House of Commons
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 11 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
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
I can confirm that negotiations have begun. Officials from the UK and Mauritius met at the end of last month and had constructive discussions. The UK and Mauritius have reiterated that any agreement will ensure the continued effective operation of the joint UK-US defence facility on Diego Garcia, and we will be meeting again to continue negotiations shortly.
Henry Smith
What consultations are being held with members of the Chagossian community in my constituency and around the UK ahead of any proposed changes to the British Indian Ocean Territory?
James Cleverly
I recognise my hon. Friend’s championing of the Chagossian community in his constituency. He will recognise that there is a diversity of views in the various Chagossian communities in Mauritius, the UK and the Seychelles. We will of course take those views seriously, but the negotiations are between the UK and Mauritius. We will ensure that we continue to engage with those communities through this negotiating process.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Do the UK Government now accept the finding of the International Court of Justice that the process of the decolonisation of Mauritius was not lawfully completed in 1968 and that the UK’s continued administration of the Chagos archipelago constitutes a wrongful act?
James Cleverly
The UK has expressed regret about the manner in which the Chagossians were removed in the late 1960s and the 1970s, but we are working constructively with the Mauritius Government and, as I say, one of the strong principles that underpins the negotiation is the reiteration that the UK and US defence facility on Diego Garcia will continue.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
Ministers and senior officials have raised the UK’s position with regard to LGBT+ football fans and the status of those fans in Qatar. I raise these issues regularly in my direct engagement with the Qatari authorities, and on my recent visit to Qatar it was again restated in the conversation between myself and my opposite number in the Foreign Ministry.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary. Qatar has brought into focus the denial of people’s basic rights over their sexuality and gender. Around 70 countries still criminalise homosexuality, with 10 or more still using the death penalty. We are seeing a regression for LGBT rights in many parts of the world. Last week in Russia, Putin criminalised any act of public mention of same-sex relationships. In parts of eastern Europe, LGBT people are facing aggression, with violence in Bulgaria, new anti-LGBT laws in Hungary and so-called LGBT ideology-free zones continuing to operate in Poland. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that we do not see a pink curtain descend across Europe?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman raises incredibly important points. My position on the importance of promoting and defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people is well known, and that absolutely reflects the British Government’s position. We do not shy away from raising these issues in the conversations we have with those relevant countries where there are issues and where we are seeing a slip backwards, and I can commit to him and the House that we will continue to do so.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
A proportion of the gay and lesbian community in Qatar will statistically also be part of the Christian minority, and Qatar has one of the worst records in the world for persecution of Christians. What is the Foreign Secretary going to do about that?
James Cleverly
Again, the British Government have a long-standing commitment to the protection of freedom of religion or belief, and we report on it regularly. The Prime Minister has in the past appointed a special envoy for this issue. My ministerial friend Lord Ahmad in the other place champions it when he has conversations in the region. The protection of minorities is an issue that is brought up regularly in the conversations that I have in the region.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The UK has led diplomatic efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court. With the US and EU, we established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group. We are working closely with our international partners to ensure that our sanctions are effective, and that those who are responsible for atrocities and breaches of international humanitarian law, at whatever level, are ultimately held accountable for their actions.
Chris Elmore
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer. In her recent visit to Parliament, the first lady of Ukraine highlighted that Russian soldiers had carried out sexual violence, including rape, against Ukrainian women with the consent of their commanders. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, under UN international law the use of rape in combat is a war crime. Will he set out specifically what he will be doing on the diplomatic stage to ensure that when the war is over, or indeed before then, the soldiers who committed those crimes and the officers who authorised those disgusting and heinous rapes are dealt with in the International Criminal Court?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I had the privilege of speaking to the first lady at the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference that we hosted in London recently. I can inform him and the House that this morning we designated 12 more Russian military officers who were in command of Russian troops when atrocities took place. We work closely with the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, the International Criminal Court and our international allies to ensure there is an accountability framework that is effective, from the people on the ground who are perpetrating these crimes directly, to the officers who are ordering them to do that, right up to and including Vladimir Putin himself, who is ultimately responsible for these vile acts, which have taken place because of his invasion of Ukraine.
Andrew Selous
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that prosecutions and sanctions for atrocities in Ukraine should also be extended to those in Russia who perpetrate violence against women and girls, such as the Russian police officer Ivan Ryabov, who tortured courageous Russian women for speaking out against the brutality done in their name but against their will in Ukraine?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are many, many Russians who are deeply opposed to the invasion that Putin initiated against Ukraine. Their bravery is legion. We have sanctioned more than 1,200 Russians and more than 120 entities as a direct result of Putin’s invasion. I will make note of the name he raised. He and I have discussed this previously, and he will understand that we do not comment on specific designations that might have been brought about.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Labour has been calling for a special tribunal to prosecute Putin personally since March. This is a necessary part of securing justice for the victims of Putin’s war crime, and would add to the legal basis for confiscating frozen Russian assets. The EU has already set out a plan to shift frozen assets into a fund to help rebuild Ukraine, and Canada has already passed laws to do that. Why are the Government not doing the same?
James Cleverly
The Government and I have committed to exploring ways of ensuring that those individuals who supported Vladimir Putin—the kleptocrats and oligarchs who have helped to fund this aggression against Ukraine—are not just sanctioned; ultimately, we will look at legally robust mechanisms to seize assets as part of the reparations, rebuilding and reconstruction phase. Of course, we work closely with the Canadian authorities. Canada has a similar legal system to ours, for obvious reasons, and we will explore what it has done to see what we can learn to ensure that whatever vehicle we put in place has the desired effect and is robust.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
Fixing the Northern Ireland protocol is a top priority for this Government. Since September I have been in regular contact with Vice-President Šefčovič. We last spoke on 1 December and I will be seeing him for further talks this week. My officials have also been working with our counterparts in the EU on a regular basis to try to resolve the issues, which we recognise—and we are impressing this upon them—are causing serious, genuine and damaging friction in relationships between the various communities in Northern Ireland.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. It was reported recently that the Prime Minister has assured President Biden that an agreement will be reached with the EU in time for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. We also read that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is on ice while the negotiations continue. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that if an agreement with the EU is reached—and we all hope that will happen—the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill will be dropped?
James Cleverly
The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill exists for a reason. The commitment that I made to Maroš Šefčovič in the conversations that I had with him and others was that we would not either artificially accelerate that process or artificially hinder or retard it. We have always said that our preferred option is through negotiations. We speak regularly, the tone is positive, and I think that there is now an understanding that the concerns that we have raised, and that have been raised particularly by the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, are not confected but real, and that any agreement would need to address them.
Ian Paisley
Is it not the case that there has not been one hour of actual negotiations, because the EU has not extended its mandate to allow for any changes whatsoever in the operation of the current protocol? That being the case, does the Foreign Secretary not believe that the EU will smell weakness in this Government if they take their foot off the pedal with the protocol Bill in the other place? I encourage him to press on with the Bill.
James Cleverly
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK negotiating team are very conscious of the frustrations, particularly in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. But we have also made the point to our interlocutors in the EU that, across communities in Northern Ireland, there is a recognition that the protocol is not working, that it needs to be addressed, and that the relationships between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK—of which Northern Ireland is a part—all have to function properly. That is the underpinning of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and that is what we seek to achieve through our negotiations.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
One needs only to visit the port at Belfast and see the potential for new facilities there to realise the interruption there could be to the vital east-west trade routes that Northern Ireland relies on. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that the Government are clear that we do not take anything off the table in getting to an agreement? Even though we want an agreement, we still need all the options to be on the table, to ensure that we get what we need for the United Kingdom.
James Cleverly
The United Kingdom’s position has been consistent. We recognise that the way the protocol is working is undermining community cohesion in Northern Ireland and disrupting business flows, particularly east-west between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. These issues have to be addressed. That is, I think, something that the EU negotiating team understand, and we will continue negotiating in good faith. However, as I say, the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill exists for a reason, and we want to ensure that we get a good working resolution that is sustainable for all the communities in Northern Ireland.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
For 18 months we have been at an impasse on the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead of negotiations, we have had cheap rhetoric and threats to break agreements. With a UK Government showing determination and diplomatic skill, and an EU willing to be flexible, these problems would be easily resolvable. Is the real problem that the Prime Minister is in the pocket of the European Research Group, too weak to stand up to his Back Benchers, and putting his party before Northern Ireland?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. We have had very well-tempered negotiations between the UK and EU negotiators. He will find in our public reporting of those negotiations that there has been a high degree of mutual respect. He says that there is an easy resolution. If he believes that, all I would say is that we are waiting to hear it. If it were easy, it would have been done already.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I say to the Foreign Secretary that if politics goes wrong for him, he has a great career in stand-up ahead of him.
