football matches to spread their poisonous prejudices. This is a sensible and much-needed change to the legislation governing football and I ask your Lordships to endorse it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm the impact these amendments will have on homophobic abuse of soccer players? I think he mentioned it once. Tom Daley on Channel 4’s “Alternative Christmas Message” talked about the fact that no professional footballers in the UK have publicly said they are gay: fear of public reaction is probably a big part of the reason why. In fact, globally, it is my understanding that only one professional soccer player has come out as gay, and he plays in Australia.
People have shied away from a hierarchy of diversity, but I have always believed that racism is a bigger problem than homophobia: some people can hide their sexuality, but few people of colour can hide their race. Having said that, people can hide their religious beliefs; there are many white Muslims, for example. These amendments cover religion but not, at least immediately obviously, sexuality. Racism is still a huge problem, and these amendments are welcome, but where is the clear and unambiguous message in these amendments that homophobic abuse directed at football players is just as unacceptable as racism and Islamophobia? It is not clear to me.
Even the Government’s explanatory statement for these amendments refers to
“certain offences relating to race or religion and certain online hate offences.”
If I am having to search the many and various pieces of legislation mentioned in these amendments to satisfy myself that people like me are covered, then these amendments do not send a clear and unambiguous message that homophobic abuse is as unacceptable as racism and Islamophobia. The Law Commission in its recent report on hate crime identifies the need to place sexual and gender diversity hatred on the same footing as race hatred, so what assurances can the Minister give in this case? I do not want perfection to be the enemy of the good, and there will still be an opportunity to provide clarification at Third Reading, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it would be remiss of me not to thank the Government for bringing forward these amendments. They very much fulfil the objectives that I set out in moving my amendments in Committee. Imagine my slight surprise when I received an email shortly before Christmas from one of the officials telling me about this, though it had been suggested to me, and that the announcement was going to be made on Boxing Day—not a day traditionally used for parliamentary consideration. But I was pleased to hear that the Government were going to bring forward the amendments. I offered at one stage to co-sign them, but that seems to have got lost in the mists.
I am not entirely convinced that we would have seen these amendments if we had not brought them forward in Committee and threatened the Government with, I suspect, the possibility of a defeat on them. It has taken the Government too long to get to this point. Boris Johnson himself mentioned it back in July, but we have been campaigning on this issue for some years, and these amendments are long overdue.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I too would like to see some clarification as to whether these amendments will cover homophobic abuse. It is fair to say that many of the football clubs are well ahead of the Government on this already. I know that my own football club, Brighton & Hove Albion, has long taken the view that homophobic abuse is unacceptable and made that very clear, not just in its programmes and publicity but in its action. That is to be welcomed. Many clubs have adopted that approach and now take pride in supporting gay footballers and ensuring that people do not get abused in that way at games. That is to be welcomed, but we need some legislative clarity.
I have one further point that I wish to pursue with the Government. The Bill is an opportunity to cover online abuse wherever it manifests. Although football understandably is a natural focus for this because, let us face it, that is where a lot of racist abuse has been channelled over the last few years, particularly last summer, I challenge the Government to bring forward a further amendment which covers other sports. We are all very conscious and aware of the racism that is there in other sports and sporting activities, and the abuse that many black and minority-ethnic cricketers, in particular, have suffered.
We should try to deal with the whole package, and it would be a good challenge for the Government to meet to bring forward amendments that we and, I am sure, other Members of your Lordships’ House would support at Third Reading. We would be more than happy to use our drafting talents to make sure it happened. It would clarify once and for all the position for all sports men and women across the UK, and it would send a strong and important message that this is just not acceptable behaviour in any shape or form in any sporting arena or in any sport.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in seeking clarity about homophobic abuse; that is really important. I would like the Government to bring forward further amendments to cover other sports at Third Reading. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of the Government they have clever and cunning draftspeople at their beck and call and there are plenty of us in this House who would want to support that and sign up to that agenda.
I place on record my thanks to the Minister and Ministers generally, to the Home Office staff who have supported them, and to our own staff in our Labour Lords team who did the original drafting, because this is an important step forward and we should recognise that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too support these amendments and thank the Government for their clarity; there were some other sections about which we were not sure in terms of their language. Again, sorry to sound as though I am stuck in a groove: in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and its recommendations there is a definition of a racist incident and a homophobic incident. Parliament, in the other place, accepted all 70 recommendations. If you want to find how to phrase what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is talking about, it is already there in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report and the recommendations that we made.
The thing about the law is that it must be predictable, easy to understand and not shrouded in mystery. I support the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The Government need to be clear about this and the language because the other place accepted all 70 recommendations. It is in there, and it would be a mistake not to be very clear about the whole question of these homophobic incidents and the abuse that some people have suffered. I would support the Government in finding that language. They could put in similar words about what they have actually done about racism.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it is very important to have clarity that homophobic abuse is here covered. For my part, I understand—I ask the Minister to confirm whether he agrees—that the substance of these amendments does cover homophobic abuse, in particular proposed new subsection (6) of the new clause, which refers to Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, which, as I understand it, specifically covers homophobic abuse, as does proposed new subsection (6)(x)(ii), which refers to Section 66(1) of the Sentencing Code, which, again, I understand covers homophobic hostility as well as racial hostility. But clarity is absolutely essential here.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Bassam and Lord Pannick, I can happily clarify that this includes homophobic and misogynistic hate speech, and all other forms of hate speech. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is absolutely right: it is under Section 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. I am afraid I do not have the Sentencing Code so I will have to look into that for him.
The core amendments apply to online hate speech where the court has found on sentencing that the offence was aggravated by racial or religious hostility, or hostility related to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity. This reflects the five types of hate crime recognised by the law, which I think is the Sentencing Code.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about other sports. I have heard the DCMS Minister answer questions on this, and there will of course be other opportunities in other Bills coming up, which I suspect will also have something to say on the subject, but I will take it back to both departments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, could I clarify what he just said? It threw another confusion at me. He said it covers misogynistic hate speech. I am not sure misogyny is a hate crime. Therefore, I am not sure the Minister is correct on that point. Perhaps he could clarify.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I will have to write to him to clarify that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and his agreement to take that away. For our part, we would very much welcome a discussion on that with him and his officials, if that is at all possible. We are some way off from the Third Reading, and, clearly, we would be in a position to bring forward an amendment if that would help.
It would be for the good if we could have some cross-party agreement on this, because it is an issue on which we can have a shared view. That shared view adds extra emphasis and import to the progress that we make. We would very much welcome the Minister facilitating that discussion, and obviously we would be delighted if the Government were to concede and bring forward amendments which cover all other sports as well.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Football banning orders: power to amend list of relevant offences
(1) In section 14 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (main definitions), after subsection (8) insert—“(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 so as to add, modify or remove a reference to an offence or a description of offence.(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may make consequential amendments to this Act.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”(2) Section 22A of that Act (other interpretation, etc) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).(3) In subsection (3), after “order” insert “or regulations”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) An order or regulations under this Part—(a) may make different provision for different purposes;(b) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the Football Spectators Act 1989 to enable the list of relevant offences in Schedule 1 to that Act to be amended by regulations.
“Football banning orders: requirement to make order on conviction etc
(1) In section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning order made on conviction of an offence), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—“(2) The court must make a banning order in respect of the offender unless the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so.(3) Where the court does not make a banning order it must state in open court the reasons for not doing so.”(2) Section 22 of that Act (banning orders arising out of offences outside England and Wales) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).(3) In subsection (4), for the words following paragraph (b) substitute—“must make a banning order in relation to the person, unless subsection (5) applies.” (4) For subsections (5) and (5A) substitute—“(5) This subsection applies if—(a) it appears to the court that the conviction of the corresponding offence in a country outside England and Wales is the subject of proceedings in a court of law in that country questioning the conviction, or(b) the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the corresponding offence or to the person which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to make a banning order.(5A) Where the court does not make a banning order on the ground mentioned in subsection (5)(b) it must state in open court the reasons for not doing so.”(5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence committed before the day appointed by regulations under section 178(1) for its coming into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the Football Spectators Act 1989 so that a court is required to make a football banning order on a person’s conviction of a relevant offence unless there are particular circumstances which would make it unjust to do so. It also makes equivalent provision in relation to a person convicted of a corresponding offence overseas.
“Women’s Justice Board
(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Women’s Justice Board for England and Wales.(2) The Board is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Board’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.(3) The Board must consist of 10, 11 or 12 members appointed by the Secretary of State.(4) The members of the Board must include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have extensive recent experience with women in the criminal justice system.(5) The Board has the following functions, namely—(a) to meet the particular needs of women in the criminal justice system;(b) to monitor the provision of services for women in the criminal justice system;(c) to advise the Secretary of State on—(i) how the aim in subsection (5)(a) might most effectively be pursued;(ii) the provision of services for women in the criminal justice system;(iii) the content of any national standards the Secretary of State may see fit to set with respect to the provision of such services, or the accommodation in which women are kept in custody; and(iv) the steps that might be taken to prevent offending by women;(d) to monitor the extent to which the aim in subsection (5)(a) is being achieved and any standards met;(e) for the purposes of paragraphs (a) to (d) above, to obtain information from relevant authorities;(f) to publish information so obtained;(g) to identify, make known and promote good practice in— (i) meeting the particular needs of women in the criminal justice system;(ii) the provision of services for women in the criminal justice system;(iii) the prevention of offending by women;(iv) working with women who are, or are at risk of becoming, offenders;(h) to commission research in connection with such practice;(i) with the approval of the Secretary of State, to make grants to local authorities and other persons for the purposes of meeting the aim in subsection (5)(a) and the provision of services to women in the criminal justice system, subject to such conditions as the Board considers appropriate, incl uding conditions as to repayment;(j) to provide assistance to local authorities and other persons in connection with information technology systems and equipment used or to be used for the purposes of the aim in subsection (5)(a) and the provision of services to women in the criminal justice system;(k) to enter into agreements for the provision of accommodation for women in the criminal justice system, but no agreement may be made under this paragraph in relation to accommodation for women in the criminal justice system unless it appears to the Board that it is expedient to enter into such an agreement for the purposes of subsection (5)(a);(l) to facilitate agreements between the Secretary of State and any persons providing accommodation for women in the criminal justice system;(m) at the request of the Secretary of State, to assist in carrying out the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to the release of offenders detained in accommodation for women in the criminal justice system; and(n) annually—(i) to assess future demand for accommodation for women in the criminal justice system;(ii) to prepare a plan setting out how they intend to exercise, in the following three years, the functions described in paragraphs (k) to (m) above, and any function for the time being exercisable by the Board concurrently with the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (6)(b) below which relates to securing the provision of such accommodation, and(iii) to submit the plan to the Secretary of State for approval.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) amend subsection (5) above so as to add to, subtract from or alter any of the functions of the Board for the time being specified in that subsection; or(b) provide that any function of the Secretary of State which is exercisable in relation to women in the criminal justice system is exercisable concurrently with the Board.(7) The power of the Secretary of State under subsection (6)(b) includes power—(a) to provide that, in relation to any function that is exercisable by the Secretary of State in respect of particular cases, the function is exercisable by the Board only—(i) where it proposes to exercise the function in a particular manner, or(ii) in respect of a class of case specified in the order, and (b) to make any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision (including provision for any enactment to apply subject to modifications).(8) No regulations under subsection (6) may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(9) In carrying out their functions, the Board must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State and act in accordance with any guidance given by the Secretary of State.(10) A relevant authority—(a) must furnish the Board with any information required for the purposes of subsection (5)(b), (c) or (d) above; and(b) whenever so required by the Board, must submit to the Board a report on such matters connected with the discharge of their duties as may be specified in the requirement.A requirement under paragraph (b) above may specify the form in which a report is to be given.(11) The Board may arrange, or require the relevant authority to arrange, for a report under subsection (10)(b) above to be published in such a manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate.(12) In this section “relevant authority” means a local authority, a chief officer of police, a local policing body, a local probation board, a provider of probation services, a clinical commissioning group and a local health board.(13) Schedule (Women’s Justice Board: further provisions) has effect.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for the establishment of a “Women’s Justice Board”, along the lines of the Youth Justice Board. The drafting closely follows the form of the provisions establishing the YJB in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group propose the establishment of a women’s justice board, along the lines of the Youth Justice Board. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names.
The drafting of the two amendments remains as it was in Committee, and closely reflects the wording of the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 establishing the Youth Justice Board. When we debated these amendments in Committee, on 17 November, they enjoyed widespread support from everyone, except the Minister. The diversity and unanimity of the support we received, I suggest, speaks volumes. Indeed, the support from the Labour Party was unqualified. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:
“We on this side of the Committee strongly support these excellent amendments”.—[Official Report, 17/11/21; col. 327.]
He spoke of the need to give real drive to the movement to further the needs of women within the criminal justice system.
No one disputes that the Youth Justice Board has been a resounding success. It has concentrated effort on recognising and addressing the special needs of young people within the criminal justice system. It has diverted many away from involvement with the system, and offered help and support to those who have been convicted and sentenced, both with community sentences and in custodial settings. The figures speak for themselves: in the last 15 years, the number of under-18s in custody in this jurisdiction fell by about three-quarters, to well under 800 now.
The establishment of a women’s justice board could, we believe, achieve similar success for women, by concentrating effort and resources on helping women who come into contact with the criminal justice system, diverting them from custody, improving the effectiveness of community sentences for women, increasing their use in consequence, and building ways of offering women offenders specialist support with the special issues and difficulties that they face. In Committee we debated those at length.
We also considered the appalling effect of custody on women and their children. The harsh truth is that 19 out of 20 children whose mothers are imprisoned are forced to leave their homes. All the evidence is that those children are themselves more likely to become involved in crime, more likely to suffer from mental ill health and to fail at school, and less likely to find stable employment as young adults—all to the detriment of society at large. The Minister, replying in Committee, disagreed with the proposition that there is a crisis of confidence in women’s justice. That is not the view of the overwhelming majority of experts and those working in this area, who are all deeply troubled by the lack of specialist support and consideration for women in the system.
It is true that, as the Minister said, we have the female offenders strategy, which started in 2018, and the Advisory Board on Female Offenders. The Ministry of Justice is doing work in this area, but it was working in the area of youth justice before 1998, and that did not obviate the need for the Youth Justice Board.
The Minister said in Committee, and repeated when we met the other day—I am grateful to him for the time and care that he has taken, as he always does, to consider the arguments on this issue—that the key point, from the Government’s point of view, was that we do not have a separate criminal justice system for women and girls, as we do for young offenders. As he put it, there is no separate legal framework; women are dealt with as part of the adult offender population. He drew a distinction, for that reason, between women’s position in the criminal justice system and that of young offenders, whom the law treats differently from adults.
I am afraid I do not follow that logic. It seems to me that it contains a non sequitur. The Government accept that women, like young offenders, have special needs in the criminal justice system. The Minister himself spoke of women having particular needs which we needed to identify. I say we need to do more than to identify them; we need to address them. He spoke of the prevalence of mental health issues, of the number of women survivors of abuse—I took it that he was referring to both sexual and physical abuse—and of the closer link among women offenders between drug and alcohol abuse and reoffending than exists for male offenders.
The Minister did not speak in Committee about the particular family issues faced by women in the system—but the effects of custody on the children and families of women offenders are devastating. We have heard about them, in particular, in the debates on the amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester on primary carers. It is no answer to the need for special attention to women’s needs in the criminal justice system to say that women are subject to the same criminal law as men. That fact, of itself, does nothing to address those special needs.
The Minister raised in Committee the issue of the time needed to establish a women’s justice board, but if we could achieve, in 23 years, anything like the same improvements as the Youth Justice Board has achieved in that time, that would be swift progress indeed. He also spoke of the cost implications of establishing a women’s justice board. That does not allow for the substantial savings that would follow from keeping even a few women out of custody, with the knock-on social costs of taking children into care, and the social costs that follow from women’s involvement in the criminal justice system, particularly when they receive custodial sentences.
There is simply no genuine and convincing answer to this proposal. I urge the Government simply to accept that establishing a women’s justice board would be the most effective, and the most promising, way to achieve all that they themselves say that they wish to do for women who find themselves entangled in a system that lamentably fails to address their particular difficulties. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment, because there is a real problem at the heart of criminal justice, which leads to the dissatisfaction that women feel about the justice system. We have created our system around a notion of gender equality that followed on from many years of using the male pronoun, “he”, with the person at the heart of the criminal justice system being a male agent. We then decided that we could not have that any longer, and that the way forward was gender neutrality. But of course gender neutrality is to a large extent a fiction. We know that that neutrality—creating some sort of supposed equality in criminal justice—actually creates further inequality. To treat as equal those who are not yet equal creates only further inequality. I want to emphasise that: it creates further inequality to pretend that we now have equality between the sexes. That is why I feel—although I know it is never comfortable for Governments to take ideas from elsewhere—that having such a board is a necessary part of addressing the great public discontent about the system and the way it deals with women.
I support the idea of a board that looks specifically at women in prison. We know that the majority of them have mental health issues and that their dependency on drugs and drink often derives from backgrounds of abuse: having been brought up in families where abuse was prevalent, or having themselves been at the receiving end of abuse. Understanding women in prison, how they themselves almost invariably have been victims of crime, is one of the ways in which we will progress the system. The Government should adopt this idea.
We need to concentrate on addressing what happens when women go to prison, because often they lose their accommodation and their children are taken into care. The disruption of everything that matters to them is so great that it is very difficult to repair. I therefore support the amendment. It is worthy of this House’s consideration and it is regrettable that it has been dismissed out of hand. There is a problem at the heart of this: you cannot move from inequality to equality simply by saying that there is equality now.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. Noting the success of the Youth Justice Board, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, did, I venture to suggest that many of the problems of women in the criminal justice system would disappear if there was such a board, and the establishment of women’s offending teams.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I add my wholehearted support to this amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their continued commitment to women in the criminal justice system. As bishop to prisons and president of the Nelson Trust, I am acutely aware, as I have said so often, of the need for a gendered approach to justice. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has just put that very powerfully.
While men and women need to be treated with equal justice, equality is not about sameness. Women are caught up in a criminal justice system that has been designed around men, and there needs to be a gendered lens. As we have heard already, many, many women are more likely than men to be primary carers or victims of abuse or exploitation. When they are given a prison sentence, they are more likely to be given a very short one, often far from home. I do not want to repeat things that have been said so many times in Committee and on Report but, having lost the amendment on primary carers earlier on during Report, I am very grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward these amendments, which will go a long way towards ensuring that we get the same outcomes. I am therefore wholeheartedly glad to support these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I rise briefly to add my voice in support of the amendments. I accept that the Youth Justice Board has been an enormous success, and that is primarily because it addresses two separate problems to deal with youths. One is the causes and reasons why they offend and the other is the need for their rehabilitation into society. Although, for reasons that are necessary for the trial of youths, they need a separate system, the underlying reason for the Youth Justice Board applies equally to women, in that there are specific causes of offending, the particular vulnerability, the particular issues they have with mental capacity in certain areas, the specific crimes to which they have been subjected and, above all, domestic abuse.
Moreover, it is plain that the kind of rehabilitation that women need is different. They need much more support in integrating them into the community, but they also need not to be treated or dealt with at centres. I warmly welcome what the Ministry of Justice has done and set forth in its strategy. The difficulty is that although there have been numerous reports about what is required—the report of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for example, and the many reports of the Prison Reform Trust—what is needed is delivery. Delivery is key to this, and that is why I warmly support this amendment.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I too warmly support this amendment. Like most criminal lawyers, I have often visited women’s prisons and I must tell your Lordships that they are shattering and disturbing places. The sheer amount of human damage that one encounters in women’s prisons is very disturbing. My main reason for supporting this amendment as strongly as I do is precisely the delivery aspect to which my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas has just referred. Something has to be done to persuade the Government, and all of us, I suppose, to focus on the processes that are leading women—mostly damaged women, with children, who themselves are victims of serious crime—into these places. Without a way to focus on this as a public policy that can deliver some change, nothing will change. I strongly believe that the proposal in this amendment, if adopted by the Government, could lead to some desperately needed change.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too support this amendment. It seems to me that the case for the amendment is made plain by the functions of the proposed board, as set out in subsection (5). The functions include meeting the particular needs of women in the criminal justice system; monitoring the provision of services for women; obtaining information from relevant authorities; publishing information; identifying, making known and promoting good practice; commissioning research in connection with such practice; and providing assistance to local authorities and other associated purposes. Is the Minister really disputing that there is a vital need for all of that to be done, and by a body dedicated to that purpose?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to these two amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for leading on them. The case has already been clearly made and I will not speak for long, given the hour, but it is worth looking back at the history of this. I looked it up and found a House of Lords Library note from 25 January 2008, referring to a debate drawing attention to the case for setting up a women’s justice board. In 2014, there was an amendment to the legal aid and sentencing Bill seeking to do the same thing. We are often accused of proposing novel ideas that, we are told, we need to go away and think about, but that argument simply does not apply in this case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, produced an enormously important report well over a decade ago that made a huge number of recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. This really is another way, as several noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, have said, of getting at the problem of implementation. We have been talking about how the criminal justice system is failing women for a very long time, and it really is now time to take action. I will finish with a quote from Baroness Howe of Idlicote, who has now retired from your Lordships’ House. She said, back in 2008:
“I must say that I have become tired of seeing this matter brought to debate again and again”.—[Official Report, 31/1/08; col. 805.]
Surely it is time for action.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate because I have been making speeches on this topic for 12 years. I believe, if memory serves, that I was the Front-Bench speaker in the other place who proposed the amendment to the LASPO Bill. It is quite extraordinary. I think it is now 22 years since this was first suggested and, as others have said, we have had the Corston report. We cannot have a debate on women in prison without reference to my noble friend Lady Corston—Jean Corston—and the work that she has done. The idea of a women’s justice board has been around for so long because it is such a good idea. There is so much evidence of the impact, and probably the savings, that it would make, should we take that path.
There is a long-accepted problem—and I know the Minister accepts that there is a problem—with the failure of the criminal justice system properly to address the needs of female offenders. This leads to poor reoffending rates and devastation for families, with children often bearing the brunt. The social and economic cost is enormous. Women make up only 4% of the prison population and are still too easily overlooked in policy, planning and investment decisions for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Kennedy outlined so well. Female offenders are different from male offenders: they have different health needs, including pregnancy, miscarriage, breastfeeding and menopause. We know that these issues are neglected, and we know the failure to tailor provision for women affects reoffending rates.
The frustration is that the Government agree with all this, yet they seem constantly to fail to move the dial. Unfortunately, according to the excellent work done by the Prison Reform Trust, fewer than half, I think, of the commitments made in the Government’s Female Offender Strategy, which was published in 2018, have been met so far. We know that community sentences can be more effective than short prison sentences, yet the use of community sentences is dropping—it has dropped by two-thirds since 2010. Community provision for women needs to be so much better, and the quality everywhere needs to improve. There are many excellent projects, but provision is way too patchy. One of the functions of a women’s justice board, like the Youth Justice Board, would be completely to transform that.
The Government’s Female Offender Strategy is not being delivered quickly enough. This leads many of us to conclude that a new lead organisation for female offenders would make the difference. Since my noble friend Lady Corston’s report, understanding of female offending has improved so much—this is a real positive—and the Government have played their part in this. I believe Ministers want to act and want female offending to improve. I hope the Minister is not just going to stand up and say “We are making progress—bear with us”, because we can all see that it is inadequate. Nothing that has been done so far is making a sufficient difference. Interventions in this space are too often short-term. They leave the fundamentals of substance misuse, mental health, housing, financial literacy and domestic violence unaddressed. We know that self-harm in women’s prisons has reached record levels. The situation is getting worse, not better. More than 20% of self-harm incidents involve women, with 12,000 incidents in 2020 compared to around 7,500 in 2016. A strategy is great, and we need a strategy, but we need leadership to ensure that delivery takes place. A women’s justice board would provide the strategic framework to identify and prioritise the specific needs of women within the criminal justice system.
Having been around this a few times now, the Government have previously argued that this can be achieved through ministerial working groups or strategies, and it could have been done, but the truth is that so far it has not. Many of us will have visited women’s prisons and seen what happens. One of the most upsetting things I have ever seen was when I was present for visits where women were interacting with their preschool children. The response of the women and the children was difficult for prison staff as well. That was an annual thing in that prison—once a year that happened. There is no central co-ordinating body able to identify best practice and make sure it happens everywhere. We fail on that because the Government do not have that central body. Women are going out; they are not making progress—reoffending is as bad as it has ever been. I feel we have come to a point where it is time to bite the bullet and accept the idea of a women’s justice board.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, we debated these amendments in Committee. At that time, they were withdrawn without a vote, although I acknowledge that, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, fairly said, those who spoke in Committee overwhelmingly supported the amendment.
I have of course listened very carefully to the various speeches and points made around the House this evening. I think it is fair to say that the arguments in support can perhaps be distilled in four points. I set them out not to make the case against me stronger but perhaps at least to reassure the House that I have understood it. First, the Youth Justice board model has been a success in reducing the number of children entering the youth justice system or custody and, therefore, it is an appropriate model to follow as the needs of women are distinct. Secondly, sometimes their needs are similar, for different reasons, to the needs of children. Thirdly, women are often victims as well as offenders and largely commit non-violent and low-level crime. Fourthly, a women’s justice board would provide the effective leadership and drive to address the particular needs of women in the criminal justice system and divert them before they come into contact with that system by preventing offending in the first place. The House should therefore be reassured that the Government and I have understood and considered carefully the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, we have had a number of very helpful discussions about it.
The Government recognise that women who are in or at risk of contact with the criminal justice system have distinct needs that require a distinct approach, and we have acted in a practical sense on that recognition. We published the Female Offender Strategy, which sets out a comprehensive programme of work to respond to those needs, and we remain committed to its delivery. The Advisory Board on Female Offenders provides external and independent oversight of the strategy, but my ministerial colleague in the other place, Minister Atkins, has also asked officials to review the wider governance arrangements for the strategy to ensure that they are fully fit for purpose to support the work across government which is vital to deliver the strategy.
I explained in Committee why the Government are not persuaded that the Youth Justice Board is the right model for addressing the needs of women. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others, I again underline that I agree and accept that the Youth Justice Board has done extremely good work in its area. There is a short point here, but I suggest it is very important. We have a separate youth justice system. The Youth Justice Board is a reflection of that different system. It is a specialised justice board for a specialised and separate justice system. That is not just to make the physical point that children are still maturing, so the justice system applies to them differently. It is to make the point that the youth justice system is significantly different from the adult justice system in a number of respects.
Let me set out a number of them. First, with youth justice, there is a statutory aim
“to prevent offending by children and young persons”.
That is from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. There is a greater focus on prevention and diversion. Custody is used as a last resort, as it is in the adult system, but there is greater focus in the youth justice system because there are separate community services provided by youth offending teams, which are part of local authorities. There is a separate youth court with specially trained magistrates with different sentencing powers. There is a separate sentencing framework for children that does not apply to adults. Of course, there is also an entirely separate custodial estate, which is managed in an entirely different way.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am reassured by the fact that he says that he understands the case, of course, but I am not reassured by the logic that drives him still to oppose these amendments.
I did not hear in what he said anything that answers the unanimous speeches around the House, which made two important points. The first is that women’s needs are different and special. As I said in my opening speech, that does not seem to me to be answered by the fact that there are different justice systems applicable to youths and to women. The second point is that this is about delivery. It is not just about a philosophy that says that we recognise those needs, or even that we identify them; it is about addressing those needs and bringing some drive to that effort. Those points were made powerfully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and many others. The question put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as to what it is that the Government do not want delivered, was not answered by the Minister saying that the Government want to see this delivered, unless they are prepared to do something to achieve that delivery.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, whose speech can perhaps be summarised by her question: so far, has it been done? The answer is no. Delivery has not been achieved. We believe—the speeches from around the House show that noble Lords also believe this—that a women’s justice board is needed to achieve that delivery. For that reason, and in the hope that sufficient Members from the noble Baroness’s party will support her and us on this issue, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Blencathra
“Sex-specific incarceration for offenders
(1) Where a person who has undergone gender reassignment is serving a custodial sentence, that person is to be ordinarily treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to their sex registered at birth.(2) Where a person who has undergone gender reassignment is remanded in custody on suspicion of committing an offence, that person is to be ordinarily treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to their sex registered at birth.(3) Where the case-by-case assessment of a prisoner who has undergone gender reassignment determines that the prisoner should not be accommodated with prisoners of the same sex as registered at birth, separate accommodation must be provided to ensure that there is no access to or association with prisoners of the opposite sex as registered at birth.(4) This section applies whether or not the person has a gender recognition certificate.(5) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must ensure accommodation is available for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that all prisoners should live in accommodation provided in consideration of both their sex registered at birth and their gender identity. Prisoners with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment will ordinarily be housed according to their sex as registered at birth. On a case-by-case basis, prisoners may be allocated to a specialist transgender unit, with no contact with prisoners whose sex registered at birth was the opposite of their own.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this is my new amendment, Amendment 97ZA. I accept that my original amendment in Committee was unbalanced. I sought to protect female offenders but neglected to account for the small minority of trans women who might face unacceptable risk if housed in male prisons. My new amendment aims to afford appropriate protection to all prisoners, notwithstanding that there can be no guarantee that every prisoner will be entirely protected from risk, even within their own single-sex units. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for our meetings, for the teach-in he organised and for our ongoing discussions.
Your Lordships may ask why I have brought back an amendment. The answer is that this is an important issue in its own right. The needs of women in prison matter, and these needs mandate single-sex provision. Women in prison are acknowledged to be an exceptionally vulnerable group and cannot simply choose to use a different space which remains single-sex. These reasons were discussed in the previous debate and I shall not repeat them. But this is also representative of the wider issue: the ability of legislation to maintain single-sex spaces for women. The female estate is a definitive example of a space that should be single-sex. If women in prison cannot be guaranteed single-sex spaces, no woman or girl can. Hospital wards, changing rooms, rape crisis centres, refuges and toilets in schools—I am talking about anywhere where women and girls, for reasons of dignity, privacy and safety, require single-sex spaces. I simply say this to my noble friend: if legislation is insufficient at the moment to secure single-sex provision for women in prison, all females in this country are left vulnerable.
Since my previous amendment, I have received a great many letters, from both men and women. An amendment to secure the rights of women in prison to single-sex spaces has wide support across a cross-section of the general public. Media coverage continually indicates that the general public support single-sex spaces for women and girls. Most recently, the article in the Times last week by my honourable friend Jackie Doyle-Price MP called for women’s prisons to become single-sex once more. Quite rightly, people see this as an important issue in its own right but they recognise that it is representative of the wider issue. This amendment matters not just to women in prison but for all women and girls.
The strength of evidence indicates that male and female prisoners should be housed separately. This is normal international practice, including in our own prison rules. When the policies that permit some trans women prisoners, who are of course of the male sex, to be housed alongside women in the female estate were put in place few years ago, this was essentially a live experiment. It was not grounded in data: no data demonstrated the acceptability of the impact on women in prison and on the operation of the female estate. In fact, research recently conducted on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service demonstrates that female offenders are negatively impacted when they are housed with trans women prisoners. This is notwithstanding the MoJ assertions that operational staff perceive that the policies are working well. I am pleased that the Ministry of Justice has committed to exploring opportunities for research in this area.
It was also clear from the teach-in that the MoJ believes that the ability to act differently from the current policies is constrained by current legislation. I shall not argue on this point. But if real change is to be affected, legislative change is or may be necessary. The purpose of the Gender Recognition Act was to legally recognise the “acquired gender” of transsexual people in specific sets of circumstances, in line with a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The GRA contains supplementary provisions in Sections 23 and 24 that empower the Secretary of State to modify the effect of a gender recognition certificate by order. The Explanatory Notes to the GRA acknowledge the possibility that, at the time of passing the GRA, there were circumstances where its unintended consequences for people might not have been realised. I suggest that the allocation of trans women prisoners with a GRC to the female estate is one such situation, and that legislation to exclude these prisoners from the female prison estate on the basis of their sex—not their gender reassignment—is both possible and warranted.
The intention of the GRA was not to render the provision of separate-sex and single-sex services for females an impossibility, to replace sex with gender or to deny the sex differences between men and women. Neither was the inclusion of gender reassignment protection as a separate protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. The undesirability of that should be self-evident.
A variety of concerns in respect of the previous amendment were raised by noble Lords and at the teach-in we had. These related to the vulnerability of trans women and their safety, the ability of trans women to live in their acquired gender, and the undesirability of housing trans women prisoners far from their families.
No one wishes to place any prisoner at unacceptable risk of harm. Vulnerability exists throughout the male estate, and, although female offenders characteristically exhibit particular vulnerabilities, this does not exclude the possibility that the vulnerability of some male prisoners, including trans women, may be equally high. The question for all of us is how to keep trans women safe, and that is very important. However, that is wholly separate to the question: who has the legitimate entitlement to be housed in the female estate? I accept that, for some trans women, allocation to the male estate will not be appropriate and should not happen. My revised amendment means that Her Majesty’s Prison Service will be able to assess trans women on a case-by-case basis and make decisions concerning allocation in consideration of all known risks. The wishes of the individual prisoner can be considered, as in the present policy concerning transgender prisoners.
Where a prisoner cannot be housed safely in either the general population of the male estate or with other males in a vulnerable prisoners unit, the decision can be made to house that prisoner in a specialist transgender unit. This will ensure their safety from male prisoners. Access to or association with female prisoners would not be possible. But access to women in prison is not needed to keep these prisoners safe; it is removing them from the presence of men that is required to keep them safe—not putting them in a women’s prison. I note that the MoJ states that 94% of trans women are housed in the male estate. This means that the safety of the overwhelming majority of trans women can be met in men’s prisons.
At the teach-in, the Ministry of Justice indicated that trans women may obtain a GRC while housed in the male estate. It would seem that this means that they are able to satisfy the requirement of “living as a woman” for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the gender recognition panel. The overwhelming majority of trans women are housed in the male estate, meaning that their needs as women and their rights to live as their acquired gender can be met in men’s prisons. Certainly, specialist transgender units for women, which I advocate, should be run according to the female regime and provide a canteen for female prisons.
A concern was also raised that dedicated transgender units would leave trans women far from their families. This is not an issue that affects only trans women. A 2016 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons report found that distance from family was a common barrier to visits throughout the prison estate. Women are particularly affected. There are around 10 times the number of men’s prisons in England and Wales than women’s prisons, and female offenders are more likely to be held at a distance from their families than men. A 2019 report stated that women are typically held at distances over 20% further away from their families than men. Some women are held at considerable distances from their families: as there is no female prison in Wales, women may be held over 150 miles from home.
Prisoner allocation to specialist units may be take place, even though this results in increased distance from family. Allocation of trans women to E Wing at Downview is an example. Trans women prisoners who find themselves housed far from family should be assisted. Financial help is already available from the assisted prison visits unit to facilitate visits from close relatives and partners of prisoners who are on low incomes.
I propose expanding this provision for trans women who are held far from family. The number of trans women prisoners currently held in the female estate is very small, suggesting that the number who may be held on specialist transgender units would also be very small. The additional financial cost would therefore be modest.
The transgender prison population is growing. Data released by the MoJ at the end of last year indicate a 20% increase in the population of transgender prisoners since 2019. Their needs in prison will become more pressing. The commitment to building new estate, as outlined in the prisons White Paper, provides the opportunity to provide that transgender prisoners are properly and appropriately accommodated. New secure units can be tailored to their needs and vulnerabilities. These needs and the operation of specialist transgender units should be a focal point for the so-called future regime design, with outcome frameworks to reflect this.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment, which he has moved with a convincing and passionate speech. I agree wholeheartedly with all that he said. My own views were reinforced in the last debate when the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, talked in rather chilling terms about his visits to women’s prisons; I have heard similar accounts from others, both within your Lordships’ House and outside. It seems to me that we add to the uncertainty, mental tension, fear and all those other things if we house in women’s prisons those who are physically male but proclaim themselves female.
Of course, the safety of a prisoner, no matter their sex, is important to us all—a point that some of us touched on in Committee. I put forward then a suggestion that perhaps these people should be separately treated and looked after. After all, the aim of prison—I had two prisons in my former constituency—is often lost sight of: sending to prison is the punishment and rehabilitation is the aim. You are much more likely to get rehabilitation if the atmosphere is calm and subdued and there is not rampant fear in the prison. I believe very strongly, as does my noble friend Lord Blencathra, that the solution is to treat those who are particularly vulnerable in such a way that we take as many safeguards against their vulnerability as possible. To me, that leads logically to a solution where those who were born as women, and who are women, are in women’s prisons, and those who are still physically male are, if necessary, housed in a separate unit.
I do not buy, any more than does my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the talk of travelling great distances. Of course the aim should always be to try to have prisoners as close as possible to their loved ones and the community that they know, but it is not always possible. My noble friend Lord Blencathra referred to the fact that there is no women’s prison in Wales, and so a woman sentenced to jail there can be sent 150 or more miles away. We also have to remember that people are sent to prison because they have done something detrimental to society. It may be a heinous crime or not such a heinous crime, but having to travel a certain distance may be part of the price one has to pay.
I am a great believer in community restorative justice. I believe that we send far too many people, both male and female, to prison, and that we should be much more adventurous in the way we treat those who are not, by their physical violence, an obvious danger to society; of course, they must be securely housed, wherever and whoever they are.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I attended the teach-in on Zoom—it would have been much better if only we could all have sat down together, but it was on Zoom. I do not doubt for a moment my noble friend’s passionate commitment, but I had to say to him on the day that I was wholly unconvinced; I think he respected that.
I believe that we have to grasp this problem. Like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I had dozens of letters and messages from those who had listened to the debate —it is remarkable how many people suffer from insomnia in this country—and who wanted to say thank you for standing up for womanhood and motherhood and for not making women feel disparaged. We went through this last year, when we had the extraordinary maternity Bill to, quite reasonably, give maternity leave to the Attorney-General. As a Bill designed to give maternity leave, it did not mention the words “woman” or “mother” until it had left your Lordships’ House, where we talked a little sense into it.
This is something that we have to grasp as a society. I believe that it is totally wrong to put women in a threatened position by having housed next to them people who are still physically male. Protect them all, yes, but, in particular, let us have regard for the women. I believe that the amendment put before us by my noble friend Lord Blencathra this evening is worthy of your Lordships’ support. If it does not receive that support tonight, this is an issue that will not go away; it is a series of big accidents waiting to happen if we are not careful. I am glad to support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to stand up for womanhood and motherhood, but this amendment is very puzzling indeed. What it would mean is that even if a person born male has lived as a woman for 20 years, even if they have undergone sex reassignment surgery, even if they have a gender recognition certificate, and even if they are assessed as posing no risk whatever to other women, the Home Office would be obliged either to place them in a men’s prison or put them in specially segregated facilities. The former option of putting them in a men’s prison would be a disaster; it would obviously be enormously dangerous to such a person. Placing them in specially segregated facilities would be demeaning; it would fail to recognise what legislation in this country has recognised for the last at least 15 years: that people who happen to be born in the wrong sex deserve our compassion and deserve recognition of their position.