This discussion is not happening in a vacuum. The Foreign Secretary will be aware of a poll in The Irish Times yesterday that showed that 54% of the people of Northern Ireland are in favour of EU membership. I want to see a negotiated outcome over the protocol; we all do. There are things with the protocol that need to be addressed, and we all agree on that, but the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is not the way to do that. Surely he must recognise that it is the biggest block to progress in these talks, and that now is the time to scrap it.
James Cleverly
I am the one who has been in the conversations with the EU. I know that it does not particularly like the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, but, nevertheless, the conversations that I have had with my direct interlocuters and that our officials have been having with their opposite numbers in the EU system have been progressing. As I have said, there are still a number of serious issues that need to be resolved, but we are working in good faith. The Bill exists for a reason and it is important that it is there.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman highlighting the fact that there is pretty much universal agreement now that the protocol needs to be changed, because that is what is driving an increased degree of community tension and disruption in Northern Ireland.
While I am on my feet, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman resuming his place.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We want to see a Commonwealth that delivers greater benefits to all member states across a range of policy priorities, including climate, human rights, health, education and security. We are building long-term partnerships on shared priorities, such as on trade, where we have secured free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand and are presently negotiating further FTAs with Canada and India.
Alexander Stafford
The Commonwealth is a family of nations that shares the UK’s great values, culture, history and language, and I passionately believe that it is a force for good in an ever more uncertain world, and acts as a bulwark against intolerance and authoritarianism. In the wake of our departure from the EU, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to deepen our engagement with Commonwealth on matters to do with the economy, foreign policy, culture and security, because they truly are our brothers?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
In an increasingly uncertain world, where sovereignty is challenged, the UK believes that the Commonwealth provides an important network of prospering free nations of brothers and sisters. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in June, we agreed funding of £270 million to support girls’ education across the Commonwealth and £15 million to help the Commonwealth countries defend themselves against cyber-attacks, and we are supporting small states through our international climate fund.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One way the Minister could help to support the Commonwealth is to support the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee in Montserrat who has been trying to investigate spending under the Deputy Governor’s Department, but has been told that, constitutionally, that is not allowed, even though a significant amount of taxpayers’ money in Montserrat goes into that budget. Perhaps we could have a conversation about that so that we can support proper financial scrutiny of Government spending wherever it happens in the Commonwealth.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As a former member of the hon. Lady’s Public Accounts Committee, I would be very happy to take that up. I know that Lord Ahmad in the other place would be willing to sit down with her.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
One way that we strengthen relations with the Commonwealth is through the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which the Government work with in the UK. You, Mr Speaker, are an extremely supportive co-president and I am proud to be chair. The status of the CPA headquarters as a UK charity is creating significant problems, as the Minister knows from conversations with my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). The noble Lord Goldsmith has met me to hear the importance of changing the status of the CPA, so that our headquarters can remain in the UK, but we need to move quickly to a resolution. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and Lord Goldsmith to effect that change?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am happy to commit to that. I know that the Foreign Secretary and you, Mr Speaker, have also discussed this important issue, and I will make sure it is picked up as soon as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Commonwealth is an incredibly influential body across the whole world and we recognise the good work it does, but we must also recognise the issue of human rights abuses and the persecution of Christians and other ethnic minorities in Commonwealth countries. What discussions has the Minister been able to have with those Commonwealth countries that do not allow freedom of religion or belief and that do persecute people about human rights?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman is a stalwart champion on this matter. I can assure him that in all our conversations with the Commonwealth countries within my regional portfolios and those of other Ministers, we always have on our agenda the question of human rights issues. We are a strong and critical friend where we need to be, and that will always continue.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
In the Commonwealth we have a unique vehicle with which to engage on the global stage. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments in his speech yesterday, but while Foreign Office budgets are under continual strain and the Department is beset by strategic incoherence, does he accept that under the current approach, his vision is simply unachievable?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the Foreign Secretary’s speech yesterday, which I thought set out very clearly the patient diplomacy that we consider the Commonwealth to be at the heart of. These are long-standing relationships, where we work together to build, to help economies to grow and on mutual security issues. I was out in the Pacific recently, where six of our Commonwealth family are. Working together on maritime security, on climate and on helping them to support their populations for the future is at the heart of what we do.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
Saudi Arabia remains an FCDO human rights priority country, particularly because of the use of the death penalty and restrictions on freedom of expression. We strongly oppose the death penalty in all countries and circumstances. We regularly raise our concerns with the Saudi authorities and will continue to do so. The Minister for the Middle East raised the death penalty and freedom of expression with the Saudi ambassador on 24 November.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that recently it feels as if the Government are frightened of saying boo to Saudi Arabia on human rights abuses. The Minister himself, only a few days ago, said that Hussein Abo al-Kheir had been abhorrently tortured by Saudi authorities. He withdrew the remark; as I understand it, the Saudi authorities asked the Foreign Office to withdraw that remark. The truth is that Hussein Abo al-Kheir has been tortured and he has been on death row since 2015. The Saudi Government executed 81 people on one day earlier this year and are intending to execute a large number more later this year. They have already reneged on all of their promises on ending the death penalty for non-violent crimes. Will the Minister please go back to Saudi Arabia and make it clear that this country abhors torture and the death penalty?
David Rutley
I corrected my answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to clarify that those were allegations of torture, as I underline again today. That is consistent with the line I used in my opening remarks on this issue in the urgent question on 28 November. I also contacted the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that he was aware of the correction. Notwithstanding that, of course it is vital that we continue to raise these issues, as Lord Ahmad has done and will continue to do.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am sure the Minister would agree that, in moving away from any possible reliance on Russian energy supplies, the UK should not simply choose further dependency on a different authoritarian regime. It has been reported that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), when he was Business Secretary, held undisclosed meetings with Saudi Arabian firms. Will the Minister tell us what was discussed—and if he cannot, why can he not?
David Rutley
I do not recognise those conversations that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but clearly the important thing is that we have access to the energy we need with allies that we trust and, over time, build our own energy security as well.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
These protests in Iran are a watershed moment. After years of repression, the Iranian people have clearly had enough. They are standing up to the authoritarian regime under which they live. Sadly, the regime has responded in the only way it knows: with violence. The UK is committed to holding Iran to account, including with more than 300 sanctions—including the sanctioning of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. We will continue to work with partners to challenge the regime’s aggression at home and its disruptive behaviour in the region.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Iranians are being hanged from cranes with black bags over their heads and their hands and feet bound while Iranian weapons are being used to perpetrate Putin’s illegal war murdering Ukrainians. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning those human rights violations and tell me exactly what sanctions he will bring forward against Raisi’s abhorrent regime?
James Cleverly
I personally and the UK Government have regularly condemned the abuses in Iran. Of course, I recognise that that tone is reflected right across the House. We have sanctioned the morality police; we have sanctioned the Iranian judges whom we know to be involved in those secret trials. We will continue to work with our international partners, and directly, to sanction the members of the Iranian regime who continue to abuse the human rights of the people within that country.
John Spellar
The Minister has rightly identified that the clerical fascist regime in Tehran is increasingly using violence and terror in trying to crush the popular protests there, while also destabilising the region through proxies, as well as further afield. He knows that a vital underpinning of this dreadful regime’s activities is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He mentioned working with other parties; he knows that the United States has already taken action to proscribe the IRGC. Will that finally persuade him to sanction to the IRGC?
James Cleverly
We already sanction the IRGC in its entirety. We will continue to work closely with our friends in the international community to prevent the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises: the exporting of attack drones and other munitions to Russia, which are then being used by Vladimir Putin’s troops to attack civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. We will continue to sanction individuals, and as I say, the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Metropolitan police have warned about threats described as an “imminent, credible risk” to life against British-Iranian journalists in the United Kingdom. The Iranian regime has also threatened BBC Persian journalists. I ask the Foreign Secretary again to set out what further targeted sanctions the Government will be taking against the whole Iranian regime and, more importantly, to ensure that the Government act against any threats to individuals in the United Kingdom.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is counterproductive to detail what future sanctions designations might be brought in—we want to ensure that the targets of those sanctions do not in any way try to evade the sanctions before they are brought in. The UK remains absolutely determined to ensure that Iran does not intimidate people within this country. We will always stand up to aggression from foreign nations. We will absolutely not tolerate threats, particularly towards journalists who are highlighting what is going on in Iran, or indeed towards any other individual living in the UK. On 11 November, I summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires to highlight the UK’s position on this; and, working with our colleagues in the Home Office, we ensured that the Iranian journalists who were under threat according to our information were protected by the British police.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The long-standing position of the UK Government is that genocide recognition is a matter for competent courts, rather than Governments or non-judicial bodies. Our position in no way detracts from our recognition that the Holodomor is an appalling tragedy and an important part of the history of Ukraine and Europe. Similarly, although the massacres committed against Armenian people in the early 20th century were a tragic episode in that country’s history that should never be forgotten, the Government have no plans to recognise these appalling events as genocide.