I suggest to the House that these issues are far better addressed, as they are at the moment, by Home Office policy that considers the circumstances of the individual case, rather than by broad amendments of this nature, whatever the good faith of those who put them forward.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I warmly support what my noble friend Lord Pannick has just said. It is a great mistake, certainly at this stage in our affairs, to attempt to legislate in this matter. It may be that the prison estate will be big enough in years to come so that one can segregate by gender reassignment in special prisons of their own, but we are nowhere near that at the moment and the proper way to deal with this is to rely on the discretion that exists at present.
It is quite striking if you look at the wording of the amendment—it makes no distinction between whether we are talking about male or female prisoners, but very different situations arise depending on which of these two characteristics you are considering. It makes no distinction for the time that the person may have lived in that new assignment. It makes no distinction, either, for the extent of the surgery and the appearance of the person over time as the reassignment process takes place.
It is very difficult for those of us who, I assume, have not faced this to appreciate the intense emotional problem that people who believe that they have been born into the wrong sex undergo. It is a very emotional matter, fighting against characteristics you have acquired that you do not believe belong to you. The way you deal with it is to believe that you are actually of the sex—of the gender, I should say—that you think you should have been. That involves not only reconstruction of the body but a mentality designed entirely to live the new life, which you believe is the one you should have been given. It strikes me as very cruel, if I may use that expression, to treat these people as if they had not reassigned themselves. It is not a choice. They are driven by the characteristics they acquired which forced them into their decision.
I make these points just to emphasise that we are dealing here with a very difficult problem. The offender requires as much consideration on the grounds of safety and emotional distress as the people around them in the prison in which they are placed. Legislation is not the way to go, certainly not at the moment. I personally have complete confidence in the way that the prison authorities are dealing with this very difficult problem at the moment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in particular, for doggedly sticking with this issue. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for organising the MoJ teach-in, which I found very interesting and useful. I learned a lot and I listened hard.
I thought this amendment was a nuanced and sensitive way of dealing with all the objections raised by the MoJ at that teach-in, so I am rather disappointed that the Government have not accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which is a bespoke amendment that protects women’s single-sex spaces while sympathetically and practically managing any challenges faced by transwomen prisoners.
The amendment might be a modest proposal—I think it is—but noble Lords may be interested to hear that it has created a huge amount of interest outside this place over the last couple of days. People on Twitter might look at #KeepPrisonsSingleSex. It has been trending for the last 36 hours. Do look because the messages on there are what I am talking about, rather than the fact that it is trending.
I want to read a few tweets that could maybe help us understand why this amendment matters. One woman said:
“I find it quite baffling that this is even up for discussion! How did we get to the point where we need a debate to include legislation to prevent something so damaging to women?”
Another said:
“Women in UK prisons must not be locked in with convicted male criminals. This is an appalling failure of the duty of care the state has for female prisoners. Female prison staff must not be forced to search male prisoners. Let’s hope the House of Lords shows sense.”
I would like to think the House of Lords would as well, but maybe not. The final one I want to read out says:
“I’ve been to prison and I’m telling you now that for some women it’s their only safe space, due to abuse on the outside. Allowing anyone who claims to feel like a woman to be put in that safe space is wrong! Women, criminal or not deserve to feel safe.”
I say hear, hear to that.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak against this amendment. We should remind ourselves that when we talk about trans women and trans men, we are talking about men and women who have faced very difficult choices about their identity and whom they believe themselves to be. Once they face that choice and make the decision, the transition is a very lengthy process and, again, it is not undertaken lightly because, as we have heard, so often it leads to gender reassignment.
I occasionally go on Twitter. I have read the tweets and received messages from people who, in relation to what we are discussing tonight, have said that if they thought that they were going to prison as a trans woman or a trans man, they would rather commit suicide than face what they believe would be inhumane treatment within the United Kingdom Prison Service. We have to deal with these fears. We are being asked to deal with fears on both sides of this argument, and I want us to deal with both equally. The balancing of rights always poses for us the greatest problem, but I believe that the Ministry of Justice, in its policy on assessing trans prisoners, has got it absolutely right.
It is late and we have other important work to do, so I will begin to wind up. But I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I could go through the policy section by section stating why I believe it is right. I am not going to do that, but if your Lordships wished to return to it, I would do so.
I will finish with these reflections. This amendment, even though it has been placed in good faith and, as the mover said, with good intention, deeply concerns me because it perpetrates the stereotype of trans women and trans men as sexual predators—as a threat to other women, and trans men as a threat to the wider society. It also, as was said in debate on the previous amendment, creates further inequalities; it does not reduce them.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, and the first thing I want to say is that we are talking only about men who have not transitioned to women, which is quite different.
Although we have come a long way since the 2007 Corston report to improve conditions for women in prisons, we are now failing them. Indeed, something has recently gone badly wrong. Women prisoners have a right to the security of a single-sex space. By definition, women are deprived of this security if men are admitted to their prison, including trans women prisoners of male sex, whether or not they have the benefit of a GRC. By the same token, a women’s prison is no place for vulnerable at-risk males. Prison policy must provide for the protection of everybody, and this amendment makes that clear.
How then have we allowed prison policy to be captured by a concern for the protection of trans prisoners at the cost of imprisoned women’s most fundamental rights? There is no balance or fairness in that. The answer of course is that government departments have allowed themselves to be influenced, even intimidated, by noisy and modish pressure groups, whose wilful ignorance of basic science has all the features of a cult.
I have never visited or been to a prison, but as a woman I can imagine how it must be to be incarcerated and threatened. On this note, I very much support this amendment and thank my noble friends Lord Blencathra, Lord Farmer and Lord Cormack for tabling it.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have visited a number of prisons, both women’s prisons and male prisons. I have also sat where the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, sits and answered a number of difficult questions about where you house those who have transitioned, or purport to transition, usually from the male gender to the female gender. It is an incredibly difficult task that the Ministry has to perform, and it requires assessment and nuance. As a young barrister, I had the privilege of representing April Ashley, a pioneer in this field who died about three weeks ago. She changed from a man to a woman after pioneering surgery in north Africa and had lived successfully as a woman for 30 years when she was arrested by the police and thrown into a male jail. She was philosophical about the unfair charge, but less philosophical about the desperately inconsiderate approach that was shown by the police.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, one of the main reasons I put my name again to this revised amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra is that I was not persuaded by the Minister’s assurances in Committee that risks are properly balanced before a trans woman is housed in the female prison estate.
First, I heard no mention of the consideration not just of physical harm coming to female prisoners but of the risks of introducing high levels of fear and anxiety by accepting male-bodied female-identifying persons into the prison. More than half of female prisoners have experienced domestic violence—we have already heard that this evening in the previous debate—the vast majority of which will surely have been at the hands of men. A case board investigating the risk that a trans woman presents will not be looking through the filter of trauma, abuse and male exploitation that many imprisoned women apply to their surroundings. I undertook several prison visits for my MoJ-commissioned review of the female estate. As was typical, I questioned a panel of prisoners. On one visit, the de facto leader, who dominated the proceedings, was obviously male and not attempting to pass as a woman. This transgender prisoner might not have been exerting sexually charged and motivated power, but there was a palpable imbalance all the same.
Secondly, Ministry of Justice policy is not in step, as we have heard this evening, with public opinion. A poll conducted by Women for Women UK found that, when respondents were asked whether intact male-bodied trans women should be housed in a women’s prison, support slumped to net disapproval of minus 20%. Contrary to public perception, the overwhelming majority of male-born transgender people retain their penis and are fully male bodied. Moreover, a 2016 meta-analysis established that less than 3% of the transgender population is undergoing any gender-affirming surgical or hormonal treatment, with the remaining 97% simply self-identifying with no modifications to their natal sex body at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made an argument about the trans woman prisoner whom these policies are designed to protect, who may have been living in their acquired gender for many years, have had full reassignment surgery and treatment, pass perfectly as a woman and have been convicted of a minor non-violent offence, and said that to refuse to house this prisoner in the female estate would be wholly unjustified. But the statistics I have just given, and my own understanding and albeit limited experience of transgender prisoners housed in women’s prisons, lead me to ask: is this description really characteristic of the population of trans women prisoners, including those held in the female estate? This example of a transgender prisoner seems divorced from reality and from the prisoners with whom female offenders are forced to contend on a daily basis. It is perplexing why prison policy is formulated to account for a situation that may never transpire, exposing female offenders to prisoners who are very far removed from that hypothetical.
Rhona Hotchkiss, a prison governor from Scotland who, as deputy in a men’s prison, initially pushed for trans women to be housed in the female estate, became deeply concerned at how this practice played out when she became governor of Cornton Vale. A prisoner transferred from the male estate when they identified as a woman then reidentified as a man after a short time in Cornton Vale. Frustrated by the delay while the Scottish Prison Service deliberated, the prisoner threatened to rape other prisoners and staff. Hotchkiss was deeply shaken, thinking: “What woman threatens to rape other people”—a crime for which a penis is required—and “Why should we take people’s word for this? We don’t for anything else”. This to me strikes at the heart of the issue: we are giving the benefit of the doubt to people who identify as women yet have all their male hormones and physicality intact. We are giving them access to female spaces despite the benefits to and rights of women to have sex-specific prisons.
This amendment has broader implications. It speaks to the necessity of upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of women and girls on the basis of sex, not gender, as recognised in UK and international law. This is not simply a disagreement between the Government and those of us who have spoken to the amendment. It is a difference in point of principle between the Government and large swathes of the electorate, as polling indicates. Gender does not take precedence over sex. Males do not take precedence over females. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not take precedence over the protected characteristic of sex.
To summarise: in the prison context, male hormones and a male sex organ surely present considerable risk to vulnerable women, for the varied reasons I have given above, which include perceived threat to mental safety and actual threat of domination and exploitation, not just the objective risk of physical and sexual harm. I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and want to make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of this particular amendment. But, because the debate has ranged far and wide beyond the amendment, and because there appears to be some misunderstanding in the House as to what the amendment is, I hope that, when the noble Lord stands to speak to this amendment, he will clarify two important factors.
I wonder whether he would tell the House whether housing a trans woman holding a gender recognition certificate on the male estate would be unlawful, as that woman is legally a woman. That is quite an important distinction, and it has not come out. There is clearly a misunderstanding there. The second point I would like him to clarify is whether housing a trans woman on a male estate, or a trans man on a women’s estate, could be unlawful as it could amount to discrimination.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might amplify, somewhat more bluntly, the points made by my two noble friends, and indeed the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Cashman. I have been to prisons as a member of the Koestler Trust, trying to take arts in there, and one of the things that struck me—and in a way the arts were a release for this—was the fevered testosterone. We have heard about it from both sides. I ask noble Lords to imagine, just for one moment, what would happen to somebody incarcerated in a male prison who already appears—if I may use the word—effeminate, and who may moreover have been sexually adapted to being a woman. I cannot even begin to think how that person would be targeted in a male prison. We need to think very carefully about that, whatever the merits of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register. I find myself somewhat perplexed by this debate and the amendment. My noble friend Lady Meyer said that we were talking only about men who had not transitioned—but I do not think that the amendment says that. It is clear in referring to
“a person who has undergone gender reassignment”.
So there appears to be some misunderstanding about what the effect of the amendment would be, and I wonder what the problem is that we are trying to fix. After all, my noble friend Lord Blencathra himself said that the number of transgender women in the women-only estate was “very small”.
We know that in practice the vast majority of transgender prisoners are already held in prisons which match their sex registered at birth. The small number who are not held in such places have been risk-assessed. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, that risk assessment would count for nothing in relation to transgender women because the effect of this amendment would be to say that there are no circumstances, irrespective of risk, in which such women, who may have been women for some time, may be held in the women-only estate.
It does not matter that the authorities believe that they pose no risk whatever. It does not matter that the numbers that we are talking about are actually very low. What matters to those who tabled this amendment is that the law should say that they should never be held in such a wing. That is in principle wrong.
It seems to be the sense of the whole House that people should be held according to the appropriate accommodation after a risk assessment. That might well mean that trans women are not held in the women-only estate. It might well mean that trans men are not held in the male-only estate, but that it is better that there is a risk assessment and they are held in the appropriate place.
The effect of this amendment is to prescribe, because those who tabled it think they know better. That, in the end, is the decision that we are confronted with. It is a decision about whether we are to be guided by ideology or pragmatism and, I would suggest, compassion.
It was said in advancing this amendment that a reason to accept it is that, absent it being passed, no places could be safe for women, not just in prison, but beyond the prison estate. How can that be? How could this amendment, were we to pass it, suddenly make all other places for women safe? It was also said—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I wanted to clarify whether, if the proposal has an impact on prisons, what impact it might have on all women. What is at issue is the protection of single-sex facilities—places that are only single sex. That is a very important principle—no matter how small the numbers are in this instance—about which there is concern. I am clarifying why people say that, and not just in this House—this is a widespread concern.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think we can agree that it is important that women should be safe. The Equality Act provides exemptions in a number of scenarios, including in relation to women-only spaces outside the prison estate to ensure that. It allows the prison authorities to make the right judgments about where it is appropriate to place people. The safety of people is put first, and so it should be.
It has been suggested that a reason to pass this amendment is because of the media coverage that this debate has excited, and that outside this place there is a tremendous wave of anger we need to pay attention to. Of course, if people’s fears are provoked and if media campaigns suggest that women cannot be safe, there will be such fervent outrage, but that is not a reason for us to depart from the facts. The facts do not lend support to this approach, which places ideology above pragmatism. I therefore urge the Government not to accept this amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I really did not want to speak today, because, whatever I say, I am going to get abuse, but I have been incensed by some of contributions. I point out, in an absolutely non-specific way, that the majority of speakers have been male, and they have spoken against the amendment. Two women have spoken for the amendment, because they perceive there is a problem. My party’s policy is that trans men are men and trans women are women, and I do not have a problem with that, but there are occasions when women in women’s prisons experience sexual predation by men who have falsely self-identified as women. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said that we are saying that all trans women are sexual predators. We are not saying that—of course not.
Will the Minister clarify whether trans men go to male prisons? My understanding is that they do not, because they would not be safe. What we are talking about here is keeping people safe. Vulnerable people of all kinds, whatever trans identity or sexual identity they have, should be kept safe. Clearly, prisons are the worst possible places to keep people safe; they are a nightmare. This Government are increasing the number of prisons. They are not trying to reduce the prison population and make our prisons safer; they are adding to the problem. Do trans men go to male prisons? Have there been cases where men have falsely self-identified as women and predated sexually on women? I have had emails and letters from women who have been abused by men who have falsely self-identified as women. What can we say to those women? We cannot say, “This is an ideology and we’re trying to look good”; we have to be serious about people who are abused, whether they are male or female, or trans men or trans women.
I would not vote for this amendment, because it is too hardline. I accept the issue of safe accommodation—that seems very sensible; I do not see it as demeaning at all. Prisons are demeaning; safe accommodation sounds very safe to me.
Only men in this debate have spoken against the amendment. Why do men think that is okay? I do not understand. They are ignoring the fact that some women are predated upon. Sometimes those women may not be telling the truth—I have no idea, but I rather suspect that they are. Please can we just think about the vulnerable people and stop being so ultra-sensitive and supposing that we are all getting at everybody. I am absolutely fed up with this debate, and I hope this is the last speech.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it will not be, because this woman disagrees with this amendment. I speak as a woman who cares deeply about the physical safety of women. One of the things I find most objectionable about the campaign which has been run in the media for the past couple of years is the assumption that those of us who are women and who stand as allies with trans people do not care, because I do not believe that is the case at all.
It would be very tempting at this stage to answer some of the wide-ranging points which have been made about, for example, polls with leading questions, misinterpretations and mis-statements of the law, but I shall not do that. I shall simply stick to the facts that this House should look at when it comes to a decision on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke about an entitlement of prisoners to go to an estate. There is no such entitlement. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about instances where self-identifying male prisoners had predated on women. That has happened, but my understanding is that it has not happened since the implementation of the policy which has been operational in the Prison Service since 2016 and was updated in 2019.
There are historical cases, which are trotted out all the time by people who wish to disparage trans people. Let us be absolutely clear what the current policy that is operated in our prisons is:
“A proper assessment of risk is paramount in the management of all individuals subject to custodial and community sentences. The management of individuals who are transgender, particularly in custodial and AP settings, must seek to protect both the welfare and rights of the individual, and the welfare and rights of others in custody around them. These two risks must be considered fully and balanced against each other … Decisions must be informed by all available evidence and intelligence in order to achieve an outcome that balances risks and promotes the safety of all individuals in custody”.
My understanding, from talking to prison officials, is that not only is there no entitlement for a prisoner to be held in an estate, but that the risk assessment includes an assessment of whether somebody is attempting to be transferred into an estate in order to perpetrate further crimes. If they are, it is held as a contra-indication.
I agree absolutely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. What we have now is a policy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, said, that does protect to the full the human rights of individuals, but also balances them with the safety of everybody—that includes the staff in prisons as well; let us not forget them. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is therefore putting to us an amendment that is not based on evidence and is a retrograde step. I urge noble Lords to reject it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the arguments that other noble Lords have made and those that I made in Committee; they are in the official record. Existing legislation and procedures, properly applied, are sufficient to ensure the safety and well-being of all prisoners and staff in our prisons in relation to transgender prisoners. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will confirm that.
Because I have said, in answer to a suggestion on Twitter, that I felt that the existing risk-based approach was best, I was sent a direct message on Facebook from somebody I have never heard from before saying, “Leave women’s rights alone you nasty little misogynist. We see you loud and clear. Trans rights simply means male rights. Enjoy your irrelevance MRA bigot”. Whatever MRA stands for, I have no idea. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said, we need to consider the rights of women—of course we do—but transgender people also have rights, and their rights need to be balanced. The best way to do so is on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Farmer, talked extensively about transgender people who had not undergone gender reassignment surgery, or transgender women who are still physically men. There is nothing at all in this amendment about the physical state of transgender people; it applies in a blanket manner to every single transgender person. The fact is that every prisoner entering the prison estate is risk-assessed to ensure that they are not a threat to themselves or others, and they are then housed or segregated on that basis. If that assessment has been wrong on rare occasions in the past, the problem was not with the system, let alone with the law; it was a problem with implementation. I understand, however—and I am sure that the Minister will confirm—that that is no longer a problem. This amendment is not necessary and we oppose it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too will be relatively brief. This debate is about balancing rights and balancing vulnerabilities, and I have been following it over months if not years. Unfortunately, I did not go to the teach-in organised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. However, I have been to other events on Zoom where I have spoken to prison officers and the people involved in managing the situations discussed here. It is apparent to me that there has been an evolution in the prison officers’ and governors’ approaches. I have spoken to a number of them several times. I spoke to one women’s prison where transgender units operated for a period, and the way they were operated was later changed. I have to say the governors I spoke to seemed—I do not want to use the word “relaxed”—to think that they could manage the situation. That is what I was told, and I have every reason to believe in their professionalism in dealing with an evolving situation—as we have heard from noble Lords, there is an increase in trans prisoners; the figure of 20% since 2019 was mentioned.
I have visited quite a few prisons over the last 10 years and I am always impressed by the quality of the prison staff, the governors and the prison officers. The basis of my view is that I trust them to make the right decisions. I think they are dealing with very difficult circumstances and I think that they can manage risk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, they have policies which have evolved over a period, which include the safety of the prisoners and the staff. I was pleased to hear that during the teach-in the Minister said that he is willing to support further research into this matter. It is an evolving situation, but for my part I am content that the current complex case boards that make these difficult decisions should continue to do their work.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this amendment relates to the management of transgender prisoners. The result of the amendment would be that transgender prisoners would “ordinarily”—and that word is used twice in the amendment—be held in a prison matching their sex as registered at birth. I will come back to that word “ordinarily” later on.
I should first record my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his time. I am pleased that he found the teach-in with officials from the MoJ and HMPPS to be helpful. I am grateful also that my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, were able to attend the teach-in. I am conscious, from what they said then and this evening, that I did not persuade them at that time. I am not sure that I am going to persuade them in the next few minutes, but I am going to try.
I am not proposing to refer to anything said on Twitter. That is despite the fact that I think I am one of the few ministerial twitterers—or is it tweeters?—around. My tweets have become a lot duller since joining the Front Bench, but I can say that on this subject Twitter exhibits heat and no light whatsoever. I am grateful for the relative safety and sanity of your Lordships’ House.
Under the amendment, transgender prisoners who are not held with prisoners matching their sex as registered at birth would be held in separate accommodation such that they have no contact with people of their acquired gender. That is the inescapable result of the amendment. I suggest that it is unnecessary. Transgender prisoners can already be held in prisons in matching their sex as registered at birth where this is assessed as appropriate. In practice, the vast majority of transgender prisoners are already held in prisons matching their sex as registered at birth. The small number who are held otherwise have been through a rigorous multi-disciplinary risk assessment process. There is already provision, as I will explain in a moment, for transgender prisoners to be held separately from other prisoners of their acquired gender if doing so is deemed necessary.
We take the allocation of transgender prisoners extremely seriously. This is a subject which, as the last hour or so has demonstrated, arouses a lot of controversy and passion. But the approach we have put in place allows us to strike an appropriate balance—the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, put his finger on that as the right word, as it is a balance—between the safety, rights and well-being of transgender prisoners and that of all other prisoners in the estate.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is normal to say when winding up that it has been an interesting debate. This one has certainly provoked more interest than I had anticipated. I thank my noble friends Lord Cormack, Lord Farmer and Lady Meyer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Jones, for their contributions.
I start with the contribution from my noble friend Lord Herbert. I do not do anti-social media—things like Twitter and so on. I am not motivated to move this out of ideology, nor because of what the media say; I am motivated to do it because I have been approached by women in prison who, rightly or wrongly, are afraid for their safety. It is right to say that it is only a small number of trans women in prisons but there are a large number of women who are afraid of them. They may be wrong to be afraid, but it is in their interests that I am working to try to make sure that they no longer have that fear.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that my amendment would mean that transgender prisoners should either be stuffed into the male estate or put into some ghastly specially segregated facility. He made it sound like something the apartheid regime would invent. That is exactly the current MoJ policy: all transgender prisoners coming into the prison estate start off in the male estate. I am not inventing that; it is the current policy, as my noble friend has said. Some 90% of trans women prisoners stay in the male estate and then some are moved to the women’s estate. They are moved to a specially segregated facility called E wing at Downview. I merely suggest in my amendment that the facilities of E wing at Downview should be extended to house more transgender prisoners.
I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are acting under the impression that the vast majority of these prisoners have spent a long part of their life as trans women—that they have had hormone replacement therapy, have had operations and have been living as women for years. That is not the case; as we have seen from Scotland, only one in 12 has. We do not have the figures for England because, understandably, they are confidential, but the anecdotal evidence is that there is no one in our prisons in England with a GRC who has gone through that process, so they are not those who have lived their lives as women for 20 or 30 years.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that, if the Government were to go down my route, I perfectly well accept that a system could be built in where someone who has had hormone replacement therapy, has had surgery and has been living as a woman for X number of years may qualify on a risk-assessment basis to classify as a woman, not in biological terms but in terms of being sent to prison.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that it is quite wrong to categorise this amendment as stigmatising trans people as a particularly violent class. That is not the case. I made absolutely clear in my speech that many trans women prisoners could not stay in the male estate because the male prisoners would be violent towards them; they are equally or more capable of violence.
I accept that the court said that what the Prison Service is doing is lawful. On the narrow point of law considered by the court, that is correct, and one would hope that the MoJ would not have a policy that deliberately broke the law. The point of issue here is not ideology but that what is lawful and what is morally right part ways. I urge the MoJ to accept my solution, which lets trans women prisoners live their lives in prison in a safe space, and women theirs. I simply do not understand why the Lib Dems, the Labour Party and some of my own noble friends now dislike women so much that they are resolutely opposed to defending their hard-won rights. I can see how the Government have blundered into this hole, but at least I see signs from them that they have now stopped digging.
I am not going to be successful today, but I say to all my noble friends on the Front Bench, in all departments, that this policy of downgrading the rights of biological sex women is heading for the scrapheap of history. It is not on the side of science, logic, morality or common sense, and everyone outside the political bubble we are in knows that. The battle for common sense and the rights of women will intensify. I conclude by suggesting that all my noble friends and all Ministers should read the excellent article in the Times last week written by my honourable friend Jackie Doyle-Price MP. She said, inter alia:
“Sex is biological and immutable. Gender is social. The two things are distinct. And by conflating sex with gender we have created an inevitable conflict between rights based on sex with those assumed by someone with a transgender identity … We can be inclusive without compromising the rights, dignity and privacy of women.”
Those are wise words. Jackie Doyle-Price is on the side of common sense and history.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, not because I am wrong but because I cannot win in the numbers tonight.
Russia
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this is one of the occasions where we do not have to listen to a Statement being read out, as it was taken last week.
Last Thursday, my right honourable friend, David Lammy, said it was right that Parliament should send
“a clear and unified message … that we fully support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that Russian action to further undermine it will be met with severe consequences.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/22; cols. 171-172].
I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary emphasised the importance of NATO in co-ordinating the response, and I hope the Minister will update the House on the UK’s contributions to Friday’s Foreign Ministers’ NATO meeting. After that meeting, members reaffirmed their commitment that all nations have the right to determine their own alliances. Ministers also used the summit to commit to further engagement with Georgia, Moldova, Finland and Sweden. I hope the Minister can tell us whether he intends to speak directly with counterparts in any of these nations.
I am also pleased that Secretary-General Stoltenberg stressed the importance of meaningful dialogue with Russia to avert further escalation. The US State Department account of Sunday night’s dinner, for example, said that the US would talk about certain bilateral issues with Russia in Geneva but will not discuss European security without European allies and partners. France and other European states will be represented at two other rounds of talks over the course of this week.
On the further talks at the NATO-Russia summit on Wednesday, as well as the OSCE meeting in Vienna on Thursday, will the Minister commit to updating the House after the conclusion of these talks? Does the Minister share the analysis of Secretary of State Blinken, who suggested that any agreement is unlikely this week? Certainly, the reports I have read tonight of the discussions today suggest that they have been constructive but unlikely to conclude. Could the Minister tell us whether he, or other Ministers or the Foreign Secretary, will be speaking to US counterparts next week, following the talks?
I would also be grateful if the Minister would elaborate on the development of sanctions, if they prove necessary. The Minister has repeatedly said, sometimes at my request, that they must be agreed and implemented multilaterally. It is equally important the Government are prepared to implement sanctions immediately and in concert with our allies if the situation escalates. Will the Minister confirm that legislation is being drafted in preparation for this eventually?
We must also use this opportunity to ensure that the UK is no longer home to illicit Russian finance. In its 2018 report, Moscow’s Gold, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee warned that
“turning a blind eye to London’s role in hiding the proceeds of Kremlin-connected corruption risks signalling that the UK is not serious about confronting the full spectrum of President Putin’s offensive measures.”
A public register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that buy and sell property was first announced in 2016 but has been repeatedly delayed. As the Guardian reported today, Chatham House has argued that
“the law in this area is so poorly constructed and under-resourced that it amounts to self-regulation.”
As announced in the Guardian today, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has agreed to re-examine the Government’s apparent inability to crack down on Russian oligarchs’ use of London to launder their fortunes. I hope the Minister will tell us when the Government will act. Will it act before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee reports?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we also welcome the opportunity to ask the Government questions on its current position regarding Ukraine. Like many noble Lords, I have visited Ukraine on a number of occasions. From our Benches, we recognise and respect its sovereignty and its borders. It is worth noting that it is a border that has seen over 13,000 casualties over the last few years.
The Lords International Relations Committee report, UK Foreign Policy in a Changing World, published when I was a member of the committee, along with my noble friend Lady Smith, stated in paragraph 84:
“Russia is a declining power that is increasingly willing and able to use both traditional and new capabilities—such as cyber capabilities—to act as a disrupter in international relations.”
We have seen this in the Middle East, Central Asia and, especially, in Ukraine, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins: we have also seen it at home.
Over the Christmas break, I reviewed the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, a committee of which my noble friend Lord Campbell had been a member. Of Russia, the committee said:
“The Report questioned whether the Government took its eye off the ball with regard to Russia, because of its focus on counter-terrorism. The previous Committee found that until recently the Government had badly underestimated the response required to the Russian threat and is still playing catch up.”
When will the recommendations of that committee be met in full? This House has acted to change our rules and procedures; when will the Government act on the other recommendations?
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, Moscow’s Gold: Russian Corruption in the UK, which highlighted the estimate that one-fifth of the 176 properties worth £4.4 billion in the UK that have been bought with suspicious wealth have been from Russian individuals. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, when we would see legislative proposals. He replied:
“I am the counter-fraud Minister, and I am pressing hard to get that commitment.”—[Hansard, 25/11/21; col 1108.]
Will the Minister give an update now on when we will see those legislative proposals, which have been much promised but also much delayed? If the Minister who is responsible cannot give that commitment, what is the block?
With regard to the Ukrainian situation, can the Government update us on the UK’s specific approach to the various talks which are now happening? There has been the French and German initiative, as referred to, with Jens Plötner, the envoy of Olaf Scholz, and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Bonne, travelling there last week. Does the UK have a specific named envoy who is participating in any of these discussions? Are we approaching the discussions purely through NATO, or do we have a bilateral strand of diplomacy?
When was the last time the Foreign Secretary spoke to Annalena Baerbock, the German Foreign Minister? We know from the Foreign Secretary’s reply to the Statement last week that she had taken part in G7 and NATO discussions, but what about our discussions directly with the German and French Foreign Ministers? Has the Prime Minister spoken since Christmas to the German Chancellor about the German initiatives?
Parliament last week debated the proposed ratification of the UK agreement with the Government of Ukraine on their naval capacity. As was referenced in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, the UK now has an agreement to provide offensive capabilities, including missile equipment and technology, to Ukraine, but if reports are correct, part of the discussions on the table this week are about NATO members and their missile capability with regard to Ukraine and Russia. Is this agreement now part of those discussions, and is our agreement with Ukraine covered within any of the NATO discussions?
On sanctions that could be brought in—a situation which we do not wish to see but may be necessary—what contingencies are in place for UK businesses which are currently operating legitimately with Russia but may then be in a position where, without notice, they are carrying on illegitimate business? We know from previous US actions as a result of decisions made about Iran that wide economic sanctions from the United States can have considerable impact on the UK. Regardless of the merits of these, including the decision on SWIFT payments or transactions through the City of London, how many companies are currently conducting business that may have to dramatically change their approach to trade with Russia?
I noted this afternoon that the Department for International Trade is still, despite the Foreign Secretary’s Statement last week, promoting trade and investment with Russia. Indeed, there are events planned for 18 January for online trade and gaming, for example. What contingency arrangements is the Bank of England or, indeed, the Government providing as advice for British businesses that may be in this position?
Finally, without a clear statement of the UK’s bilateral position, including on the situation in Ukraine, we will not be as strong a partner as the Foreign Secretary’s Statement said we would be. We all support the integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, and I hope that the UK’s actions will deliver on those.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, for their contributions. I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, made about the importance of coming together within Parliament in standing against Russian aggression. It is regrettable but obvious that we have seen Russia, not just in the context of Ukraine but in other parts of Europe, exercising all measures, as the noble Lord, Purvis, referred to. Indeed, we have seen challenging situations arise, in terms of technology, through cyber, and through the current continued occupation of Crimea.
The build-up of Russian forces within eastern Ukraine, on the borders of eastern Ukraine and in Donbass also adds to the point the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made about Russian aggression. Let us be very clear that the current challenges and issues that we face come about because of Russian aggression.
In taking some of the questions, I will read Hansard and the specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in particular, and respond accordingly. Picking up on some of those questions, first, in terms of our contributions, we are working very closely with our NATO partners. The noble Lord asked about specific conversations with French and German counterparts. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, as has been noted already, has participated directly in the meeting of NATO Ministers. This week is a major week in terms of diplomacy—I stress the importance of diplomacy—and I will come on to the meeting conducted today between the United States Deputy Secretary of State and the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister.
As noble Lords will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed to, the NATO-Russia Council will be taking place. We are certainly looking to attend at ministerial level to ensure there is that engagement, which also picks up the specific point about engaging with US counterparts. We are doing so directly at Foreign Secretary level and with other colleagues. My right honourable friend James Cleverly has assumed responsibility for our relations with the US and how best to approach those. On 13 January—this Thursday—the OSCE Permanent Council will also take place and it is right that in this week, which is a crucial week, diplomacy is put at the forefront of our engagement to seek to de-escalate the current situation on the borders of Ukraine.
On the outcome of the discussions today, like the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I have, during the course of this afternoon, been seeing some of the statements that have been made by both the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and Wendy Sherman, the Deputy Secretary of State. I think we have certainly seen a constructive tone but, in terms of substantive decision-making, that has not been the case, nor was it intended. What was important was that dialogues take place.
It has been very clear, picking up some of the strands of what the noble Lords asked me, that membership of NATO and indeed the future direction of that alliance—a defensive alliance, of course—is a matter for the alliance and for member states seeking to apply it. There should be no conditionality put on the security of Europe as a whole or, indeed, the current situation with Ukraine and the de-escalation of the situation on the borders of Ukraine. We are very clear that the sovereignty of Ukraine, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, should be fully protected and upheld. In this regard, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that any further Russian aggression will be met with that unity of action.
Both noble Lords raised the issue of sanctions. Again, I have previously made it clear that where we have acted—in unison with our key partners, most notably the European Union and the United States—we have acted against Russia directly, not just in terms of human rights abuses, but specifically on issues that have arisen in the areas that noble Lords have pointed to, such as anti-corruption, with sanctions in that respect.
Both noble Lords will note, as I am sure will your Lordships’ House, that we have introduced the global anti-corruption sanctions regime and have already sanctioned 14 individuals involved with the $230 million tax fraud in Russia, perpetrated by organised crime groups and uncovered by the brave Sergei Magnitsky. We will continue to review all sanctions in that respect.
Noble Lords rightly pointed out the continuing challenge faced by the City of London. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about open registers of interests. The challenge remains very clear, and London continues to suffer the consequences of the actions of those who seek to use it as a base. We need to continue to be vigilant and to act accordingly. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked specific questions that I believe he has also raised with the appropriate Minister. I do not have that detail, but I shall reply to him and seek to respond accordingly about the actions that my noble friend is taking in that respect.
As for defence capabilities, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked specific questions about our agreements in support of Ukraine, together with the overall agreements we have reached with NATO. What I can share with the noble Lord is that we, of course, co-ordinate very closely with NATO, and our agreements on increasing the defence capabilities of Ukraine are made in concert with our colleagues within NATO, making sure that they are fully aware of the support that we are extending. The United Kingdom was at the forefront of recognising and supporting Ukraine, and we continue to stress to all parties, especially Russia, that its continued aggression on the borders of Ukraine is unacceptable, as is its continued occupation of Crimea.
The issue of the ISC came up again. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has previously raised that issue, and I have sought to provide the details of the actions the Government have taken. I have placed a copy of that letter in the Library. If there are subsequent questions on the detail that I have provided, I shall of course look to answer them.
Clearly, what we find in the situation on the Ukrainian border is a lack of recognition, so we again implore Russia to look at what has historically been agreed by itself and by Ukraine. We can go back to previous agreements that have been signed, whether those be the Helsinki, the Budapest or the Minsk agreements, and we ask Russia to abide by those. As for the future direction of talks, we are, as I said, looking forward to further discussions this week. Of course, I give an assurance, and recognise that whatever the outcomes of those future discussions, we will report them back to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the subject of Crimea as a casus belli for the United Kingdom, did I hear the Minister correctly when he twice referred to Crimea in that way? Of course, that is history, going back well over 10 years, is it not? There is a long history. As we know, Sebastopol, the Russian naval base, is not the same as the issue of Crimea generally, but it is surely a question distinct from what we might call future threats. Will the Minister comment? Have I understood him correctly?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, Crimea is occupied. It is sovereign territory of Ukraine—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am seeking to respond. Whether this is historical or current, when an action has been undertaken by Russia, in entering the region of a sovereign state, occupying it and annexing it, the fact that that has been done previously, or historically, should not deter us from ensuring that we continue to stand by Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and integrity. Crimea remains part of that territorial sovereignty and integrity.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the Minister not agree that the object we are all pursuing is effective deterrence? Does he not think that the deterrent capacity of the western alliance would be greater if we could specify more precisely what economic sanctions would be imposed if Russia crossed the red line we are drawing regarding the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine? At the moment, the Russians can delude themselves—perhaps actually believe—that we will not be able to agree anything in those circumstances. If we were to state now some of the specifics of what would happen, that might be an effective deterrent.
Secondly, does he not agree that we need to go into these talks—heaven knows, they are not going to finish this week—with a détente approach that talks about the things we believe should be done to increase strategic stability, reduce the tension and de-escalate, such as arms control and measures in the conventional forces in Europe agreement concerning notification of military exercises and so on? We need to have that. Perhaps the Minister could say something about what NATO will go in with in its hand.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the question of specific action, as I have already said in response to the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, we will of course look to co-ordinate any actions. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been very clear that a Russian incursion into Ukraine would be a strategic mistake. There should be no doubt that Russian military aggression will be met with massive economic consequence through co-ordinated —I stress that again—economic sanctions by allies and partners, specifically targeting Russian financial transactions, assets and, indeed, individuals. Beyond that, it would be speculative and inappropriate for me to answer with any more detail, but rest assured that we will act in co-ordination with our allies in this respect.