Dr Huq
November’s Holodomor Memorial Day to remember Stalin’s enforced starvation of millions of Ukrainians with the intended purpose of wiping out their entire culture and society particularly resonated in this 90th year, given what Putin is doing at the moment in that country. Every March, the Armenian diaspora solemnly commemorates the systematic extermination of more than 1 million of their forebears over an eight-year period, and there is also trouble in that region now in Nagorno-Karabakh. Our closest ally, the US, recognises both of these as genocide. Given the painful reverberations today, why can’t we?
David Rutley
As I have said, our consistent view across successive Governments—not just this one—is that the recognition of genocide is a matter for judicial bodies, not Governments. However, we take allegations seriously, and we work hard to end violations of international human rights law, to prevent escalations of such violations and to alleviate the suffering of those affected.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Officials have assessed the merits of establishing an FCDO centre of expertise to support democratic governance around the world; and, funding permitting, we fully intend to establish one to address the democratic deficit that the world is facing.
Richard Graham
I am encouraged to hear that, because as Ministers know, democracy is in decline globally—not everywhere, but in aggregate—and therefore, drawing on 30 years of experience, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s proposal is to help the FCDO build a democracy strategy, which includes this centre of expertise designed to help our embassies and high commissioners abroad. Will my right hon. Friend therefore agree to meet with the WFD as soon as possible to discuss how best we can take these proposals forward?
Mr Mitchell
I certainly will, and I congratulate the Westminster Foundation for Democracy on its 30 years. Across the House, Members have advanced democracy and accountability and, despite huge pressures on our budget, there will be no reductions in the Westminster Foundation’s budget this year. May I finally commend the tremendous work being done on LGBT+ rights around the world, specifically in 20 countries?
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that NATO has set up a centre for democratic resilience? Will he make sure that the Government do not undermine that work or duplicate it?
Mr Mitchell
Yes. That is a very good point, and we will enhance and emphasise the work in a perfectly seamless, joined-up approach.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
As a friend of Israel, we have a regular dialogue on human rights and all matters relating to the occupation. That includes encouraging the Government of Israel to abide by their obligations under international law. We are concerned by instability on the west bank and call on all sides to work together to urgently de-escalate the situation.
Tommy Sheppard
In the past year, we have had three compelling reports, produced by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli organisation B’Tselem. All of them accuse the Israeli authorities of committing the crime of apartheid. We have had plans published recently to effectively annex the west bank into Israel, and we now have the appointment of violently racist Ministers into the Israeli Government. Is it not time to step up the diplomatic pressure on Israel to ensure that it abides by international law and upholds the rights of Palestinians?
David Rutley
First, we do not recognise the terminology about apartheid. Any judgment on serious crimes under international law is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. We do work closely with the Israeli Government. We condemn any incidents of violence by settlers against the Palestinians.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The significant debt vulnerabilities in many sub-Saharan African countries create risks for their growth, development and stability.
Kate Osamor
I thank the Minister for his reply. We have seen crippling crises affect various parts of Africa this year, from drought in the horn of Africa to floods in Nigeria. The debt burden of many low and middle income countries impacts the state’s capacity to cope, and the crisis only worsens the economic outlook further. As the charity Debt Justice has proposed, will the Government commit to supporting a universal framework for debt cancellation when an extreme climate event strikes, to prevent that double whammy?
Mr Mitchell
We look at every way of helping to address the problem that the hon. Lady sets out. We are providing bilateral technical assistance to help many countries better manage their public funding, and we are working with partners in the Paris Club and the G20 on how to address international debt issues together. We have already seen the progress that results from that in Ghana, where I am going today, and in Malawi.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that Chinese sovereign debt is perhaps understated in countries such as Zambia, where banks lend directly to the Government but are effectively controlled by the ministry of finance in China? Will he do more to understand the totality of the debt and the indebtedness of specific countries to the Chinese Government?
Mr Mitchell
Yes. My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and we need to show through what we do that there is a much better alternative. In 2020, we provided debt relief on repayments to the International Monetary Fund for 23 countries and contributed £150 million to the IMF catastrophe containment and relief trust. It is by doing such things that we show that there is a better way than the one the Chinese are using.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The IMF says that three out of five of the world’s poorest countries are now in debt distress. The last Labour Government cancelled billions of pounds of multilateral debt. Any solution now depends on China, which receives 66% of all bilateral payments, and private creditors such as BlackRock. The future of millions of the world’s poorest depends on halting debt defaults, so what steps will the Government now take to engage seriously with China and bring forward the incentives, regulation and education needed to force private creditors to the table?
Mr Mitchell
The shadow Minister makes a good point. I think she is referring specifically to vulture funds, which we will certainly address. I want to make it clear to the House that we are working very closely with the international financial community. We understand absolutely the risks of instability that the situation creates, and the hon. Lady will have seen the work on stabilisation that has been done by both the Africa Development Bank and the World Bank.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We are supporting Ukraine on air defence to help to protect its critical national infrastructure against Russian attacks, and providing support to repair and restore energy infrastructure. We have provided £22 million to Ukraine’s energy sector and a $50 million financial guarantee to their electricity operator.
Robin Millar
Fully 40% of energy infrastructure in Ukraine has been damaged or destroyed since Putin’s illegal invasion. After one strike in October, 1.5 million households were without electricity, and a winter of freezing days and dark nights lies ahead for many in Ukraine. I welcome the aid that my right hon. Friend mentions, and the £10 million that has been donated to the Ukraine energy support fund, but does she back the Business Secretary’s calls to UK business to help the UK Government and make donations of emergency energy equipment to Ukraine?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend is right that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for International Trade are mobilising UK industry. The DIT held an event in Manchester yesterday with UK supply chain companies to encourage them to find ways to supply Ukraine with energy equipment and services. High-voltage transformers and more generators—the UK has already provided 850—will continue to be needed through the winter.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The UK has already resettled more than 6,300 people through various resettlement schemes. In the first phase of the Afghan resettlement scheme pathway 3, we will offer up to 1,500 places. We have received 11,400 expressions of interest and we are working through those quickly. We have disbursed £228 million since April 2022, on top of £286 million in aid for Afghanistan last financial year.
Caroline Lucas
The Foreign Secretary says that he is working quickly, yet we know that zero Afghans have been resettled under the ACRS. No wonder yesterday the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), admitted that we must do better when confronted with the staggering delay. I am in touch with Chevening alumni, for example, who have been living in fear of their lives for more than 16 months now. By the Government’s own admission, pathway 3 in its first year will help only 400 applicants and their families—a tiny number—out of more than 11,000. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Home Office urgently supercharge the scheme, increase the number of people working on it in the Department and, crucially, allow the 20,000 people Ministers say they want to help over five years to come now? They cannot wait for another four or five years; they are in fear of their lives now.
James Cleverly
I have to correct the hon. Lady. She says that we have not made any resettlements under the ACRS. As I said in my answer, we have granted indefinite leave to remain to 6,300 eligible people. I think that she was making specific reference to pathway 3, which we are working on, but the House ought to recognise that we have already given indefinite leave to remain to more than 6,000 eligible people.
Sam Tarry
Last year my team and I heard countless harrowing, brutal stories of people and their families being murdered in Afghanistan, often while on the phone to my casework team. My team are still shocked and triggered by that awful experience; by the pictures they saw and the voicemails they heard. The FCDO really has to do a lot more to make sure that more people in Afghanistan do not die at the hands of the Taliban. I do not know whether I am going to correct my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but my understanding is that only four Afghans have been resettled under the ACRS. Many of my constituents have lost loved ones, so I want to know just two things from the Foreign Secretary: what support is being offered to Afghan refugees currently stuck in Pakistan, and what will he be doing to speak to Home Office colleagues and ensure that this absolute mess of resettling people is sorted out promptly?
James Cleverly
Yet again, I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. He said that only four people had been settled under the ACRS. I say again, for the third time, that around 6,300 eligible people have been granted indefinite leave to remain under the referral pathways of the ACRS. We will of course continue to work both across HMG and with our international partners to resettle at-risk Afghans, and will particularly look at the individuals who have been supportive of the UK, and those particularly at risk because they are women, academics or members of the judiciary.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
Since being appointed, this ministerial team and I have criss-crossed the globe on behalf of the British people, including making visits to Somalia, Australia and Colombia. The Minister for Europe has visited more than half a dozen European capitals, I have been to multilateral events such as NATO, the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting and COP27 in Egypt. We do so to strengthen our bilateral and multilateral relationships so that we can address pressing issues such as illicit migration, climate change and the pressures being felt around the globe as a result of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but I am disappointed that he failed to mention the news this weekend that more than 11,000 children have been killed or maimed in the war in Yemen. As he knows, the truce has collapsed, escalation is feared and the humanitarian situation is desperate. In the past he has defended UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia on the basis of the UK’s strict arms export licensing criteria. Since the Government watered down those criteria—
James Cleverly
I can inform the hon. Lady that I had a meeting with my Yemeni counterpart at COP27 in Egypt. I know that the plight of the Yemeni people is close to the hearts of many Members of the House. It remains a focus of the UK Government. We call on all sides involved in the conflict, especially the Houthis, to abide by the ceasefire agreement, but of course Saudi Arabia has, as all countries have, a legitimate right to self-defence.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
My hon. Friend has a long track record of pursuing these important matters. We are raising this matter with the Government of Pakistan, and we will make sure he hears the outcome of those representations in due course.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week, the courageous Dunn family finally secured some justice for Harry, but the disrespect that they received from Ministers at the FCDO was a disgrace. Given the latest allegations that a bullying Tory Minister caused delays to Afghan evacuations, does the Foreign Secretary accept the need for an independent review of whether there has been a toxic culture at the FCDO that is undermining Britain on the global stage?
James Cleverly
I completely reject the points the right hon. Gentleman has made. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the former Foreign Secretary, for the work that he did pursuing justice for the Dunn family, and I think it is completely inappropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest anything otherwise.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We have summoned senior Iranian diplomats to make clear the UK’s position on the brutality they are meting out on their own people, we have sanctioned judges involved in the secret courts that have imposed the death sentence on Iranian protesters, and we will continue to push the Iranian regime to do better.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
James Cleverly
I think it is incredibly important when we discuss issues as serious as this that everybody is cautious and thoughtful in their language. I had seen those comments, which were inappropriate.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend, who speaks with great passion and authority on this issue, knows that it is a long-standing Government policy that we do not speculate on future proscriptions. He will know that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and we have brought specific actions against individuals who we know to be involved either with arms distributions or violations of international humanitarian law.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Mr Mitchell
All British aid must be spent in accordance with the OECD Development Assistance Committee rules governing its spending. The hon. Member is talking about the expenditure on the first year of a refugee’s time in the United Kingdom, and that is absolutely legitimate expenditure under the official development assistance rules.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Last week, G7 nations imposed a cap on the price of Russian oil exports in an attempt to limit the revenue fuelling Putin’s war in Ukraine. As G7 nations have already largely ceased purchasing oil from Russia, can my right hon. Friend explain to the House how this measure will be effective?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We are working alongside the G7 to end that reliance on Russian energy and with the international community to open up alternative sources of energy, ensuring market stability. We introduced an oil price cap designed to enable countries to access the oil they need at affordable prices while undermining Russia’s ability to profit from inflated prices.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
James Cleverly
I met the President and Foreign Minister of the newly installed Iraqi Government when I was in Egypt, and we of course have a very good working relationship with both Irbil and Baghdad. It is in the interests of all Iraqis that the relationship between Irbil and Baghdad is fruitful and we will continue to invest diplomatic effort to ensure that continues.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
We have heard how Putin’s henchmen in the Wagner Group are implicated in many barbaric war crimes in Ukraine, including a brutal assassination of a defector, and how they are sending Russian prisoners to their deaths as cannon fodder, and a massacre in Mali. Do we let this evil continue or should the UK proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend rightly speaks with great passion about this as there has been terrible behaviour by members of the Wagner Group. She has been in my position so will recognise that we do not speculate on future proscription, but the actions of the Wagner Group are being watched by this Government and other Governments around the world.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
James Cleverly
Understandably, the process by which sanctions are applied needs to be done discreetly. I am not able to discuss in detail how sanctions are processed, but I will ensure we get details to the hon. Gentleman on this issue.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
In the south-east corner of Europe, Azerbaijan is again waging a human rights abuse against the people of Armenia. Today it has cut off the Lachin corridor, cutting off the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia, on top of the continued detention of prisoners of war, their torture, and lobbing shells into Armenian sovereign territory. Will the Foreign Secretary haul in the Azerbaijan ambassador, read him the riot act and take a delegation of the all-party group on Armenia—I declare an interest as its chair—to put a stop to this continued attempt at genocide and ethnic cleansing?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in this issue. I spoke with the Azerbaijan ambassador yesterday on a range of issues, and I will reiterate a point I have always called for: de-escalation in that area.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to raise this matter, which is of immense concern, and we will be raising all the issues she has set out through our high commissioner in Abuja.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The management of the official development assistance budget has been chaotic, leading to a freeze in so called non-essential spending. Can the Minister tell us what the impacts have been and will he publish any impact assessment that has been done?
Mr Mitchell
The first thing to say is that the pause has now been lifted. I know there is some concern in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency about the R&D spend, and I am very pleased to tell him that, despite the extremely difficult circumstances of the ODA budget, we do not expect there to be a reduction in that level of spend.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The backlog of academic technology approval scheme certifications means that many research projects at Durham University are being delayed. What actions are being taken to ensure that any cases my office raises with the Department are investigated and responded to immediately?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We have received more than 49,000 ATAS applications, of which only 824 remain beyond the target processing time. I am happy to pick up with the hon. Lady any specific cases that she wishes me to look at.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
What is the Foreign Office going to do about the significant delays in the academic technology approval scheme, which is preventing professors at Edinburgh University and Heriot-Watt University from getting the top PhD candidates?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
ATAS continues to be an essential tool to prevent sensitive UK technologies from reaching military programmes of concern, so we are proud of the work done by our incredible team to monitor and manage every single case. I am happy to sit down with the hon. and learned Lady if there are specific cases that she wishes me to look at.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Yesterday, I learned that I was to be sanctioned by the Iranian regime for my support for human rights and freedom in Iran. I assure the House that that support will continue unabated. What support are the Government giving to the BBC Persian service?
James Cleverly
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wear that sanction designation as a badge of honour, because the point that he has made in standing up for the voice of the Iranian people who are being oppressed by their own regime is an important one. We take the protection of people here in the UK, whether British nationals or Iranians, incredibly seriously, and I will work with the Home Office to ensure that that protection is meaningful and strong.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
We know about the draconian restrictions faced by women and girls in Afghanistan. The new all-party parliamentary group for Afghan women and girls, which I co-chair, has written to the Foreign Secretary and looks forward to his response. Will he commit that in any conversations or negotiations that he has with the Taliban, the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan will be prioritised?
James Cleverly
The protection of women and girls remains an absolute foundation stone of Britain’s foreign policy. We look upon the images we see coming out of Afghanistan, with humiliation and abuse meted out against Afghan women, and take our response incredibly seriously. I assure her that that will always be a firm point when we raise things with the Afghanistan Government.
Illegal Immigration
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Before I start, I know that the whole House will want to join me in expressing our sympathies to the families of those who lost their children in Solihull.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on illegal migration. I hope that the whole House will agree that there is a complex moral dimension to illegal migration. The balancing of our duty to support people in dire need with the responsibility to have genuine control over our borders understandably provokes strong feelings. So it is my view that the basis for any solution should be not just what works but what is right.
The simplest moral framing for this issue, and one that I believe Members on both sides of the House believe in, is fairness. It is unfair that people come here illegally. It is unfair on those with a genuine case for asylum when our capacity to help is taken up by people coming through—and from—countries that are perfectly safe. It is unfair on those who migrate here legally when others come here by cheating the system. Above all, it is unfair on the British people who play by the rules when others come here illegally and benefit from breaking those rules. So people are right to be angry, because they see what I see, which is that this simply is not fair.
It is not cruel or unkind to want to break the stranglehold of criminal gangs who trade in human misery and who exploit our system and laws. Enough is enough. As currently constructed, the global asylum framework has become obsolete. Today, there are 100 million people displaced globally. Hostile states are using migration as a weapon on the very borders of Europe. As the world becomes more unstable, and the effects of climate change make more places uninhabitable, the numbers displaced will only grow.
We have a proud history of providing sanctuary to those most in need. Britain helped craft the 1951 refugee convention to protect those fleeing persecution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) passed the world’s first Modern Slavery Act in 2015. In the last year, we have opened our hearts and our homes to people from Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Thousands of families will be setting extra places around the Christmas table this year. No one—no one—can doubt our generosity of spirit.
But today, far too many of the beneficiaries of that generosity are not those directly fleeing war zones or at risk of persecution, but people crossing the channel in small boats. Many originate from fundamentally safe countries. All travel through safe countries. Their journeys are not ad hoc, but co-ordinated by ruthless, organised criminals. And every single journey risks the lives of women, children and—we should be honest—mostly men at sea.
This is not what previous generations intended when they drafted our humanitarian laws, nor is it the purpose of the numerous international treaties to which the UK is a signatory. Unless we act now and decisively, this will only get worse. Already in just seven weeks since I became Prime Minister, we have delivered the largest ever small boats deal with France, with significantly more boots on the ground patrolling their beaches. For the first time, UK and French officers are embedded in respective operations in Dover and northern France. We have re-established the Calais group of northern European nations to disrupt traffickers all along the migration route. Last week, the group set a long-term ambition for a UK-EU-wide agreement on migration. Of course, that is not a panacea and we need to go much further. Over the last month, the Home Secretary and I have studied every aspect of this issue in detail, and we can now set out five new steps today.