On the noble Lord’s second question, I agree with him: it is important that we look to de-escalate. As I said, I have seen the early reports of the discussions between the United States and Russia, and the tone of those discussions, from both sides, irrespective of the differing positions—of course, we align ourselves with the position of the United States—was constructive. I also note the comments of the Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who said that Russia certainly does not intend to make further incursions. Through these talks, which have taken place through the US, but also further talks this week, we have and will emphasise once again Russia’s own obligations to agreements they have signed, including the Budapest memorandum.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary made a very eloquent comment the other day about a “network of liberty” being necessary to contain, curb and undermine the authoritarian regimes. Can the Minister explain how, over and above the obvious NATO alliance, this concept can be developed in relation to Ukraine? Does he agree that the really important message to get into the public debate and the Russian debate is that invading Ukraine will do neither the Russian people nor their leaders the slightest good in terms of prosperity or security, whereas the path to diplomacy might bring considerable benefits for Russia, including maybe a more peaceful old age for Vladimir Putin, and freedom to write his memoirs in peace?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
It may well be that Mr Putin’s memoirs are some way off at the moment, but I totally agree with my noble friend, and that is why it is right that the United Kingdom stand squarely behind the efforts of the United States. Obviously, we will be joining in further discussions, both through NATO and the OSCE, to ensure that diplomacy is given priority; it must be the way forward. Equally, I agree with my noble friend that it is in the interests of not just Russia and Ukraine or, indeed, other parties, but the world that there be a diplomatic solution to the current crisis.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I am all for constructive engagement, but it is worth remembering that this constructive engagement was preceded by the deployment of 100,000 troops, with modern armaments and more than a capacity for invasion, if one can put it that way. It is no secret that Mr Putin’s strategy has been the undermining of the unity of the European Union—in which we have actually aided him by our withdrawal—and the testing of NATO by intimidation. As I have said already, I am all for rational discussion, but it is important to remember that NATO should stand fast as an organisation for defensive purposes only that is open to any country which shares our democratic values and our recognition of human rights. These principles must not be allowed to be watered down in any way in the course of what might appear to be constructive negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Suffice it to say that I totally agree with noble Lord. The NATO alliance is a defensive alliance and it is for countries to make the case to join that defensive alliance. Wendy Sherman, the Deputy Secretary of State, has said today that one of our red lines is very clear: there will be no shutting the door to future membership of NATO. That point has been made very clear in the discussions that have taken place today.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly my association with the Nuclear Threat Initiative and my work for the European Leadership Network.
I welcome this Statement and I agree that Russia’s aggression and actions are a threat to Ukraine and beyond. I also welcome meaningful and robust dialogue with Russia. Having called for this for years, I am delighted to see that, at last, this “no business as usual” policy is no longer defined as meaning that dialogue is somehow a reward for bad behaviour and not a necessity in the circumstances that we have found ourselves in since 2014.
So, having called for it for years, I am delighted that the United States and Russia are having this extended and robust dialogue. I am delighted that the NATO-Russia Council with convene later this week. I am delighted that the permanent council of the OSCE will meet, and I hope that there will soon be talks in the Normandy format. I am pleased to say all of this.
But I am surprised that a Statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 6 January did not include any reference to the fact that, on Monday 3 January, our Prime Minister, President Putin and the leaders of the other three nuclear-armed states issued a rare but welcome joint statement on preventing nuclear war, with a common commitment to diplomacy and avoiding nuclear catastrophe. We have now committed ourselves to that, and I welcome it very strongly. But can the Minister tell us some concrete steps that our Government plan to take to invigorate efforts to avoid the risk of nuclear conflict, as a consequence of that commitment which we have now made?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first of all, I agree with the noble Lord. That statement, which was made at the start of this year by the five countries concerned, was important and welcome and of course in itself represents a step forward.
The underlying purpose of such statements, and the discussions that are currently taking place on de-escalation, is the importance and the central pivot of diplomacy. We cannot at any time stop discussions, even with our greatest foes, if I can put it that way. Discussion is important. Whether it is done through the meetings that are taking place this week or on other challenges and disagreements that we have, including those with Russia, we must continue to engage directly and bilaterally. On the broader point, the UK has of course been at the centre of this. Indeed, on Ukraine specifically, my right honourable is certainly seeking to visit Kiev in the very near future.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might start by pointing out that it is often a good idea to understand what your opponent actually wants. Last week, it was stated in the other place that recently declassified documents from the US made it clear that, in February 1990, Secretary of State James Baker gave President Gorbachev a categoric assurance that NATO would not, and had no plans to, move east. I do not want to disaggregate that statement, but the fact of the matter is that the Russians feel very aggrieved.
The country of Finland has lived next to Russia for many years without needing to join NATO. Recently, just before Christmas, a man called Jack Matlock, who was the US Ambassador to Russia, published a document about Ukraine in which he pointed out that the Minsk agreements have never been ratified by the Verkhovna Rada. So I say to the Minister: please also recognise that, when we are threatening them with sanctions, there are still things that they could ramp up to cause us damage. The net effect is: please try to cool this thing down and negotiate in good faith to try to get an easing of tension rather than following the line of always ramping things up.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I listened very carefully to what my noble friend said, but I do not agree. We have not ramped this up, and nor has Ukraine. It is Russia that has ramped this up. I referred earlier to the entry into the sovereign territory of another country, Crimea, and the annexation of that region against international law. That goes totally against the agreements that Russia itself has signed up to. So this is not about ramping up; it is about responding. It is right that we work with NATO and our allies to ensure that Russia understands very clearly that it is Russian aggression that is at the root of this, and this week—we continue to invest in this—we are seeking to ensure that diplomacy is at the centre of finding sustainable solutions to this crisis.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Statement also mentions the western Balkans and the fact that the Prime Minister has appointed Sir Stuart Peach as special envoy. What assessment have the Government made of relations between Russia, Serbia and Republika Srpska, and of the future of Bosnia?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point that out. Of course, the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach, which she referred to, underlines our commitment to ensuring that we are at the forefront of ensuring the territorial sovereignty and integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Our noble friend Lord Ashdown, who was respected greatly and whom we miss greatly, made some notable efforts, but I repeat what he said when we discussed Bosnia previously: that this was just the bottom line, not the top line, of what we sought to achieve through the creation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it is important that we not only sustain but protect it.
We are deeply concerned that we are in the middle of three days of so-called unofficial celebrations in Republika Srpska, which is currently celebrating with Mr Dodik its creation as a republic. It has not been sanctioned; it is unofficial. Indeed, the scenes that we are seeing unfold are adding to the insecurity. As I said previously, again, it is deeply regrettable that this has been spurred on by support directly from Moscow.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I note that the Statement refers several times to the rule of law, and I am delighted to hear the commitments made by the Minister and the Government. However, it has not gone unnoticed in the Russian press that there have been threats to the rule of law, not least by the Government here proposing legislation that might undermine international treaties. The Statement says:
“The free world must rise to meet the moment. Britain is stepping up and leading by example.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/22; col. 170.]
That is not necessarily how it is seen elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. I do not ask the question to be awkward; I am simply concerned about it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate raises the issue of the rule of law. As someone who regularly stands up and talks about the protection of the rule of law, I say that when we look at the global stage and Britain’s role on it, it is important that we are also at the forefront of ensuring that, domestically, we are doing everything to uphold the rule of law. We can make the case effectively only if our record also speaks strongly at home. Of course there are comments and challenges on the UK’s domestic position, but I am proud to represent a country where the rule of law prevails and we seek to protect the rights of individuals and communities—indeed, of every citizen—in our country.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to draw attention to Russia’s failure to honour its obligations under the Budapest agreement. Does he agree that we would be in a stronger position if we came to the table with clean hands and did not ourselves fail to adhere to our obligations under our treaty with the European Union?
I have just returned from Odessa, where I was the only UK parliamentarian at a defence conference. I emerged convinced that Ukraine will put up very strenuous resistance to any Russian invasion; indeed, there would be enormous damage to its international reputation. Russia must know this, so why do the Government think that Russia has put forward maximalist demands which it knows cannot be met? Is it an attempt to extract at least some concessions? If there is to be dialogue, there clearly has to be some give and take, but any concessions which we make in response to Russian posturing and threats surely cannot let down Ukraine and cannot give any succour to the ambitions of Mr Putin. So what concessions can there possibly be which can provide a ladder down which President Putin can climb which do not also add to the misery of Ukraine and to the aspirations of Putin?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is not my job to speak for Mr Putin or Russia, and I will not do so. It is clear that we present a united alliance against Russian aggression and we will continue to work with partners in that respect.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, reminded the House that the Foreign Secretary’s Statement was a very tough Statement using very tough language. I wonder whether there is a danger that it may mislead people in Kiev and Moscow, because, in the end, Ukraine is not an ally of the United Kingdom and is not covered by the Article 5 guarantee of NATO. Will the Minister confirm that his formulation—massive economic sanctions—is the extent, and that we are not talking about any kind of military deployment to Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great insight and experience of foreign policy. I agree that it is important to underline the consequences of further Russian aggression. I have already alluded to the fact that my right honourable friend pointed specifically to the economic cost and challenge, as I have done again today. As a more general point, I concur that one of the cardinal rules of diplomacy I have learned in the past few years is that tone and content both matter.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary mentioned Nord Stream 2 and the efforts of the UK Government to discourage European countries’ overreliance on Russia for their energy supplies. Have the Government had any talks directly with the German Government about that in recent months?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness will know that the German Government have just gone through a change and that there is a new Chancellor and Foreign Minister. The statements that have been made by the new Administration reflect the concerns that we have constantly reiterated on Nord Stream 2 and the instability it is giving rise to about energy supplies across Europe.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the time for Back-Bench questions has now elapsed.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 10th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-V Fifth marshalled list for Report - (10 Jan 2022)
22:22 - Division on Amendment 97CA - Ayes: 50 / Noes: 122 - Amendment 97CA disagreed.
23:37 - Division on Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle’s Motion - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 93 - Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle’s Motion disagreed.
00:18 - Division on Amendment 102 - Ayes: 33 / Noes: 90 - Amendment 102 disagreed.
“PART 11ADISREGARDS AND PARDONS FOR CERTAIN HISTORICAL OFFENCESDisregard of certain convictions or cautions
(1) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (10).(2) Section 92 (power of Secretary of State to disregard convictions or cautions) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (5).(3) In subsection (1) for the words from “under” to the end of paragraph (c) substitute “in circumstances where the conduct constituting the offence was sexual activity between persons of the same sex”.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) in paragraph (a)—(i) for the first “the” substitute “any”,(ii) for “conduct constituting the offence consented to it and” substitute “sexual activity”, and(iii) omit the second “and”, and(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) the offence has been repealed or, in the case of an offence at common law, abolished by enactment (whether or not it has been re-enacted or replaced), and(c) the sexual activity would not, if occurring in the same circumstances at the point of decision, constitute an offence.”(5) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) In this section “sexual activity” includes—(a) any physical or affectionate activity which is of a type characteristic of people involved in an intimate personal relationship, and(b) conduct intended to lead to sexual activity.”(6) In section 93(3) (applications to the Secretary of State), for the words from “the matters” to the end substitute “— (a) whether a conviction or caution is of a kind mentioned in section 92(1);(b) the matters mentioned in condition A in that section.”(7) In section 94 (procedure for decisions by the Secretary of State)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) after “considering” insert “whether a conviction or caution is of a kind mentioned in section 92(1) or”, and(ii) for “section 92” substitute “that section”,(b) in subsection (2)—(i) after “deciding” insert “whether a conviction or caution is of a kind mentioned in section 92(1) or”, and(ii) for “section 92” substitute “that section”,(c) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) If the Secretary of State refuses an application on the basis that the caution or conviction is not of a kind mentioned in section 92(1), the Secretary of State must—(a) record the decision in writing, and(b) give notice of it to the applicant.”(8) In section 99 (appeal against refusal to disregard convictions or cautions)—(a) in subsection (1)(a) after “Secretary of State” insert “refuses an application on the basis mentioned in section 94(2A) or”,(b) in subsection (3), for the words from “that it” to the end substitute “—(a) that the conviction or caution is of a kind mentioned in section 92(1), it must make an order to that effect;(b) that it appears as mentioned in condition A of that section, it must make an order to that effect.”, and(c) in subsection (5), after “subsection (3)” insert “(b)”.(9) In section 100(1) (advisers)—(a) for the second “Secretary of State” substitute “Secretary of State—(a) the caution or conviction is of a kind mentioned in section 92(1), or”,(b) the remaining text becomes paragraph (b), and(c) in that paragraph for “section 92” substitute “that section”.(10) In section 101—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in paragraph (a) of the definition of “conviction”, after “proceedings” insert “(including anything that under section 376(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is to be treated as a conviction for the purposes of that Act)”,(ii) at the end of the definition of “sentence” insert “(including anything that under section 376(1) and (3) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is to be treated as a sentence for the purposes of that Act),”,(iii) at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of “service disciplinary proceedings” omit “or”,(iv) after paragraph (b) of the definition of “service disciplinary proceedings” insert “, or(c) in respect of a service offence (whether or not before a court but excepting proceedings before a civilian court within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006);and for the purposes of paragraph (c) “service offence” means a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (SI 2009/1059).”, and(v) in the appropriate place insert—““enactment” includes an enactment contained in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978),”,(b) omit subsections (3) and (4),(c) in subsection (5) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “a reference to an inchoate or ancillary offence relating to the offence.”,(d) in subsection (6)—(i) for the first “or incitement” substitute “, incitement, encouraging or assisting”, and(ii) for the second “or incitement” substitute “, incitement, encouraging or assisting”,(e) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) For the purposes of section 92, an inchoate or ancillary offence is to be treated as repealed or abolished to the extent that the offence to which it relates is repealed or abolished.(6B) A reference to an inchoate or ancillary offence in relation to an offence is a reference to an offence of—(a) attempting, conspiracy or incitement to commit the offence,(b) encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence, or(c) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence.(6C) For the purposes of section 92, an offence under an enactment mentioned in subsection (6D) is to be treated as repealed to the extent that the conduct constituting the offence under the enactment—(a) was punishable by reference to an offence under the law of England and Wales which has been repealed or abolished, or(b) if the conduct was not punishable by the law of England and Wales, was punishable by reference to equivalent conduct constituting an offence under the law of England and Wales which has been repealed or abolished.(6D) The enactments are—(a) section 45 of the Naval Discipline Act 1866,(b) section 41 of the Army Act 1881,(c) section 41 of the Air Force Act 1917,(d) section 70 of the Army Act 1955,(e) section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955,(f) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, and(g) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.”, and(f) in subsection (7) for “(5) and (6)” substitute “(5), (6) and (6B)”.(11) Nothing in this section affects the disregard of a conviction or caution that was disregarded before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would extend the scheme for disregarding convictions and cautions for historical offences that regulated sexual activity between people of the same sex.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, it really is a pleasure to introduce these government amendments to the House. In Committee, I gave a commitment that the Government would consider carefully the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on the extension of the disregards and pardons scheme for individuals convicted of same-sex sexual activity. They withdrew their amendment then, and I am delighted today to be able to bring forward these government amendments which, I am pleased to say, have their support. It has only taken six years, but we got here.
Amendments 97ZB and 97ZC draw heavily on the earlier amendments to this Bill and the Armed Forces Bill. I am very confident that they reflect the aim of the noble Lords’ proposals. The removal of cautions and convictions from official records is a serious matter, and Amendment 97ZB will ensure that any disregards will meet the established legal criteria to ensure that the Home Office does not inadvertently disregard cautions or convictions for activity that is still illegal today or that involved other still illegal activity. The purpose of the disregards and pardons scheme is to put right the wrongs of the past in which the actions of those attracted to the same sex were unjustly criminalised and lives were severely and negatively affected by having these cautions and convictions on their criminal records.
The current scheme is too narrow: it is largely focused on convictions for the now repealed offences of buggery and gross indecency between men. We recognise that there were a wider range of now repealed and abolished offences, both civilian and military, that were also used to unfairly caution or convict those attracted to the same sex specifically because of their sexuality. To ensure full coverage, Amendment 97ZB will provide for the extension of the scope of the scheme to cover all repealed statutory offences and all abolished common-law offences of this nature. The scheme is also being extended to all service offences, so general disciplinary offences that were used to prosecute those individuals attracted to the same sex will now be covered.
Amendment 97ZC separately extends the existing arrangements for pardons. Those who are granted a disregard will automatically be pardoned. We recognise that many people have now died, or sadly will die, without the opportunity to seek a disregard. The amendment therefore makes provision for posthumous pardons for those who die before 12 months have elapsed after the provisions come into force. Where an offence is repealed or abolished after the provision comes into force, it will also fall within the scope of the scheme. In those cases, provision is made for posthumous pardons for those who die before 12 months have elapsed after the repeal or abolishment.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for their continued hard work on this issue. It has taken, as I have said, six years. I also pay special tribute to Professor Paul Johnson of the University of Leeds, who, in addition to advising their Lordships, has also been unfailingly generous in sharing his expertise with officials. I hope these amendments will be the legislative answer that we have been working towards together. It is only by working together that we can achieve this type of change. I beg to move.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in support of these two amendments and to follow the Minister, who has, throughout the six years, made it seem a bit like fun, and so time flew past. Joking aside, her commitment from the very beginning has never been in question.
To put these amendments into context, for nearly 500 years this House routinely passed hateful legislation that damaged, and in many cases destroyed, the lives of gay people. Many of the measures that this House passed, century after century, are well known. The Acts of 1533 and 1855 are now infamous, but a battery of lesser-known laws ensured that gay people were systematically fettered within a vile and oppressive regime of regulation that prevented them living full lives.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, it is immensely gratifying to reach the end of a long, six-year campaign. At last, more gay people who in the past suffered cruel wrong under unjust military and civilian offences are about to be given the means of securing the redress they so greatly deserve. It has been extremely encouraging to receive so much support from all parts of the House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the Labour Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
May I add briefly to the comments made by my fellow campaigner, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman? It was through amendments to earlier legislation, which I moved in December 2016, that the disregards and pardons scheme, in its existing, incomplete form, was brought into force in Northern Ireland with the consent of its devolved Executive and Assembly. The then Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, Claire Sugden, said at the time it was important to ensure that the criminal law in Northern Ireland offers equality of treatment to gay and bisexual men in Northern Ireland with England and Wales.
There can be no doubt that widespread support exists in Northern Ireland for the redress of past gay injustices, particularly among younger people, on whom the future of that wonderful part of our country depends. I am confident it will be strongly felt in Northern Ireland that its devolved Department of Justice should use the powers it possesses under existing legislation to bring today’s amendments fully into force in the Province when they become law here very shortly. That would be particularly appropriate this year, which marks the 40th anniversary of the initial decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland, following the triumph of my friend Jeffrey Dudgeon in the European Court of Human Rights, which forced the Thatcher Government to take action in 1982.
The Minister signed my amendments back in 2016. I hope she will endorse my comments today. It cannot be right to have a border down the Irish Sea in respect of human rights.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise as I did in Committee to speak briefly and humbly on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who signed the matching amendments in Committee. I can only pay very strong tributes to the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, for all their long work on these issues. The Green group, of course, welcomes these amendments. I would like to thank the Minister for her helpful letter that addressed the questions I raised in Committee about why it is not possible to automatically get rid of these offences to clear people of them.
In the light of that, I would simply like to prompt the Minister—though I realise it is early—for whatever information she might be able to give us both about what plans there are to publicise this legal change to make sure people are able to easily and simply apply and about what kind of timeframe for the process she sees going forwards. As has been said, many people affected by this may be of an older age group, and it is really important this is available to people as soon as possible.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, at last, much credit must go to the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, and to Professor Paul Johnson, but also to the Minister, who accepted the challenge from the noble Lords and ran with it. I understand the right honourable Priti Patel took little persuasion. Whether that is the Minister being modest or not, I have nothing but thanks and praise for all those involved.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I feel privileged to come in at the tail-end of this six-year campaign. I have to say I found it very moving listening to my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who does me the privilege of taking an interest in my family history. I have followed his campaign on this matter as well. I also note the points he made about the position in Northern Ireland. It has been a six-year campaign—to use the words of my noble friend—to wipe away the stain on history. It seems to me these amendments are doing this. I also join in the praises from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, of the Minister, who appears to me, as a latecomer to this, to have been with the campaigners every step of the way.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind comments. It is lovely when unity breaks out in this House, particularly when that unity has been hard fought. On the union—I take my noble friend’s points about Northern Ireland—I will certainly relay those comments to the Minister for Justice. I would imagine that the publicity will start on commencement of the Bill and be published on GOV.UK. There has already been some great publicity on social media and elsewhere, so publicity is already under way.