First, our policing of the channel has been too fragmented, with different people doing different things being pulled in different directions. So we will establish a new, permanent, unified small boats operational command. This will bring together our military, our civilian capabilities and the National Crime Agency. It will co-ordinate our intelligence, interception, processing and enforcement, and use all available technology, including drones for reconnaissance and surveillance, to pick people up and identify and then prosecute more gang-led boat pilots. We are adding more than 700 new staff and also doubling the funding given to the NCA for tackling organised immigration crime in Europe.
Secondly, those extra resources will free up immigration officers to go back to enforcement, which will, in turn, allow us to increase raids on illegal working by 50%. And it is frankly absurd that today illegal migrants can get bank accounts which help them live and work here. So we will re-start data sharing to stop that.
Thirdly, it is unfair and appalling that we are spending £5.5 million every day on using hotels to house asylum seekers. We must end this. We will shortly bring forward a range of alternative sites, such as disused holiday parks, former student halls and surplus military sites. We have already identified locations that could accommodate 10,000 people, and are in active discussions to secure these and more. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Someone has flashed a camera. It is quite serious to take photographs in the Chamber. If the Member knew they had taken a photograph, I would expect them to leave the Chamber. It is totally unacceptable to disrupt the Prime Minister when he is speaking.
Mr Speaker
I hope the photograph is deleted. Go out and have a chat with the Serjeant at Arms, because it did not look that way to me.
The Prime Minister
These sites will accommodate 10,000 people, and we are in active discussions to secure them and many more. Our aim is to add thousands of places through this type of accommodation in the coming months, at half the cost of hotels. At the same time, as we consulted on over the summer, the cheapest and fairest way to solve this problem is for all local authorities to take their fair share of asylum seekers in the private rental sector, and we will work to achieve this as quickly as possible.
Fourthly, we need to process claims in days or weeks, not months or years, so we will double the number of asylum caseworkers. We are radically re-engineering the end-to-end process, with shorter guidance, fewer interviews and less paperwork, and we are introducing specialist caseworkers by nationality. We will also remove the gold-plating in our modern slavery system, including by reducing the cooling-off period from 45 days to 30 days, the legal minimum set out in the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. As a result of all these changes, we will triple the productivity of our caseworkers and we expect to abolish the backlog of initial asylum decisions by the end of next year.
Fifthly, and most significantly, a third of all those arriving in small boats this year, almost 13,000 people, are Albanian, yet Albania is a safe, prosperous European country. It is deemed safe for returns by Germany, France, Italy and Sweden. It is an EU accession country, a NATO ally and a member of the same convention against trafficking as the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister of Albania has himself said there is no reason why we cannot return Albanian asylum seekers immediately. Last year, Germany, France, Belgium and Sweden all rejected almost 100% of Albanian asylum claims, yet our rejection rate is just 45%. That must not continue, so today I can announce a new agreement with Albania and a new approach.
First, we will embed Border Force officers in Tirana airport for the first time ever, helping to disrupt organised crime and stop people coming here illegally. Secondly, we will issue new guidance for our caseworkers to make it crystal clear that Albania is a safe country. Thirdly, one of the reasons why we struggle to remove people is that they unfairly exploit our modern slavery system, so we will significantly raise the threshold someone must meet to be considered a modern slave. For the first time, we will require a caseworker to have objective evidence of modern slavery, rather than just a suspicion. Fourthly, we have sought and received formal assurances from Albania confirming that it will protect genuine victims and people at risk of re-trafficking, allowing us to detain and return people to Albania with confidence and in line with ECAT. As a result of these changes, the vast majority of claims from Albania can simply be declared clearly unfounded, and those individuals can be swiftly returned. Lastly, we will change how we process Albanian illegal migrants with a new dedicated unit, staffed by 400 new specialists, expediting cases within weeks. Over the coming months, thousands of Albanians will be returned home, and we will keep going with weekly flights until all the Albanians in our backlog have been removed.
In addition to all these new steps, let the House be in no doubt that, when legal proceedings conclude on our migration and economic development partnership, we will restart the first flights to Rwanda, so that those who are here illegally and cannot be returned to their home country can build a new life there.
However, even with the huge progress that we will make with the changes I have announced today, there remains a fundamental question: how do we solve this problem once and for all? It is not just our asylum system that needs fundamental reform; our laws need reform too. We must be able to control our borders to ensure that the only people who come here come through safe and legal routes. However well intended, our legal frameworks are being manipulated by people who exploit our courts to frustrate their removal for months or years on end.
I said, “Enough is enough”, and I meant it. That means that I am prepared to do what must be done, so early next year we will introduce new legislation to make it unambiguously clear that, if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here. Instead, you will be detained and swiftly returned either to your home country or to a safe country where your asylum claim will be considered. You will no longer be able to frustrate removal attempts with late or spurious claims or appeals, and once removed, you should have no right to re-entry, settlement or citizenship.
Furthermore, if our reforms on Albania are challenged in the courts, we will also put them on a statutory footing to ensure that the UK’s treatment of Albanian arrivals is no different from that of Germany or France. The only way to come to the UK for asylum will be through safe and legal routes and, as we get a grip on illegal migration, we will create more of those routes. We will work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those who are most in need so that the UK remains a safe haven for the most vulnerable. We will also introduce an annual quota on numbers, set by Parliament in consultation with local authorities to determine our capacity, and amendable in the face of humanitarian emergencies.
That is the fair way to address this global challenge. Tackling this problem will not be quick; it will not be easy; but it is the right thing to do. We cannot persist with a system that was designed for a different era. We have to stop the boats, and this Government will do what must be done. We will be tough but fair, and where we lead, others will follow. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also echo his comments about the tragic loss of life in Solihull, which is unimaginably unbearable for the families, the friends, and the whole community.
Channel crossings are a serious problem requiring serious solutions. We need leadership at home and abroad, we need a Home Office that functions effectively, and we need to defeat the criminal gangs operating on the coast. Time and again, however, this Government have not provided serious solutions. The Prime Minister sat around the Cabinet table the whole time. Where there should have been solutions, we have had unworkable gimmicks.
As I listened to the Prime Minister’s statement, I thought, “All of that has been said before, almost word for word.” It was said the last time we had measures—the last time we had legislation. There have been plenty of newspaper headlines about wave machines, prison ships and fantasy islands, but there has been no effective action. It is all designed to mask failure, to distract from a broken asylum system that cannot process claims, cannot return those with no right to be here, and cannot protect our borders.
Over 40,000 people have crossed the channel this year—that is a record—but only 2% have had their asylum claim processed. What happens to the other 98%? They are placed in hotels, costing around £7 million a day. That is bad for refugees who want to rebuild their lives and bad for taxpayers. And 2022 is not just a one-off bad year; it has been bad under the Tories for years. Last year, the percentage of channel crossing asylum claims processed was just 4%. Let those figures sink in, because that is the root of the problem. Something has to be done to clear the backlog.
I welcome the commitment to fast-track clearly unfounded claims. That is what we have been calling for, and Britain is two years behind so many of our neighbours and allies, who have been fast-tracking for years. Can the Prime Minister confirm—I want to have an answer on this—that he will clear the backlog by the end of next year? That is 150,000 cases in the backlog—[Interruption.] I know he has said it, but there are 150,000 cases, including the 100,000 that have been there for over six months. We need clarity about that.
I also welcome more staff for processing. It is appalling that the Government let the backlog get this big. Nearly 100,000 cases have been waiting more than six months for a decision. That is the root cause. But processing is only part of the answer. Criminal gangs are sending these people to risk their lives, and they thrive because of a total failure of any co-ordinated response or effective deterrent to their criminal activity. For months, we have been calling for action to tackle this root cause: a specialist cell in the National Crime Agency to catch, prosecute and disband criminal gangs. We need to be working internationally to end this cross-border crime. Again, new staff are welcome, but can the Prime Minister guarantee that that will result in prosecutions of those who put lives and national security at risk?
Money is being wasted on the unworkable, unethical plan to deport people to Rwanda: £140 million has been wasted already, with not a single deportation. The most senior civil servant in the Home Office is the only one in Government to tell the truth: it does not even work as a deterrent. The Prime Minister has promised more legislation, but the last time the Government legislated to tackle the broken asylum system, they made it worse. Since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came into force, crossings and delays have increased, and 18,000 cases have been put through the new process, adding a further six months, with only 21 returns. That is slow track, not fast track. How can the Prime Minister have any credibility to say that new legislation is going to be the answer? The unworkable gimmicks go on, and so do the crossings. We need to bring this to an end, and that means a proper plan to crack down on the gangs, quick processing, return agreements: serious solutions to a serious problem. That is what Labour will offer.
The Prime Minister
That speaks for itself, quite frankly. We are not going to take any lectures from the Labour party on tackling immigration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has consistently tried to block steps to strengthen Britain’s approach to illegal migration throughout his career. Since he was elected, he has failed on 36 occasions to vote for stronger laws and we heard that again today. He talks about processing and about the hotels, but the only way to stop that problem is to stop the boats. We are the only party that has a plan to tackle these issues, with a new small boats operational command in the channel, deals with Albania and France, cheaper accommodation, tougher immigration enforcement, and new legislation making it clear in law for the first time that, if you come here illegally, you cannot stay. Labour now has a choice: will it show that it is on the side of the British people and back our plans to stop illegal migration? The right hon. Gentleman may want to stand in our way. He may want to block laws. We are going to block the boats.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reference to my passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Does he agree that, in dealing with asylum claims, the onus must be on the Home Office to improve its processing; that, contrary to what is said by some commentators and, sadly, some Members of this House, people smuggling and human trafficking are distinct and separate crimes and should not be treated or spoken of as one; that modern slavery is a real and current threat, with too many people brought to this country into slavery; and that we must do nothing to diminish our world-leading protections for the victims of this terrible, horrific crime?
The Prime Minister
I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for her global leadership on that issue. She is absolutely right that it is incumbent on us to ensure our processing is swift and effective. I know she will want to join me in ensuring that our world-leading modern slavery regime actually helps the people who are most in need and most vulnerable. They are the people who need our support and that is what our reforms today will deliver.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I wish to begin by passing on my thoughts and those of my colleagues to the families and friends of those impacted by the terrible tragedy in Solihull.
I am going to start by saying something that I think many on the Benches behind the Prime Minister wish they could say. Nobody is illegal. Indeed, there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. But what we all agree on is that the UK’s system is broken and we cannot escape from the fact of who has broken it. To address some of the problems that are faced, I welcome some of what the Prime Minister said. I have personally visited hotel accommodation and seen the damaging impact that those long stays have had on people within it, so I hope we can all agree on the positive words about speeding up the process.
However, I have grave concerns about the proposed legislation, about the proposals on accommodation and about the one-size-fits-all approach to asylum seekers emanating from Albania. In that regard, I ask the Prime Minister a simple question: has he consulted with the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees in respect of these proposals? If not, why not?
Ultimately, the solutions lie not in any of the above proposals but in ensuring that safe and legal routes exist. The Prime Minister made extensive reference to safe and legal routes, so let him rise to his feet and outline one single safe and legal route—perhaps for a family member of an asylum seeker in Afghanistan. The Home Secretary of course could not do so last week.
It would be remiss of all of us in the Chamber not to reflect on the independent Migration Advisory Committee’s report from this morning, which detailed how important migration is to our public sector, our private sector and indeed our economy. How on earth does the Government’s hostile approach to migration assist with that proposal?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Development Secretary met the UN High Commissioner for Refugees last weekend. A point of difference between us and the Opposition parties is that we believe that we should not need the permission of someone outside to control our own borders.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Albania and our approach. I gently point out to him that what we are doing is in line with what almost every other European country already does with regard to Albanian migrants.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman made the frankly absurd claim that we do not have safe and legal routes into the UK. In the last few years, we have made offers of over 450,000 places to welcome people from Afghanistan, Syria, Hong Kong and, most recently, Ukraine. That is because this is a compassionate, tolerant country, and it always will be.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The parliamentary leader of the SNP, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), can put down a debate on legal migration for next week; the subject today is illegal immigration.
The questions in front of the House and the country are: how can people be safe, how can their status be determined, will the action work, is it necessary, and is it right? I think most people listening, whether they normally support the SNP, Labour or the Conservatives, will say, “Yes, it is necessary, it will work, and it should go ahead.”
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. As he knows, this problem is complicated—it is not easy, and it will not be solved overnight—but I believe the plan that we have outlined today represents the most serious step forward in getting a grip of it. The task for us now is to deliver on it. With his support and everyone else’s, I am confident that we can.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In our report on small boat crossings published in July, the Home Affairs Committee made it clear that the No. 1 priority for Government should be to clear the asylum backlog, so we are pleased that that is now starting to be addressed. However, the backlog of 150,000 has been building since 2013, so the more recent small boat crossings have not broken the asylum system.
We noted how important it was to have sufficiently well trained, motivated and supported decision makers to make good-quality first decisions, but despite promises to increase decision-making numbers, targets have been missed, and the staff attrition rate in 2021 was a staggering 46%. In addition, the technology that staff use is creakingly antiquated and was reported by the chief inspector of borders and immigration as hampering productivity.
Will the Prime Minister ensure that he has sufficient staff to carry out what he is seeking to do? With productivity currently at 1.3 decisions per decision maker per week, with a Home Office pilot to increase that figure to 2.7, can he explain exactly how he is going to triple productivity?
The Prime Minister
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her excellent questions; they are the right questions to focus on. We have redesigned the entire process for caseworking on an end-to-end basis, which will take productivity from 1.2, as she says it is today, up to 4. We will do that in a relatively short period; that is how we will cut the initial asylum backlog by the end of the next year. That process is being rolled out as we speak.
The right hon. Lady talked about the reason for the backlog. It is worth bearing in mind that the number of small boat crossings has quadrupled in just the last two years. That is the scale of the challenge that we are facing, and that is leading to significant strain on the system. She also asked about numbers. We have already, in the last year, doubled the number of caseworkers to 1,200, and it will be doubling again in the next nine to 12 months.
Lastly, I will just say that a big part of the reason why our processing is slower than we would like is that, time and again, people exploit our system to make late or spurious claims. That is why our new legislation will tackle that problem, and I hope it has the support of the Labour party.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the initiatives that he has taken with Monsieur Macron and the Prime Minister of Albania. Those are two small but significant steps forward. I also appreciate the fact that he is clearly going to take personal charge of the backlog and ensure that the lamentable performance of the Home Office to date is rectified. However, does he agree that the only way that this problem will be solved is on a pan-European basis and not domestically, and that if we are going to deal with it, we have to deal with Schengen and with countries beyond Schengen, and reach agreements? Will he use all his efforts to seek to secure that?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent question and for his very constructive engagement with me and Ministers on resolving this issue. I know he speaks up very well for his local area on these matters. He is absolutely right, which why it is so crucial that, in the last few weeks, not only have we restarted meetings of the Calais group of European nations, which the Home Secretary deserves enormous credit for, but she has put that group on a permanent basis. We are making sure that we now go further, working with Frontex, the European border agency, towards a European returns agreement for the first time ever. That is the path forward. The best way to solve this problem is upstream, working with our allies in northern Europe, and the plans and progress that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made are going to deliver exactly that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and community in Solihull who have lost their young sons.
Some 97,000 people have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for six months or more. That is 97,000 people trapped for months in Home Office limbo, banned from working, while the NHS, social care, agriculture and hospitality are all desperately short of staff. Last month it was revealed that even the Home Office’s own analysis shows that the right to work does not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers, so will the Prime Minister end this absurd ban on work, to save taxpayers money and help to grow our economy?
The Prime Minister
The simple answer is no. We will not do that, nor will we grant blanket amnesties, as happened in the past, to get the backlog down. We will go through it methodically and properly. The best way to reduce the pressure on the backlog is to stop people coming here in the first place, and if the right hon. Gentleman is interested in doing that, he should support our new legislation.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I warmly welcome today’s announcements. They are exactly what is needed—I cannot think of anything more articulate to say than that—but will my right hon. Friend reiterate the importance of the Rwanda flights as part of the measures to address illegal immigration? That is such an important measure.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Rwanda policy is an important part of our approach to tackling this problem, because it must be the case that if someone comes here illegally we can return them either to their own safe country or to an alternative such as Rwanda where their claim can be processed. That is the system we want to move to and that is what we will deliver.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Some 83% of small boat asylum claims made in the past four years are still awaiting a decision. We have an attrition rate of 46% among caseworkers. How is the Prime Minister going to achieve his goals?
The Prime Minister
As I set out to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, we have redesigned the end-to-end process for asylum processing, which will triple the productivity of our caseworkers and cut through the backlog. I say the same thing to the hon. Gentleman that I have said to others: the best way to solve this problem is to stop people coming here illegally, and the best way to do that is to back our new legislation.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I strongly support these measures from the Prime Minister, particularly on the disproportionate numbers of Albanian economic migrants who are queue-jumping those genuinely fleeing danger. I heard not a single practical solution from those on the Opposition Benches—just collective amnesia about what they voted against.