“Pardons for certain convictions or cautions
(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (13).(2) Section 164 (posthumous pardons for convictions etc. of certain abolished offences) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (10). (3) Before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a person—(a) who was convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence in circumstances where the conduct constituting the offence was sexual activity between persons of the same sex, and(b) who died before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with—(i) the day on which section (Disregard of certain convictions or cautions) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 comes into force, or(ii) if later, the day on which the offence referred to in paragraph (a) became an abolished offence (see subsection (1A)).”(4) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The person is pardoned for the offence if—(a) any other person involved in the sexual activity was aged 16 or over, and(b) the offence has become an abolished offence.(1A) An offence becomes an abolished offence at the point at which conditions A and B are first met.(1B) Condition A is that the offence has been repealed or, in the case of an offence at common law, abolished by enactment (whether or not it was re-enacted or replaced).(1C) Condition B is that the sexual activity referred to in subsection (A1)(a) would not, if occurring in the same circumstances, constitute an offence.”(5) Omit subsections (2) to (6).(6) In subsection (7)—(a) for “subsection (8)” substitute “subsections (8) and (8A)”, and(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “(but as if the reference in subsections (6A) and (6C) to section 92 were a reference to this section)”.(7) In subsection (8) (as amended by section 19 of the Armed Forces Act 2021)—(a) omit paragraph (ba),(b) at the end of paragraph (c) omit “or”,(c) after paragraph (c) (but before paragraph (d) inserted by section 19(3)(d) of the Armed Forces Act 2021) insert—“(ca) the Mutiny Act 1878, the Marine Mutiny Act 1878, any Act previously in force corresponding to either of those Acts or any relevant Articles of War, or”.(8) After subsection (8) insert—“(8A) Section 101(6D) of the 2012 Act is to be read, in its application to this section by virtue of subsection (7) of this section, as if the enactments listed in that subsection included—(a) Article 2 of Section 20 of the Articles of War of 1749 (offences triable by courts martial outside Great Britain),(b) section 38 of the Naval Discipline Act 1860,(c) section 38 of the Naval Discipline Act 1861,(d) section 41 of the Naval Discipline Act 1864,(e) Article 93 of Section 2 of the Articles of War of 1876 (offences not specified in Marine Mutiny Act or Articles of War),(f) section 41 of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act 1879, and(g) any provision corresponding to the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (e), contained in other relevant Articles of War.” (9) In subsection (10) (inserted by section 19 of the Armed Forces Act 2021) insert in the appropriate place—““sexual activity” includes—(a) any physical or affectionate activity which is of a type characteristic of people involved in an intimate personal relationship, and(b) conduct intended to lead to sexual activity.”(10) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an offence for which the person has previously been pardoned under this section or section 165.”(11) In section 165(1) (other pardons for convictions etc. of certain abolished offences) after “offence” insert “in the circumstances”.(12) Omit section 166 (power to provide disregards and pardons for additional abolished offences).(13) In section 167 (sections 164 to 166: supplementary)—(a) in the opening words of subsection (1) omit “, or under regulations under 166,”, and(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for “sections 164 to 166” substitute “section 164 or 165”, and(ii) omit “or regulations under section 166”.(14) Nothing in this section affects a pardon for a conviction or caution which took effect before this section comes into force.(15) In section 19 of the Armed Forces Act 2021 (posthumous pardons in relation to certain abolished offences), omit subsection (2) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would extend the scheme for posthumously pardoning people convicted of or cautioned for historical offences that regulated sexual activity between people of the same sex.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 97A, I will speak briefly to Amendment 97B. These amendments seek to remove children from the application of Clause 168, providing that remote observation and recording of court proceedings may not occur in cases where a party to the proceedings is a child under the age of 18. Amendment 97C, also in the group, provides that the court may not give directions for live links in criminal proceedings where a party to the proceedings is a child under the age of 18.
I take on board the comments made in Committee that these are blanket amendments which may not necessarily be appropriate in all cases. What has given rise to these amendments is concern about the drift to greater use of video hearings without adequate safeguards. Amendment 97CA in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, would prevent a criminal trial proceeding with the jury or members of the jury in a different physical location from the judge, witness or counsel. We would support this amendment should the noble Lord decide to move it to a vote, but I will leave him to advocate for his own amendment.
Amendment 97D seeks to require that all defendants who might appear on a video or audio link from a location outside court should be subject to a health needs screening. Screening information must be made available to the judge responsible for listing before the listing is finalised; it is this amendment that I want to concentrate on. As I have said, it seeks to require that all defendants who might appear on video or audio link are subject to health needs screening. I have a quite extensive briefing from various advocacy groups, including Fair Trials, Transform Justice and Just for Kids Law, which are concerned about the greater use of video links that we have all experienced. Certainly, anyone who works in the criminal justice system has experienced this in the last couple of years. The concern is that some of the changes we have seen are not necessarily positive, and there should be a resistance to permanently moving to a greater use of video links.
The central point is that the judiciary should make an informed decision about whether a case should go ahead via some form of video link. The decision should be informed by a mental or physical health assessment of the young or vulnerable person. It seems to me that that is an unanswerable point. I have been in the position of making these decisions in circumstances that were very far from adequate. I have done so because of the expediency of the situation and the urgency of dealing with the cases that have come before me—but this must not be allowed to become the norm.
Video links have a purpose. They can in some cases help to get a case moving forward so that a just decision can be reached, but in most cases they are not appropriate. A judge or magistrate needs to be able to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with video links for whatever bit of process they are dealing with within the court system.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 97CA is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, cannot be in his place this evening because he has been attending a funeral.
Amendment 97CA would remove from the Bill the power in Clause 170 for a court to give a direction that the jury can participate in a criminal trial remotely; that is, in a different location to the judge, counsel and witnesses so long as all members of the jury are in the same place. Jury trial is, of course, one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system—whether you approve or disapprove of the Bristol jury’s decision to acquit the defendants of criminal damage to the statue of Edward Colston. We need to consider very carefully indeed proposals to amend the way in which the jury performs its functions.
I share the concerns about this proposal that have been expressed by the Bar Council and the Law Society. They say that the success of a jury trial depends in large part on a good working relationship of trust and confidence between judge and jury. The jury needs to be attentive and mindful of its onerous responsibilities; the judge needs to watch the jury to ensure that its interests are protected and it is properly performing its responsibilities. Counsel—both prosecution and defence counsel—need to engage with the jury during the trial. All this is so much harder to achieve through a video screen—indeed, noble Lords will be aware of that from when they have participated in parliamentary proceedings through a video screen over the last two years.
This proposed power requires a strong justification. I listened carefully—I always listen carefully—to what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said in support of this power in Committee and indeed in discussions that I have had with him since, for which I am very grateful. The Minister concedes—indeed, he positively asserts—that this Government have no plan to encourage the use of remote juries. Indeed, they have had no such plans in the nearly two years since Covid-19 began to blight our lives. What the Minister says is that it will be good for Ministers to have this power, just in case it proves useful at some stage in the future. I suggest to noble Lords that it is a very bad legislative practice to confer broad powers on Ministers, particularly powers as controversial as these, just in case they might prove useful at some stage in the future.
The Minister will no doubt give assurances to the House about whether and when these powers might be used. The insuperable difficulty with legislating on such a basis is that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, cannot bind his successors in office, who may well have different principles and different policies.
I say to the House that these proposed powers, if ever used, would pose a real threat to the effective administration of justice. There is no current need for them.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to Amendment 97C. In doing so, perhaps I can give a small insight as someone who has conducted hundreds of jury trials, some of them involving young people—often very naive young people who are in an enormous amount of trouble.
I feel it necessary to say something to the House about the interaction between counsel and the young client. Typically during the course of such a trial, and in my experience this happens more with children on trial than with adults on trial, either, if one is lucky enough to have one there, one asks one’s instructing solicitor to have a word with the client in the dock on some evidence that has just been given, or—if, as is common now, there is no instructing solicitor there—counsel just walks a couple of rows behind to the front of the dock, takes instructions from his or her client about a factual proposition that has just been made and then continues or commences a cross-examination based on the instructions that have just been taken. In other words, there is a dynamic, living, ongoing 24/7 interaction between the advocate and the advocate’s client.
In the last nearly two years we have all been through the process of conducting virtual meetings. In most respects that has worked very well, but, since we have had the experience of going back into real meetings—on and off, admittedly—we have rediscovered the importance of interaction on the details that occur during a discourse. In my view, it could prove very damaging and delaying in trials to have to have that sort of discourse with a client by asking the judge to turn off the devices so that a private consultation can take place. That could look very odd to a jury, as compared to a quick word two rows behind. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect upon the dynamics of a real trial. I should add that not only have I conducted a lot of trials but for 28 years I was a part-time judge. As a judge I have conducted a lot of jury trials, and the same points arise from the judge’s position.
So far as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is concerned, I agree with him for a similar but different reason. It is based on a relationship, the relationship between the judge and the jury. It is absolutely commonplace—it happens every hour of every day—for the judge to make some kind of contact with the jury. It may be eye contact; it may be an aside; it may be a little joke. You would not believe how much juries laugh at judges’ jokes; judges make jokes and get far greater laughs than any comedian I have ever seen. All this is part of the process of creating a living instrument through a trial that really works on a human basis. If there are to be any jury trials conducted with the jury in a different place from the judge, that must be most exceptional. If the judge and jury were in the same place, it may be that—and this would still have to be exceptional—the judge might come to a factual decision that a fair trial could be held, but it would be a very rare instance where that would work.
If I may put it as high as this, I advise the Government not to go down this road. In my view, it has the danger of disruption, increasing appeals and actually destroying the very essence of the holy grail, as it were, that is part of our criminal justice system: the jury trial. Part of that essence is the relationship between the judge and the jury, and that really cannot be conducted remotely.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this group, particularly Amendment 97A, has become pertinent in light of the apparent situation whereby the Attorney-General has displayed something less than a full commitment to the principle of the right to a jury trial. Many commentators are sadly leaping on the Colston four verdict to question the jury system and apparently seek to undermine public confidence in the principle that every person has the right to be tried by their peers. This would be an ideal opportunity for the Minister to reassure your Lordships’ House—I hope he will—that, no matter how politically inconvenient it might be for the Government, trial by jury is fundamental to our justice system and the Government remain committed to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, Amendment 97CA is an important practical step to ensure that that remains a proper, full jury trial, with the kind of interactions that we have heard about.
Briefly, the other amendments in this group are important to protect children and other vulnerable court users. It seems like a basic issue of justice and common sense that the court should ensure that the people who appear by video link are still able to participate fully in the proceedings. I hope that the judiciary would never allow anything contrary to this, although I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the practical sometimes has to override the ideal. None the less, it seems right that the legislation should offer these protections.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support both of these amendments but will focus on that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Something was said about the judge’s interaction with the jury and, of course, that is true. Judges have a close interaction with juries in the sense described; it is part of the process of building up their confidence to make what is going to be a very important decision at some stage towards the end of the trial.
I would like to say something about the position of a jury which finds itself in a separate place observing the proceedings on a screen. The point of the jury is to make determinations about fact in the case—to decide who is or is not telling the truth and who the jury is or is not persuaded by. Judges often say that one of the things juries should do is judge the demeanour of witnesses and defendants, looking at them giving their evidence, watching closely as they are asked questions, making allowances for inarticulacy, intelligence and so on, but making a judgment about them as human beings in the very human environment of a trial. That would be an impossibly difficult task to discharge adequately over what is, in effect, a Zoom meeting.
Some of us have had the experience during the pandemic of trying to chair meetings over Zoom, sometimes with relatively large numbers of people in the so-called virtual room. It is very difficult to read people over Zoom, judge the feel or mood of the meeting, read what people are thinking and see who is paying attention and who is not. In a criminal trial, these things become dangerous and render a deficiency at the heart of the trial which is to be avoided at all costs.
If there is no need for the power now, it is not a power which Ministers should be given. If it becomes necessary at some future date, then your Lordships’ House can debate it, but I agree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Pannick that such an extensive, broad power as this should not be gifted to Ministers in the absence of absolute need—and perhaps not even then.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Strongly though I support it and absurd though I too think it is to allow for some possibility of a jury trial with the jury sitting otherwise than in the actual courtroom, I had no intention of speaking tonight until I learned that my noble and learned friend Lord Judge could not. As I seem to be the last judge standing this evening and feel so strongly about this, it seems that I should say a word. But I urge all of your Lordships to recognise that if my noble and learned friend had been speaking, he would have said the little I propose to say so much more tellingly and convincingly that the House really ought to add enormous weight to it.
All I say is that the whole value of a jury, sacrosanct in our law of course, is that they are there and part of the atmosphere. They watch the whole thing unfolding, see the witnesses and sense the entire development of the arguments as they emerge. My noble friend Lord Carlile made a number of these points, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has just done. The whole aura of the process and the fact that the jury recognise in the courtroom that they are, for the first time, having to apply themselves to this critical question—is this man or woman guilty or not guilty?—is lost and dissipated if they are not there. I urge your Lordships not to provide for this suggested possibility, for who knows in what circumstances it would be? They can be only circumstances that do not justify having a separate jury.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the amendments he moved or spoke to on proceedings involving children and health screening, and with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We support those amendments, but I will speak to Amendment 97CA from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the use of live links in jury trials, to which I have put my name.
This amendment raises two important questions about the nature of juries and of jury trial. First, how important is it to the trial process that juries see and hear witnesses give their evidence live? Secondly, how important is it to the trial process that the relationship and balance between judge and jury is live rather than remote? On the first issue, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made the point that jury trials depend, more than anything else, upon the ability of jurors to weigh up the evidence of witnesses. They have to assess two things: veracity, or whether the witness is trying to tell the truth, and accuracy, or whether he or she has got it right.
As others, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, have said, after nearly two years of the pandemic we have all become completely familiar with the process of remote discussion and meetings. None of us, I feel, would now argue that remoteness makes no difference. In this vital area of our national life, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed out, we entrust decisions about the guilt or innocence of those charged with serious crimes to juries of 12 who listen to and weigh up the evidence of witnesses, and make decisions about truth or falsehood, reliability or inaccuracy, honesty or dishonesty, and intent, accident or misadventure. Those jurors will certainly consider objective evidence that has the same effect when seen or heard remotely as it has when seen or heard directly. But much of the evidence they will hear, and usually the most critical evidence in jury trial cases, has to be subjectively judged, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said. That is done by references to the witnesses’ demeanour, body language, response to cross-examination and emotional responses.
These are matters on which juries might initially and quite legitimately disagree. Their assessment—the different assessments of all 12 of them—will be the subject of detailed discussion during their deliberations and depend upon impressions. We would be undermining our jury system by depriving jurors of the opportunity, in the case that they decide, to share their experiences of the witnesses and the experiences that they have had live. I do not believe that undermining the jury trial in this way can possibly be justified.
On the second point about the presence of the judge, counsel and jury in the same place, the role of the judge and jury and the relationship between them is a delicate one. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the judge’s position is to ensure that trials are conducted in a responsible and serious way. I also think there is considerable importance in that relationship that the independence of juries is maintained. A stock sentence that judges quite properly use when summing up is when they tell the jury, “It is a matter for you, members of the jury,” and it is.
However, for juries to make the decisions they are charged with making, they must not feel to be, seem to be or, still less, actually be at a disadvantage compared to the judge who has seen and heard and assessed the witnesses live. When the judge recounts a particular piece of evidence in summing up, juries must not be cowed or persuaded into accepting what they may perceive to be the judge’s view of the evidence. They must be able to say to each other: “He or she may have said that, but I did not believe that witness—did you see how scared they looked?” That is what jury independence means. Jury independence is fundamental to our system and why it is so important. For that reason, I completely support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, this group contains amendments covering the application of live links to children and vulnerable people as well as to remote juries. I will come to the remote juries point separately later.
First, to make sure that we are all on the same page, I remind the House that Clauses 168 and 169 do not mandate remote or video hearings. How a hearing is to be conducted is a matter for judicial decision on a case-by-case basis. These clauses ensure that, if appropriate, observers can watch a hearing taking place to ensure that the principle of open justice can be maintained.
Amendments 97A and 97B seek to prohibit remote observers from being present in all cases in which a child is among the parties. Amendment 97C similarly seeks to remove children from the application of Clause 170. I suggest both these amendments are unnecessary and would inhibit both the principle of open justice—which is a fundamental principle in this jurisdiction—and the principle of judicial discretion. It would inhibit the ability of courts to use audio and video technology where the court sees fit and when it is in the interests of justice to do so.
I turn first to Amendments 97A and 97B. The effect of these amendments would be that all such remote hearings would effectively have to be held in private, including, for example, any multiparty litigation in our civil courts or tribunals in which a single claimant—perhaps one of a number of claimants—is under 18. That would unnecessarily constrain the transparency of our justice system and impede the principle of open justice.
While I accept the sentiment that underpins the amendments, they are unnecessary because we have sufficient tried-and-tested legislation in place to safeguard the privacy of children in these proceedings. That is set out in Section 47(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. We also have existing procedure rules under which the court can hold any hearing in private in order
“to protect the interests of any child or protected party”.
Therefore, I suggest to the House that that statutory provision and the procedure rules provide sufficient protection to safeguard the privacy and well-being of young people in the justice system, whether the hearing takes place in-person or remotely.
Amendment 97C would prevent the court making a direction to enable any participant in a hearing to attend by live link where a child is party to proceedings. Again, it is important to protect the interests of children, but we have clear support and guidance in place which mandates the court to consider and have regard to the welfare of the child, to make sure that each child is fairly assessed and represented, is sufficiently supported, can understand what is happening, and is able to engage and participate in proceedings and be kept safe. That is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules and criminal practice directions.
I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, that, in the majority of cases, it may well be more appropriate for children to attend a hearing in person, and the Criminal Procedure Rules recognise this. But one must recognise that there may be situations where it is more beneficial for a child, whether as a witness or a defendant, to participate by live link; for example, to protect a child witness from having to be in court with the defendant. Clause 170, as drafted, gives the court that inherent flexibility.
I will come to Amendment 97D in a moment but let me first turn to Amendment 97CA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which seeks to exclude juries from the provisions in Clause 170 that would otherwise allow a jury assembled together to take part in a trial through a live video link, where appropriate and where the court has decided that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. I will come to the detail of the amendment in a moment, but let us not lose sight of one important point. This amendment is designed to strengthen and support the jury system. It is designed to ensure that we can continue to hold jury trials in circumstances where it might otherwise be impossible, as we experienced for a certain time in this jurisdiction during the pandemic. I am pleased that we were one of the first jurisdictions in the world to get jury trials back up and running, but we could not do as many as we would normally because of the social distancing constraints.
Why are we so keen to maintain jury trials? The answer is simple and perhaps a little topical. The jury is a fundamental part of our criminal justice system. To adopt the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, it is a cornerstone of our liberty. True it is that the cornerstone gets a little defaced with some graffiti from time to time, but it is, none the less, a cornerstone of which we should be proud.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, threw something of a gauntlet down to me. I am very happy to pick it up, briefly. Juries sometimes return verdicts that raise an eyebrow, but I know from bitter experience that it is not unknown for judicial decisions to trouble the eyebrows too. In a proper case, there is a procedure, once the jury has brought in its verdict, to ask the Court of Appeal to consider and determine specific points of law to assist in future cases without disturbing the actual jury verdict in the instant case.
If the noble Baroness wants to have a crack at my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, she can, but she cannot, I am afraid, stand up and have a crack at her while betraying fundamental ignorance of the underlying legal principles. Counsel in the case himself said that his arguments were “new and complex”. Those are precisely the points which would be suitable for reference under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, a provision with which I am sure the noble Baroness is very familiar. I am also sure that she has read the recent case in the ECHR of Handzhiyski v Bulgaria, decided on 6 April 2021, which discussed in terms whether the provisions of Article 10 of the ECHR did or did not apply to a charge of criminal damage.
I am very happy to respond on the glories of the jury system, but I respectfully suggest that, if the noble Baroness is going to make a point about the conduct of the Attorney-General, she looks at the underlying legal position first. There are certainly points in the Colston case which an Attorney-General might properly decide to, or not to, refer to the Court of Appeal. That is a matter for the Attorney-General.
Lord Pannick
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a jury or to members of a jury.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent a criminal trial proceeding with the jury (or members of the jury) in a different physical location to the judge, witnesses or counsel.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, not least the Minister. In the debate your Lordships have heard that there is, at least, a very substantial risk that the jury being remote from the rest of the trial would damage its ability to perform its functions. The question, then, is whether there is a compelling need for this proposed new power. The Minister very fairly confirmed that there is no current intention to implement the proposed power. I suggest that if and when there is any such intention, that will be the time to determine whether it is appropriate, in such circumstances, to confer such a sensitive and controversial power. Ministers should not be given such powers on a so-called future-proofing basis—to use the Minister’s term. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Earl Attlee
“Facilitation of potting
(1) A person commits an offence of facilitation of potting if the person—(a) is in custody and causes or permits their own urine or excrement to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse, or(b) is in custody and causes or permits their own ejaculate to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), only in exceptional circumstances may the court accept a defence of “lawful reason or excuse” in the absence of evidence of a prior direction by a clinically qualified person.(3) A person guilty of an offence to which this section applies is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to establish a specific offence of “facilitating potting”, potting being the practice of throwing urine, excrement or ejaculate at prison staff.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 99, is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Paddick: I am grateful for their support. We return to the issue of potting—that is to say, a disgusting assault using materials mentioned in subparagraph (1) of the new clause and which usually occurs in a custodial setting. In the light of a constructive meeting I had with the Minister last week, I do not propose to detain the House very long on this matter, and I do not believe the House or, indeed, my Chief Whip, is keen to do so either.
Since we debated the matter in Committee, the Government have published a White Paper on the prison system which, inter alia, proposes zero tolerance for bad behaviour in prisons. I have taken on board some of the defects of my original amendment, identified in Committee: the amendment now deals only with the preparatory act of intercepting the relevant substance. It is not necessary to have a new offence for the actual potting, since that is covered by existing offences, and it is not good practice to place a duty to provide spit kits in a clause that seeks to create a new offence.
In Committee, I thought the Minister was a bit optimistic when he said he was not aware of any problems with the issuing of spit kits to prison officers. A subsequent Written Answer revealed that none of the several prisons that I asked about appeared to be issuing spit kits. I accept that spit kits are particularly useful when the offender is not known to the victim—say, a ticket inspector—and when the offender may abscond but probably has a record. However, my underlying concern is to ensure that these disgusting offences do not go unpunished and, as a result, become more frequent and insidious. I hope my noble friend will take this opportunity to flesh out the proposals in the Prisons Strategy White Paper to have zero tolerance of bad behaviour within prison.
We all owe a great debt of gratitude to prison officers and prison governors, who we charge with looking after and protecting us from some of the most dangerous, wicked and obnoxious members of our society. We owe it to them to make sure that, if they are assaulted doing their duty, we will back them up and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. If we fail to do so, there will be at least two serious consequences: first, we will experience difficulties in retaining the best possible prison officers; secondly, the remaining prison officers will be demotivated, less willing to ensure full compliance and less willing to ensure that prisons are the safe and humane establishments that we all want them to be. I am pleased to say that I have detected that Ministers have taken all this on board.
Finally, I remind the House that I am not a founder member of the “hang ‘em, flog ‘em and throw away the key brigade”; the House will recall my proposals outlined in my Committee stage Amendment 241, which proposed drastic reform in respect of prolific minor offenders, and I am grateful for the positive response that I received. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his amendment, to the extent that I have added my name. We had discussions between Committee and Report; we agreed that the actual assault was covered by existing legislation, but the preparatory acts in preparing these disgusting attacks on prison staff needed to be addressed. That is how we arrived at the revised amendment, and I am very happy to support it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl: he has been dogged in his pursuance of this and I understand he has had constructive discussions with the Minister. I look forward to what the Minister is going to say to, in the noble’s Earl words, flesh out the proposals in the White Paper, and how these may lead to greater support for prison officers. One specific question for the Minister is how they propose to monitor potting and whether it is done by somebody acting in extreme distress or whether it is part of a planned tactic, if you like, within the prison.
In conclusion, I repeat my tribute to the noble Earl—it appears to me that his time in the TA may have led to his having some empathy with prison officers. I do not know, but nevertheless I support his amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for tabling this further amendment on potting, which is vile behaviour and undoubtedly a horrific experience for those who become victims of this practice. I say unambiguously that it is therefore right that such incidents are prosecuted where there is sufficient evidence or that they are otherwise dealt with through prison adjudication.
My noble friend was particularly concerned about the availability of spit kits to collect evidence where crimes are committed. I hope that I can reassure him by saying that some prisons already purchase spit kits locally as a matter of course, but we will consider further whether there is a need to make them available to prisons nationally, as part of our focus on reducing crime in prisons.
Earlier discussions with the police and CPS confirmed that the use of body-worn cameras, rather than spit kits, would offer the greatest means of providing evidence to enable prosecution of crimes in prisons. That is why we have concentrated on providing these. Indeed, we are introducing a new generation of body-worn video cameras during this year, with newer, more technologically advanced cameras that will be available to every prison officer who needs one. They include a pre-record facility that effectively records and overwrites footage—so the pre-record footage is saved when you press a button. They are similar to cameras that are available to other people in the criminal justice system and mean that it will be easier to provide evidence of potting and therefore to support a prosecution.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, correctly identified that, in the amendment, this is a preparatory offence and tries to capture behaviour even where the act of potting itself may not yet have occurred or have occurred at all. The offence would apply where an individual possesses, provides or allows others to use their bodily fluids, intending them to be used for malicious purpose—and where an individual has assisted, aided or encouraged a crime. Of course, doing those preparatory acts is already a crime under Sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 or possibly under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The penalties for those preparatory offences are the same as those for the substantive offence.
We are also concerned about a practical difficulty: collecting urine samples may be impeded by the wording of this amendment. We are also concerned that it does not offer, in terms, a defence for those who do not intentionally facilitate this but whose bodily fluids are used by someone else for a malicious purpose. However, I will not say any more about that because my noble friend has recognised that the Government have listened to him on this and are taking the matter seriously. We recognise that more can be done to improve the effective prosecution of crimes in prison. It is a priority, and we will continue to work to ensure that those agencies and organisations prioritise serious crimes, enabling clear criminal consequences when they occur. HMPPS works with the police and CPS to improve rates of prosecutions for crimes committed within prisons.
I know that my noble friend is motivated by his admiration of the work of prison officers—I will not speculate about the genesis of that. But the fact is that they have to deal with some of the most difficult and dangerous members of our society. We in the Ministry of Justice share that view. In the prisons White Paper, published in December last year, we set out a zero-tolerance approach to crime in prisons. We will set up a crime in prisons task force, which will identify and expose any systemic failings that allow continued criminality in prisons, enhancing our capabilities to disrupt crime and ensuring that evidence and investigations lead to more criminal justice outcomes. We will commission the taskforce to look specifically at potting offences.
The White Paper also sets out our commitment to refer the most serious crimes, such as assaults on prison officers, to the police, in accordance with the crime in prisons referral agreement, which exists between Prison Service, the CPS and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. I appreciate that I have dealt with that fairly quickly, but I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that the Government have listened very carefully to what he has said.
I will respond to the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Offences of potting are captured in published statistics—specifically the quarterly Safety in Custody Statistics. But if I can add anything to what I have just said, I will write to him. I hope that, for those reasons, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all three noble Lords who have spoken on this issue and the two who have supported me. I believe my noble friend the Minister has taken this issue on board, and I thank him for that. We know perfectly well that we are limited as to how many presents we can load on the Christmas tree for the Minister to take back to the Commons, and I accept that there are bigger fish to fry. What I cannot accept is that we allow this type of assault to go unpunished. Prosecution and conviction need to be inevitable. That means necessary evidence must be collected, and the police and the CPS must devote sufficient resources to the problem.
It is clear to me that the amendment is not defective and there is a gap to fill, although I accept that there may be minor drafting issues. The issue is whether we want to create a new offence. The White Paper proposes zero tolerance for bad behaviour, and if potting is not bad behaviour, I do not know what is. Ministers and officials should be aware that I will be working very closely with the Prison Officers’ Association to monitor progress and, if necessary, we can bring this amendment, or a similar one, back at a suitable legislative opportunity. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Duty to establish statutory inquiry into lessons to be learned from the death of Sarah Everard
(1) The inquiry into matters arising from the death of Sarah Everard, announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 22 November 2021, is to be held as an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. (2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the terms of reference of the inquiry include the wider lessons to be learned for the professional culture, funding, vetting and organisation of policing, the prevention of violence against women and the investigation and prosecution of misogynistic crimes.(3) If on the commencement of any provision of this Act, the inquiry does not have a panel of members which includes at least one member with experience in the area of violence against women, the Secretary of State must ensure that such a member is appointed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment converts the existing Home Office inquiry into the matters arising from the death of Sarah Everard into a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It also ensures that the Inquiry panel includes at least one member with experience in the area of violence against women and girls.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, here we are, quite late into the evening, to discuss the group of amendments refined from amendments tabled in Committee in response to the horrific rape and murder of Sarah Everard and, I am afraid to say, a wholly inadequate response from some of the most senior police leaders in our country.
I do not want to dwell too much on this, but I do not think that it reflects incredibly well on the way we do business in your Lordships’ House that this group has miraculously come to be debated at this particularly late hour, not least given the fact that I have been around all day and have heard some very lengthy, florid, colourful, relaxed speeches on all sorts of subjects all afternoon and evening from all sorts of delightful Members of your Lordships’ House who have been infrequent engagers with this Bill and most of whom, for all sorts of reasons, are no longer here. I do not think that this self-regulating House has done justice to women and girls in this country, nor, indeed, have those who effectively control the agenda and have allowed this group to be opened at approaching 10.50 pm.
I feel the need to put that on the record for Hansard so that the various women’s groups and victims’ groups who have been waiting for this group to come up will be able to understand exactly what has gone on. I was particularly concerned about some of the debates that went on just before the dinner break with no concern for time—and sometimes not much concern for kindness or the dignity of our fellow human beings, but enough of that—no intention of a vote and no real intention of changing the law. I have also noticed the way in which some of us are censored for our length at strategic moments and others are not in this so-called self-regulating House.
This group deals not just with the Sarah Everard outrage but with the public concern about it and the way that women and girls have been treated in our criminal justice system more generally, and what that means for a crisis of confidence, potentially, in our police service, which is so essential to the rule of law.
I am grateful to noble Lords from parties and groups from all across your Lordships’ House for their consistent support for the calls for a full statutory inquiry, particularly into the broader matters arising from the Sarah Everard scandal. It makes the earlier remarks necessary. Of course, for all sorts of completely legitimate reasons—not least that people come from all over the country, have different health conditions and are of different ages—it is not possible for everyone who wanted to be here to be here right now.
Amendments 108 and 109 are in my name. Amendment 108 is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, while Amendment 109 is supported once more by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. These two amendments deal with the specific issue of it being lawful at present for arrested people—that is, people who are suspects but have not been charged and are therefore not defendants, or at least believe themselves to be suspects when they are stopped by a police officer, as poor Sarah Everard was—to be taken away in a vehicle by a lone police officer. Noble Lords, particularly those who have engaged with this issue and were here in Committee and at earlier stages of the Bill, will appreciate that that possibility has understandably caused a great deal of concern, in particular since last autumn when Wayne Couzens’s sentencing hearing revealed some of the truly horrific details of that case.
Amendment 108 would prevent a single officer ever lawfully taking suspects away in a vehicle. Amendment 109 takes a slightly gentler approach—helpfully suggested to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I might add; I am grateful to him—to the same problem. It does not create an absolute legal bar to a lone officer taking a suspect away in a vehicle, with all the dangers that that one on one creates for both the officer and the suspect; instead, Amendment’s 109 approach is to amend PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—so that the Secretary of State would be required to issue a full-blown PACE code of conduct to deal with the transportation of suspects.
Given who is left at this time of night, I know that the noble Lords here are engaged with these issues and understand the importance of PACE codes in particular. They are required in relation to things like detention and the questioning of suspects in a police station. Since 1984, they have been a really important protection for citizens in the police system. Amendment 109 is a new amendment—I did not table it in Committee—and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I really want to hear any conceivable argument against this mild amendment, which would add “transportation” to the list of activities in relation to suspects for which the Secretary of State should issue full-blown statutory PACE codes of conduct.
When one considers Amendment 108—my previous amendment, unenlightened by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—with its absolute bar on single officers taking suspects away, or the amendment to PACE, it is worth noble Lords remembering some of the quite bizarre and hubristic public comments that were made. They included, I am afraid to say, comments made by a police and crime commissioner who is no more, as well as by certain retired and serving police leaders, about women being naive in going along with a police officer who stops them late at night. They said that there is something wrong with them—that it is the woman’s fault. Some ridiculous public comments were made.
Equally, however, there were other comments suggesting that this practice should be changed and things should be done. If things can be done by way of police administration, why can they not be somehow reflected in this Bill? This would give greater confidence to the young women and girls in particular—wholly law-abiding people—who have been feeling such anxiety and such a crisis of confidence not just since Sarah Everard’s murder during a lockdown, at a very difficult time for our country, but since the Wayne Couzens sentencing hearing. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to reflect on that particular issue and on how to grapple with what I am proposing in Amendments 108 and 109.
Then, of course, we return to Amendment 102, which calls for a statutory inquiry. It is not only my repeated call: it has been a call from so many people. I am so grateful to my noble friends in the leadership of the Opposition, to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his noble friends and to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She and my noble friend Lady Lawrence are, in my view, two of the greatest champions of victims’ rights, cutting across all vested interests, all party interests and all bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has been with me in relation to this amendment from the very start; it is nearly 11 pm, and she is still sitting there and is with me now. I thank her so much.
This is a call for a full-blown statutory inquiry, not an administrative inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005. It follows resistance and hubris, I am sorry to say, from senior police leaders who, as we obviously know by this time, do not want an inquiry of this kind. To put it in context once more—I know that I am taking time, but I feel the need at least to do this argument justice—I mention the relatively recent inquiry and damning report of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. Not much longer than six months ago, she spoke about the obstruction that she faced from the Metropolitan Police—including from the commissioner, I am sorry to say—in reporting on the Daniel Morgan scandal. I need not paraphrase, because noble Lords have heard from the noble Baroness in the past and her report, including the shortened press summary, is there for all to read, along with her speeches in Hansard. She faced obstruction, and said specifically in her findings that she knew that she had been hampered by not having the statutory powers that would have been available under the 2005 Act. I give that as a piece of evidence in my call for a statutory inquiry into the matters arising from Sarah Everard’s murder.
I also give the tin-eared and insensitive—to say the least—policing of the Clapham Common vigil. We know in your Lordships’ House that this was contrary to the original working and decisions of the borough command and the police service on the ground, who were working with women’s and victims’ groups to facilitate a peaceful vigil. Senior leadership and senior officers in the Met decided that was not to be. We can now trace back the timeline, because it is all in the public domain if one takes the time to look at the newspaper reporting. We can tell that those decisions about the disproportionate, tin-eared and counterproductive policing of the Clapham Common vigil would have been made at a time when the senior police leadership knew things that we only now know about Wayne Couzens, what he had done—because he had interviewed at this point—his policing career, and various things that obviously went wrong. I know that that is embarrassing, but that is why we must have a statutory inquiry. All institutions made up of humans feel the need to close ranks when things terribly wrong. That is precisely the moment when outside forces, including your Lordships’ House, need to prevent that closing of ranks.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in support of her amendments. I want to start by paying tribute to the Minister of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has been extremely accessible and helpful. In an attempt to resolve these issues there have been several discussions, some of them initiated by her, and I am sure that those of us involved would like to place our gratitude on the record. I thank her very warmly.
I reassure your Lordships that I do not wish to repeat what I said in Committee. Indeed, the amendment I put down in Committee has not been tabled on this occasion because of things that have occurred since then. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I regret very much that we are dealing with this important debate at such a late hour. Speaking at 11.10 pm takes me back to my days in the House of Commons in the 1980s when, routinely, we had debates at this time of night on matters of importance and principle—something that is now avoided because it is known to be poor practice. Furthermore, I must say to the usual channels, particularly the Government Whips, that there must be oblique reasons behind holding this debate at this time of night. If we look at the result of the last Division, which took place a few moments ago, it is clear circumstantial evidence that if you want to get out of the way something you think you would lose a vote on if it took place mid-afternoon, hold that vote—if it is to take place—somewhere around midnight and you will be quite safe. Those tactics do absolutely no credit to the reputation of this House and I regret very much that my representations were rejected a little time ago by the Government Chief Whip.
This is not just about Sarah Everard or Wayne Couzens. Without commenting on any pending case, there are proceedings pending in which it is alleged—it may not be proved, of course, and I do not wish to comment on any individual case—that other police officers have acted in every bit as outrageous a way as Wayne Couzens. I am in the lucky position of being in a family with five daughters. It may well be that our daughters, who would generally, I hope, defer to instructions given to them by police officers, will now feel unsafe on the streets of London, where they live, unless further protection is given.
This is about a broad principle. We know, because it has been proved in other cases—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for whom I have the greatest admiration, has demonstrated this in a major inquiry that she undertook—that the police will sometimes strain every sinew to avoid being held fully accountable. Unfortunately, the reaction to the Sarah Everard vigil was outrageous, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, and it never received the sort of apology it should have from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, whose position in this leaves one very concerned. Where, in the end, does ultimate accountability for the police lie when people from the diplomatic and parliamentary division are the culprits in the most serious cases, as Wayne Couzens was?
That is a particular reason why I think it pretty outrageous to be asked to debate these important issues at this time of night. That is not a repetition of a Second Reading point; it is a discourse upon the way in which procedure in this House is, in my view, being abused on this Monday evening.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to everybody speak, and I appreciate that it is late at night, but I ask my colleagues around this Chamber to remember that we are talking about a human life that was horrifically and brutally taken. We have a family broken to bits. I have to say that, as somebody who has been through the criminal justice system, and as a mother of three daughters, my emotions are running high, because it was at this time of night that Sarah went missing and the searches began. Yet here in this Chamber we are arguing over having a statutory inquiry for the soul of Sarah Everard. We have colleagues here waiting to see whether we are going to divide, and saying that we are going on too long and are going round in circles. I feel ashamed to listen to these conversations, when we in this Chamber should be thinking of Sarah Everard and her family.