The Prime Minister knows that I favour safe and legal routes as a counterbalance to tougher and swifter measures. Will he therefore, in those safe and legal routes that we need to develop, have a Dubs 2 scheme specifically aimed at unaccompanied children in peril and a proper family reunion scheme for those with close links to people legally here in the United Kingdom, so that we can control and welcome those genuinely in need of safety here?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As our actions over the past couple of years have shown, this is an incredibly compassionate and generous country, which has offered and always will offer sanctuary and refuge to those who really need it. We need to do that through safe and legal routes, and we want to have that conversation with him and with others such as the Red Cross and UNHCR about how to design those routes, but we can only have that conversation and implement those routes once we have proper control of our borders. That is what we must deliver first.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in his statement that we will remove, “the gold-plating in our modern slavery system.” That modern slavery system is something of which we, across the Labour Benches, can be incredibly proud. It protected victims of modern slavery and also, crucially, allowed us to secure prosecutions against the abusers.
It is currently taking the Home Office 531 days on average to arrive at a conclusive grounds decision for victims. Around 90% of those decisions are positive, confirming that people were indeed victims of modern slavery. This will affect British and foreign children as well as adults, and some of those locked in county lines gangs as well as in sexual exploitation. Why is the Prime Minister tearing up the modern slavery system in this way?
The Prime Minister
That is simply not right. We are very proud of our modern slavery system and we want to make sure that it protects those genuine victims of modern slavery. It is absolutely right that they get their cases considered properly. The reason why that is not happening at the moment is that the system is being deluged with far more claims than it was ever designed to cope with. When the impact assessment on the Modern Slavery Bill was done, it anticipated 3,500 claims a year. What we are now facing is 12,500 in just the first three quarters of this year. It is right that we focus our attention on those who most need our help, and, in doing so, we can get those people the help they need as quickly as possible.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I live in a place called the real world. In the real world, people know that the vast majority of those travelling here on small boats are not genuine refugees. Even last week, at the Home Affairs Committee, the Albanian ambassador admitted that everybody coming from Albania is economic migrants. They are coming here on small boats because they cannot come through a legal route by getting visas. The public get it. Even the Albanian ambassador gets it. We all get it. I ask the Prime Minister: when will the Opposition get it and realise that the vast majority coming over are not genuine asylum seekers?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion on this issue. He is right: we on the Conservative Benches are on the side of the British people. It is as simple as that. The Opposition today have put forward no plans, no action. We will soon see, Mr Speaker. When we bring forward legislation to stop the boats, they have a choice: do they want to back our legislation and be on the side of the British people?
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for the important suite of proposals that he has outlined this afternoon and say that we will constructively engage with his Ministers on any legislation that is introduced. He has rightfully highlighted Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Ukraine, and the pressures that there have been in the Home Office over the past number of years, with staff moved continually from one place to another, and to passports and back again. That is in large part responsible for the backlog, so he is right to double the number of caseworkers. Will the new Albanian team of 400 form part of that doubling—is that additional staff, or staff moved from elsewhere?
The Prime Minister
That is part of the doubling, and that unit will be specifically trained to process the Albanian migrants in line with our new system and our new policy guidance, which will shortly be issued by the Home Office. In doing that, we are confident that we can start processing Albanian claims in a matter of weeks rather than months, and, with our new agreement, we can swiftly send them back to Albania. That is what the Albanian Prime Minister thinks should happen. That is what European countries do, and that is what we will do in our country, too.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I strongly welcome the seriousness with which the Prime Minister addresses this issue, particularly his focus on stopping the Albanian gangs.
With respect to the dispersal centres, when the Home Office attempted to introduce a dispersal centre in my constituency, it ignored the local authority’s concerns about healthcare, public services and children’s services. It then also ignored the existing level of Albanian organised crime in Hull and did not even consult the local police chief before it moved on the matter. Needless to say, it did not consult any of the local MPs either. If we continue in this mode, the Home Office will face judicial review after judicial review and the policy will not work. Can we please see a radical improvement in decision making in the Home Office in this process?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his engagement with us and his specific suggestions on tackling the issue of Albanian migrants—I hope he is pleased by what he has heard today, which reflected much of what he suggested. On the issue of accommodation, I agree with him. As all Members know, this is a tricky issue for us to manage, but we will manage it with sensitivity and care, and with strong engagement with colleagues and local authorities. I make that commitment to him, and I will make sure that that is followed up.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister mentioned that he wanted to work with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and that the Foreign Minister had already met the high commissioner. Did the high commissioner support these measures and their efficacy?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, on the Conservative Benches we believe in sovereignty. When it comes to controlling our borders, we will of course act in line with our legal obligations, but we will do what must be done to fix the unfairness and make sure we stop illegal migration.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his practical approach to a problem that needs practical solutions. In urging him to press on with the work to improve the efficiency of the system, including the tribunal appellate system, I urge the Government to work with the tribunal procedure committee to reactivate the detained fast-track procedure, which has been suspended for seven years now. I think it could be a reasonable part of the solution to this problem.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend obviously has expertise on this issue. He is absolutely right about that process and the help that it can provide. He will be pleased to know that the Immigration Minister and the Attorney General met the authorities recently. We will look forward to taking forward his suggestions.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In 17 years as a Member of this House, I have never known backlogs, in every avenue of Home Office processing, to be so great and so slow. The Prime Minister asked for suggestions. If he really wants to reprocess the Home Office’s procedures, he could take out the ridiculous rule that people have to renew their indefinite leave to remain every 30 months, putting the same people back through the system to come out with the same outcome. He could, in one fell swoop, reduce the backlog. Will he do it?
The Prime Minister
I just gently point out to the hon. Lady that the backlog now, difficult though it is, is half as big as it was under the last Labour Government. Unlike then, we will not resort to giving people blanket amnesties, because that is not the right approach.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I warmly welcome this statement. Tackling the backlog is absolutely key to getting the heat out of the issue and dealing with it fairly and firmly. The same approach on Albania is welcome, too. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Albania is the issue of the moment, this issue will move around the globe, and going upstream to tackle the criminal gangs, who have imported their dangerous business model from the Aegean to the channel, is absolutely crucial? Will he share his thoughts on that?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are doubling the funding for Operation Invigor at the National Crime Agency, which will mean that it can disrupt twice as many organised crime gangs upstream—that is a European effort, and it has proven to be very successful in the past. It will get double the amount of resources to help to disrupt the gangs upstream in the first place.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I have a very, very simple question for the Prime Minister: does he agree that any proposed Bill or policy that breaches the UN refugee convention or the European convention on human rights should be rejected out of hand?
The Prime Minister
Our legislation will ensure that if someone comes to this country illegally, they will not have the right to stay here. It is a simple proposition; it is a fair proposition; and it is one that is supported by the vast majority of people across our country.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. This is a huge step in the right direction. I am particularly encouraged by what he says about Albania and tighter guidance for those processing decisions. Will he extend that process of tightening guidance to other countries from which people arrive and too often simply get through the system? I am thinking particularly of countries such as Vietnam, which is a fast-growing, prosperous country, making the case for claiming asylum considerably weaker than in the past. Will he also strengthen guidance for such countries?
The Prime Minister
Yes is the simple answer. Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 already gives the Home Secretary the ability to designate safe countries. Many are already there, and we will continue to add to them as appropriate.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister talks about the views of the British public. I am pretty sure that the British public also think that children should not be punished for the decisions of their parents. It may be an inconvenient truth on this planet, but one in five of those coming in small boats are under 18, as verified by the Home Office, not people on Twitter.
For six weeks, I have been asking the Government for the details of the safeguarding provision. During that time we have had multiple reports of children—who are with their families in those hotels for months on end—being sexually assaulted and abused. Nothing that the Prime Minister announced today will change that situation and how we treat those children, or apply the same rules to those children as we do to other children in temporary accommodation with their families. Will he now at least do the decent thing and make the safeguarding contract public so that we can see what provision the Government have made to look after those children, and will he make a commitment that families will be housed separately from single people?
The Prime Minister
The Government take their obligations towards children extremely seriously. Of course it is right that they are treated differently, and that is why the Immigration Minister has met the hon. Lady and we continue to make sure that safeguarding is followed throughout our processing system.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to identify that illegal immigration and the associated people smuggling are global problems that need global solutions. May I press him to use his good offices to urge the United Nations to make this a topic for the next General Assembly and to introduce an annual Heads of Government conference that focuses on the issue?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work she did in bringing about the Modern Slavery Act: she deserves praise and credit for that. She is right: as I mentioned, the global picture on migration has completely changed since most of these treaties were signed. It is right that countries such as ours update their approach to the modern problem that we face, and her idea is a terrific one.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree with Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, who said in The Times yesterday:
“Instead of seeking to restrict the right to asylum the government should ensure timely and fair decisions, with access to legal advice, so that those who need protection are allowed to stay and those with unfounded claims are returned with dignity. At the same time there must be more safe routes such as family reunion visas”?
That is an issue that many hon. Members across the House have raised for several years.