Let me tell you that it is not easy for the family; every day is hard. We are talking about a family that is traumatised. Any information that has come from any Minister or any government department will not be absorbed, because they are trying to get through every minute of every day. I am not saying this to be emotional—“Oh, calm down, my dear”—and I am not a legal eagle, as my fellow colleagues are who have just spoken articulately, but what I can say is that it is absolutely shameful that this Government are putting this inquiry into two parts.
That is not to say I cannot thank the Minister for taking the time to discuss this. The shame of it is that we are going to go through part 1, which deals with all the things that we already know, and that is why it is quite quick, and then, following advice to the Home Secretary, she or he—I have worked with several Justice Ministers as Victims’ Commissioner, and it is quite right that there is a carousel—will make a decision. It is unfortunate to think that an adequate and eloquent lady will give advice to the Home Secretary only for that person to yet again make a decision with no timeline.
It could be one of your daughters who they find. You could have to go through these media perceptions, asking what she was doing out late at night. Yet we protected an ex-police officer by saying that we do not know what has gone on and will have to find out. We are fighting here to discuss the place of a statutory inquiry. Given the public interest and all the window dressing from politicians across the House—because this Bill does go back to the Commons to be debated once again—I think that is shameful.
This House works best when we work together but tonight, at half past 11, I have been on my feet and travelling for 14 hours. I have health issues; I have taken my painkillers to be here to speak up for Sarah Everard. To walk a mile in the shoes of this family, in this horrific case shows that they are now relying on people giving messages, with no legal intervention. Yet we, as the unelected Chamber, can fight for this important inquiry. It is disgraceful that it is in two parts.
At this time of night, we are playing politics. Maybe the Government will win this Division and maybe we will, but it is shameful. Everyone in this Chamber needs to be aware that this could happen to them and they would go through the same system. It does not matter who you are—at the end of the day, we owe it to the public to make demands. We have asked the Government to order a statutory inquiry. Only then will the police be held accountable, only then will we stop police forces and officers marking their own homework and only then, speaking from my former role as Victims’ Commissioner, will they be truly accountable. In any other role, we would be sacked. We would be going through a civil investigation, a duty of care, vicarious liability—whatever it may be.
We are talking about a human life, a young woman who committed to go into a car with a police officer. For absolute assurance, for the public interest, for public safety, for our young and future generations, for our daughters and our sons, we owe it to help the public gain confidence in a system that is supposed to be there to protect us. Most importantly, what we see as the ethos of the police officers who put that uniform on has disintegrated.
We must have a statutory inquiry for the soul of Sarah Everard and, indeed, for the sake of humanity. If we do not, this will be a shameful decision that we will always regret having made.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to support this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, as well as those of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who has spoken so eloquently and passionately on this subject. The Government claimed that the inquiry that was established would be quicker as a non-statutory inquiry; from my experience, that is not necessarily the case. The reality is that in phase 2 of this inquiry, if not in phase 1, we need an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is not limited to the activities of one officer but embraces the very important issues of recruitment, vetting, funding and resourcing of anti-corruption activity, and the fact that the IPCC is so underfunded for the anti-corruption work that it has to do.
My inquiry and others before it have pointed out the serious deficiencies in the management and funding of those elements of police responsibility that are dedicated to identifying criminals within police ranks and dealing effectively with them. I reported in June last year. Given my experience of investigating matters involving the MPS, the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service over some six years, I do not believe that a non-statutory inquiry can act as effectively as one armed with the power to compel witnesses and the discovery of documentation. My panel was to report within 12 months of receiving documentation. We received our first documents in January 2015 and our last in March 2021. We reported three months later, saying:
“It is very important that lessons are learned about planning and preparation before the appointment of panels and similar public scrutiny bodies to avoid unnecessary distress to the families of those affected and unnecessary delays and costs to the public purse.”
I am sure that everybody’s thoughts tonight are with the family of Sarah Everard and with all those women who are listening, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said, and who will be affected by the outcome of this inquiry. Earlier, as we sat waiting for this amendment to be called, a number of Members—noble Baronesses—were discussing what it feels like as a sole woman to walk out of your Lordships’ House at this time of night and later, and try to find our way safely to the places that we stay in.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I started off with a set of notes that said, “The Green group fully backs all these amendments”, and that we would have attached one of our names, had there been space. However, that is not really where we are now, is it? This is now a question of procedure. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was clear but extremely restrained in her tone when addressing how we come to be at this point tonight—it is now 11.34 pm. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was very blunt and clear, and we have heard passionately from the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady O’Loan, about how inappropriate this is.
This is the service that your Lordships’ House is providing to Sarah Everard’s family, to women’s and girls’ groups, to the people who have campaigned and worked so hard on this amendment: to be here at 11.34 pm. A vast amount of work has gone into this and it is, at our current point, a travesty of democracy. Oddly enough, your Lordships’ House often manages to be quite democratic, but what we are doing at this moment is no way to run a country.
I have a whole lot more notes along those lines but will not deliver them, given the hour. I am simply going to move to the point of my speech: to move a Motion now that debate on Amendment 102 be adjourned to a subsequent day. I am told that this is unusual but possible.
Now, I can count; I can look around and see what your Lordships’ House looks like. But I believe there is a crucial matter of principle here that has to be asked. We are supposed to be the self-governing House. Noble Lords on the other side of the House have, I hope, listened closely to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I am giving them an opportunity to provide a full, democratic chance for the entire House to make a judgment on this group of amendments, rather than doing it tonight at this hour.
Motion
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
That the House do adjourn the debate on Amendment 102 until another day.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for very effectively introducing the amendments. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady O’Loan, for their powerful contributions, in their different ways. I will have much more to say about the College of Policing code of ethics and the culture in the police service when we debate the amendments on the duty of candour.
I agree with other noble Lords that debating this issue at this time of night is not appropriate. I do not believe there was a conspiracy to make this debate happen late in the evening, but it was open to the Government Chief Whip not to begin this group at this time of night, but to debate it the next day—and I believe he should have done that.
On the substance of the amendment, the last non-statutory inquiry into the police—by the Daniel Morgan independent panel—took, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, more than eight years to complete, because it did not have the powers of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act, and because, as we have heard, it faced obstruction by the police, leaving important questions still unanswered. The Macpherson report—the inquiry into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence—took less than two years, and had a fundamental impact on policing. If the Government do not accept Amendment 102, we must assume that they want an inquiry that drags on for years and does not answer the fundamental questions. It is as simple as that.
For the protection of police officers and members of the public, those arrested should not be placed into a vehicle or taken into premises unless there are at least two officers present. Not only would Amendment 108 reassure women and girls, but it is also basic common sense. Similarly, Amendment 109, requiring the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice in relation to the transportation, as well as the detention, of people by the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, is necessary. What could the Government’s objections possibly be? Perhaps we are about to find out.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken so far in the debate. I shall focus on Amendment 102, which is incredibly important. The speeches by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove, Lady O’Loan and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have all, in their own ways, made important points to the Government.
The question for the Government is whether they will listen and respond to that, or whether they will just say, “This is the decision we have made, and whatever arguments are put to us, we’re not going to change”. This is one of those moments when they do need to respond. They need to change, and to listen to the arguments that have been made right across this Chamber and beyond—and, no doubt, by many of the people who will be listening. The reason I say that is that the statutory inquiry called for in Amendment 102, moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, has at its heart the need for the restoration of public confidence and trust.
There are seismic moments in our country: events that demand a response that goes beyond normal politics, beyond the normal debate between parties—events that demand a response from this country’s Parliament, its representatives both in this Chamber and in the other place, that meets the significance of what has happened. It cannot be that we simply say that we will have a Home Office-led inquiry, and that is okay. How will the public see that? How will individuals see that? How will the people who have responded to the horror, as we all have, of what happened to Sarah Everard, see it? This touched the nation’s conscience, the nation’s inner being. It wants us to respond to that and surely, at the very least, we should say that we will undertake a statutory inquiry, because that is the way the confidence of the public can be restored. It is the way we can ensure that, as we move forward, the public can be reassured that that confidence and trust can be restored in the state, in its broadest sense—not just Parliament but the organs of the state: the justice system, the police, and all those who have responsibility because of what we legislate for here.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made what I thought was the crucial point—the one that an ordinary member of the public, frankly, from whatever part of the country, whatever their occupation, would make. What happens to that inquiry if a witness says, “I am not coming” and that inquiry is obstructed? What happens if the Home Secretary says, “It is a very important document but we cannot release it because it is sensitive”? What would the Government’s Home Office-led review be able to do if a witness refuses to attend, if the release of a document is refused, if the police, for example, refuse to co-operate? Answer from the Government there is none, other than a vague platitude: “We expect that co-operation to happen; we expect that to take place; we expect all the documents to be released.” A statutory inquiry, however, would have no such problem. There could be no obstruction, no documents withheld, because that is the point of a statutory inquiry. In the court of public opinion, let alone any other court, people will say, “Why are they not doing that? What possible reason is there for the Government not to respond in that way?” I do not understand it.
I am a Labour Peer, a Labour politician. That does not mean that I think everything the Conservative Government do is terrible; but sometimes, it does not matter where you are on the political spectrum—you have this sense of incredulity, of disbelief. Why is the system refusing to do the obvious? Why is the system not responding in the way that anybody would expect it to, in the face of the horror of what happened to Sarah Everard? We cannot undo the past, but we can make the future. I think that people would expect nothing less from us, nothing less from this Chamber, than that we say in response to the horror of what happened that the public demand a statutory inquiry that compels co-operation, documents and witnesses. There are all the other arguments that go round and round, all the other arguments that can be made, but that is the nub of it.
I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that this is one of the most fundamentally important amendments we have discussed on this Bill. Of course, there will be women—daughters, young women, girls—who want this, but there will also be a lot of men, if not the vast majority, who will be demanding that statutory inquiry for the women and the girls of this country. We all want it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think the public would expect a statutory inquiry. I expect a statutory inquiry and I believe the vast majority of Peers would as well. The Government may set their face against it, but I hope my noble friend will put it to a vote. We can test the opinion of the House and see where that takes us if the other place is caused to think about it again. The women and girls of this country, as well as the country itself, deserve a statutory inquiry, and we should vote for it tonight.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I share noble Lords’ frustration that at a minute past midnight I am standing up to respond. I do not think anyone could accuse me of filibustering or frustrating any processes today. It was very unfortunate that we did not start this Report stage until nearly 4 pm because Members were discussing procedure. It is very frustrating that we are discussing such an important topic so late at night.
That said, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for raising this incredibly important issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for sharing the experiences of her time as chair of the Daniel Morgan inquiry. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, my noble friend Lady Newlove, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for the opportunity that I have had to discuss this issue with them. It is so important that Sarah’s family and the public understand how a serving police officer was able to commit such a senseless crime so that we can stop it ever happening again and restore confidence in our police forces. I think all noble Lords want that.
On 5 October, the Home Secretary announced her intention to launch a two-part inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Sarah’s murder. The first part of the inquiry will look at Sarah’s murderer and his tenure at the Metropolitan Police leading up to his conviction, as well as assessing any missed opportunities to hold him to account for his conduct. The second part of the inquiry will look at any specific issues raised by the first part, which is likely to include wider issues across policing, including, but not limited to, vetting practices, professional standards and discipline, and workforce behaviour.
This is the opportunity to look at any systemic flaws in vetting or issues around policing culture that were highlighted in the amendment. We expect that the separate inquiry established by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, being led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, into the culture and standards of the force will feed into part two of the Home Office-established inquiry.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about witnesses giving evidence, the police forces for which Sarah’s murderer worked will be witnesses to this inquiry, and we expect them all to comply with it. Since February 2020, when we amended the law, police officers have been under a duty to co-operate as witnesses with investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings under the revised standards of professional behaviour. Failure to do so could amount to misconduct and lead to disciplinary action—something which, during the Daniel Morgan inquiry, was unfortunately not available.
On 22 November, the Home Secretary announced that the chair of the inquiry would be the former Lord Advocate, the right honourable Dame Elish Angiolini QC. Following her appointment, the terms of reference of part 1 of the inquiry have been agreed with her, and they were published on GOV.UK this morning, as noble Lords have said.
The form of part 1 of the inquiry has been discussed with Dame Elish at length, and she agrees that a non-statutory inquiry is the best option to enable her to operate swiftly, allowing greater flexibility to gather evidence relating to Sarah’s killer’s policing career, without formal set-piece hearings. It is imperative for Sarah’s family and the public that we get answers as quickly as possible—I do not think that anyone demurs from that. This will enable Dame Elish to start part 2, looking at policing more broadly, in short order after the conclusion of part 1, which I know the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to achieve.
Also agreed with Dame Elish is that, should she feel that she cannot fulfil the terms of reference operating on a non-statutory basis, and should official advice concur, it can be converted. I am not sure that the Sky News quote entirely reflects the Home Secretary’s words. That point about the conversion is set out in the terms of reference, and it is not only that: I can advise the House that, in coming to a decision on whether to convert the inquiry into a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act, the Home Secretary will be strongly guided by the views of Dame Elish. So, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we are not saying, “No, we have already decided”. We have not. Under the Inquiries Act, the Home Secretary is required to consult the chair on any decision to convert the inquiry, and the chair’s views would be expected to hold considerable weight. I hope I have been able to satisfy noble Lords on that point.
I understand the noble Baroness’s point that confidence in the police among women, particularly younger women, has been rocked by Sarah’s murder and other cases that are coming to light—I share those views. This is analogous to the impact that the failings in relation to Stephen Lawrence’s tragic murder had on black communities. I understand how powerful it was for Sir William Macpherson to hold the Metropolitan Police to account in public over 20 years ago and I agree entirely that women deserve answers and, moreover, assurance that they are safe in the hands of the police.
I do not think, however, that we should be tying the hands of Dame Elish and the Home Secretary on the scope or nature of part 2 before part 1 has even started in earnest. It is important that these considerations can be informed by Dame Elish’s emerging findings from part 1; the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey; and the policing inspectorate’s thematic inspection of vetting and countercorruption. Only then can we ensure that part 2 looks at the critical issues for policing and does so in a way that allows those affected, including victims, to have their voices heard.
I reassure this House that the Home Secretary will consult Dame Elish on the scope of part 2 and the form that it should take to proceed efficiently, effectively and with the confidence of those whose trust in policing has been eroded. Specifically, Dame Elish’s view and official advice will form the basis of whether the Home Secretary will put part 2 on a statutory footing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has prayed in aid the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with the Daniel Morgan inquiry but, since the evidence-gathering phase of that inquiry, we have—as I said earlier—introduced a duty of co-operation on police officers, which means that failure to co-operate with an inquiry or similar could now be a disciplinary matter, with dismissal being the ultimate sanction possible. There are now sanctions that were not available before.
Amendment 108 seeks to address legitimate concerns that individuals, particularly women and girls, may have at the prospect of being arrested or transported in a police vehicle by a lone officer. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight how important it is that police officers use their powers of arrest legitimately and in line with statutory guidance, and to recognise how public confidence in the police has been shaken by the appalling circumstances of Sarah Everard’s murder. I understand the concerns raised by this case, and the Government have been very clear that they intend to take action as a result. However, the law does not take a detailed view on the way officers use their powers, as long as they are doing so lawfully and legitimately. I do not want to see officers’ discretion over the legitimate use of their powers restrained in ways that could lead to individuals escaping justice or evidence being lost, as could be the case if officers were legally prohibited from transporting arrested individuals alone.
As for Amendment 109 and the noble Baroness’s proposed addition to the PACE codes—which she now attributes to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—to cover transportation of arrested persons, I will commit to keep this suggestion under consideration when we next undertake amendments to the code. I am aware that some forces, including the Met, have issued guidance to their officers for situations where they may need to approach a member of the public while operating alone. This is only the beginning of this conversation, and there will be more for all forces to do to ensure that the public, and women and girls in particular, have confidence in the way officers use their powers as they carry out their vital—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, and I am grateful for what she has just said, but I want to go back to a previous point, if I may, because I think we would like an answer to the question I am going to pose at some point in her speech.
During the course of her comments earlier, the Minister said—and I think this was a little bit of movement—that the Home Secretary would be “strongly guided” by the views of Dame Elish Angiolini on whether the second part should be converted to a statutory inquiry. My question, and it is really a legal question for which I apologise, is this: if Dame Elish makes a reasonable request for conversion to a statutory inquiry and unreasonably the Home Secretary refuses that reasonable request, would that refusal then be subject to judicial review, and do the Government recognise that to be the case? I am sure that the question I have posed is a typical barrister’s question, in that I know the answer to it, but it would be nice to hear from the Minister that that answer is recognised because it may make a difference to the attitude of some noble Lords, as to how they view this issue, if it comes to a Division of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In my limited legal knowledge, a judicial review questions the process rather than the decision, so I am sure a judicial review could be sought on the process by which the Home Secretary refused, despite the advice of the inquiry chair. I think it is important to bear in mind that the Home Secretary has chosen Dame Elish because she has confidence in her, and the way in which they work together through this inquiry process will be absolutely crucial, not only to its outcome but to the confidence of both women and the public in general. That is, I think, the answer that I could give at this point. The noble Lord is looking a little bit doubtful.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I apologise for intervening again. I have got my second wind; it is now tomorrow, which is not commendable. It is a simple question: is it recognised by the Government—and it may be that the Minister would have to take advice on this, which I recognise she might get from the noble Lord sitting next to her—that an unreasonable refusal by the Home Secretary would be, potentially at least, judicially reviewable?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is talking in theory. Anything is possible. I cannot say whether, in the circumstances of the Home Secretary’s refusal and Dame Elish’s advice, the outcome would be reasonable or unreasonable, but it is important that we go into this with the Home Secretary very clear that she will be guided by Dame Elish. That is the thing to take away from this.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who stayed, even those who may have stayed under sufferance—I hope they will forgive me and understand how important this issue is to so many people beyond SW1.
Of course I have been in two, three and 15 minds about how to handle this, not least in the light of the previous vote on the adjournment, but I have to go back to the substance. I have to pay due respect to the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady O’Loan. I am not sure, in the light of their testimony, that I could suddenly pretend to be the grand old Duke of York—it is one thing to take your Whip on an adjournment vote. I believe in my heart that there will one day be a full-blown statutory inquiry into the wider issues that have just been highlighted by this horrific case. Noble Lords will have to tell their colleagues, friends and family how they voted when they first had the opportunity to do this. I have seen this time and again in my adult lifetime, with Governments and politicians resisting and resisting, and eventually, maybe years later, the argument for justice and the rule of law becomes irresistible.
On two points that the Minister made by way of reassurance, I am glad that there is now the new ethical duty for police officers to co-operate, but it is a disciplinary matter that would ultimately be in the hands of the police to deal with. If the police officer who does not want to co-operate, as is often the case, decides to retire, the ultimate sanction of dismissal will hardly give comfort. What if they are at the senior-most levels of policing in their non-co-operation? That cannot be equated with the power that statutory inquiries and judges have to compel witnesses or they are committed for contempt.
As for being “strongly guided” and “taking into account”, it is not the Minister’s fault, but there was an opportunity for the Home Secretary to announce that Dame Elish would have the final word on this, and we have not even gone that far. We are “strongly guided”, but we are not going to give this decision to Dame Elish, for whatever reason.
With respect, I do not think that we have gone far enough. I know that I may go down in flames, but I have to speak clearly to people outside this House. I have to do this out of respect for the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady O’Loan. I want people to know that we stood for them, for the rights of women and girls in this country, and indeed for the reputation of the many decent police officers, including those whom we see here every morning and night when we come and go. We owe it to their honour. The right thing to do is to have a statutory inquiry, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.