The Prime Minister
I agree with all of that, and that is what the reforms I have announced today will deliver. The best way to do that is to ensure that the pressure on our system is not unsustainably high, and that is why we need to stop the flow of new illegal migrants coming here, which is why legislation is important, as well as our Albania deal. I want to see the same thing as the hon. Lady—swift and effective processing of those who come here through safe and legal routes and the return of those who should not do so.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
First, does my right hon. Friend accept that the legislation that he has announced is overdue? Secondly, it needs expressly to differentiate economic and illegal migrants from genuine refugees. The only way that can be done in law is through bypassing the notwithstanding formula in the European convention on human rights to ensure that we can achieve the objectives that he has set out. That needs to be done as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister
I am confident that our legislation will deliver the asylum system that we want to see, and I can tell my hon. Friend that it will come very early in the new year. We want to crack on and solve the problem, and I look forward to having his support.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
When my mother fled war and famine in Biafra in the 1960s with her three small children, the cargo plane on which we travelled—the only form of transport available—landed first in Lisbon, as Portugal was the only country that recognised Biafra at the time. Does the Prime Minister think that we should have been obliged to remain in that relatively safe country, or does he agree with my mother that it was better to travel on to Newcastle, where my grandmother lived?
The Prime Minister
This country has and always will have a proud tradition of welcoming people here. We need to ensure that we can do that, but we cannot do that if our system is under unsustainable pressure from people who should not be here. By having proper control of our borders and ensuring we create a deterrent effect for those coming here illegally, we will be in a position where people do not have to travel through other countries to get here. We can work with the UN, the Red Cross and others to provide sanctuary for them wherever they are. In the long run, that is the fairest and most sustainable solution to this problem.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on targeted and practical measures. Does he agree that what he proposes is entirely consistent with our international obligations and, in particular, entirely consistent with our obligations under the European convention on human rights and the European Human Rights Act? Is it not better to concentrate on practical measures, rather than upending our domestic human rights legislation, which frankly would be a wasteful red herring?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He makes a good point. As I said earlier, the vast majority of European countries already reject almost 100% of claims from asylum seekers from Albania, for example. They are all signatories to the same conventions and treaties as us, so there is no reason why we should not be able to move to exactly the same rejection rate.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I express my heartfelt sympathies to the people of Solihull following this week’s terrible disaster.
We all know what today’s announcement is: a sop to the right-wing press. It continues the Prime Minister’s obsession with scapegoating asylum seekers. Fast-tracking applications and weakening modern slavery protections directly undermine Wales’s nation of sanctuary policy, which includes an explicit commitment to prevent people seeking sanctuary from becoming victims of modern slavery. What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government to guarantee that fast-tracking will not frustrate our ambition to be a proper nation of sanctuary?
The Prime Minister
We were the first country in the world, thanks to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to pass the Modern Slavery Act 2015, with a dedicated regime that does not exist in that form in basically any other European country. We require our businesses to enforce their supply chains and we have life sentences for people who traffic modern slaves. I am very proud of our record. That record will continue, but we need to ensure our system is not abused and exploited. That is what we will fix with our reforms.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I warmly welcome the package of measures announced today, because this is the key issue on the doorstep in my constituency. It is something voters care about very deeply. The package being put together is very strong and, as my right hon. Friend says, it complements the Rwanda agreement. Can he just confirm, however, that if it is, like the Rwanda agreement, ultimately frustrated by the European convention on human rights, we will rule nothing out, including derogation, to ensure we can deliver this vital package?
The Prime Minister
Having been on those doorsteps in Middlesbrough South with my right hon. Friend, I know he speaks the truth and he is right to highlight this issue for his constituents. We will legislate to put our Albania proposals on a statutory footing. I am highly confident that those should be delivered. As I said, they are already in practice in all other European countries, so there is no reason why they should not happen here, too.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said we will restart data sharing to stop migrants getting bank accounts. Who are we going to be restarting data sharing with and why did we stop?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member will remember, I am sure, that after the Windrush situation data sharing was stopped in a range of different places and has not restarted. We will be restarting data sharing with the banks, so that when someone tries to open a new bank account, and on a quarterly basis for existing bank accounts, the banks will have to check against the database of illegal migrants that we hold to ensure people cannot disappear into the black economy having arrived here illegally and then participate in a normal way. That is not right and not fair, and I am glad he will be supporting the proposals.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I am very pleased to hear about the new approach to Albanians, which is both obvious and very sensible. My question to the Prime Minister is on how we bridge the gap. We approve 76% of all asylum applications, but the EU average is just 14%. We are all ECHR signatories. They are not held out as international pariahs or as breaking any abstract of international law. The Prime Minister may be surprised to hear that I have no issue with the ambit of the ECHR as long as we have an outcome of about 14%, too. What has been going wrong with our approvals and refusals process?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A big part of that difference is how we are treating Albania. That will be changed as a result of our new guidance and deal. More broadly, one of the changes that we have made today is to increase the threshold that someone has to meet to be considered a modern slave. It was based on simply a suspicion that someone may be; we are changing that to make sure that there is objective evidence that they are. That change will help us to close down some of those grant rates, but there is more work to do and that is what our legislation will deliver.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The white list of countries designated safe is not new, and Albania has been on that list since 2014, so there is nothing new about this announcement. I welcome the clearing of the backlog. The Prime Minister just said that he knew that workers would be employed within the next nine to 12 months, and the whole backlog would be cleared from the current 100,000—it was 3,000 when Labour was in power—in the same 12 months. So without the immigration workers there, how will this circle be squared and how will be the backlog be cleared?
The Prime Minister
I urge the hon. Lady to go and check her figures. It was certainly a lot higher than that under the last Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) said, we are currently rejecting only 45% of Albanian asylum seekers, compared to all European countries, which reject more like 98% to 100%. The changes we have made today will ensure that our rate increases up to the levels that we see elsewhere. That is as a result of the new deal that we have negotiated with Albania, which will give more comfort to our caseworkers. Combined with the new guidance that will be issued, that will mean that we should, as we want to, return the vast majority of Albanian migrants when they come here. They should not be here; Albania is a safe and prosperous country and they should go back there.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the new approach on Albania. As much as I welcome the jobs, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this will be a temporary, not permanent, new small boats operational command centre in Dover and east Kent? In relation to safe countries and immediate returns, will my right hon. Friend update the House on whether a date has been set for the summit with President Macron next year?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that she does on this issue in her constituency. She is right. We want to get through the challenges that we face to have a system in which people do not come here illegally. Once we have that, of course we should be able to draw down people after we have got the backlog cleared. She is also right to highlight the importance of working with the French. That is why our new deal is so important, but there is work to build on. We are keen to have that summit as early as practically possible, but it is important that it delivers tangible outcomes, and that is what the Home Secretary and I are set about doing.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Yesterday I led a delegation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. One of the issues we discussed was the importance of all Council of Europe states addressing migration issues in accordance with human rights and international law. International refugee law does not require asylum seekers to make their claim in the first safe country and it protects asylum seekers arriving via irregular or unofficial routes, provided they make their presence known to the authorities. Can the Prime Minister give me an undertaking that his new laws will comply with the United Kingdom’s international law and human rights obligations, and if not, can he tell us from which treaties he intends to derogate? Or is it simply his intention to flout international law and, if that is the case, what kind of example does he think that sets to other countries, particularly on Europe’s eastern border?
The Prime Minister
The hon. and learned Lady will know that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Dublin agreement all consider the proposition that it is possible to return people who have come here who should not be here. It allows the possibility of designating safe countries, and of removals, so that principle is well established in international law. We want a system whereby, if people come here illegally, they will not be able to stay. That is a simple, common-sense, fair principle that the vast majority of the country is right behind.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is rare in this House, Mr Speaker, to agree with every single sentiment, impulse and word—unless it is a speech of my own, of course—but I did today, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. His set of measures is apposite and appropriate, and it will be appreciated across the country. Will he, as most of my constituents would, when people travel across safe countries, as they frequently do before they claim asylum, automatically assume that their claim is spurious or at least doubtful?
The Prime Minister
That is what our new legislation will deliver. It will make it unambiguously clear: if you come here illegally, you will have no right to stay and will be removed either back to your own safe country or to a safe alternative. That is the right system to have. It is the fair system to have. It means that we can concentrate our generosity and compassion on those around the world who most need it, which I know is the type of system that my right hon. Friend wants to see.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
We should not forget why we are here with the statement: it is because the Government have lost control of the asylum and immigration system and shown a degree of incompetence that takes some beating. Three years on, they have also failed to meet their manifesto commitment to take back control of the border with a new system that would give real control. Will the Prime Minister firm up his statement and confirm that he is confident that the whole backlog of initial asylum decisions will be removed by the end of next year? Will he tell us why he did not say anything about how long he expects it will take to remove from the country those asylum seekers who have failed in their applications?
The Prime Minister
Yes, our plan is to clear the initial asylum backlog by the end of next year. It is about 117,000 on currently published statistics. The hon. Member talked about the Government and where we are, but he forgets to mention that if we look at what is currently happening across Europe, we see that the number of asylum claims in France and Germany is up by 50%, and that is because the global migratory patterns have completely and utterly changed. That is why the current system is obsolete and why we need to take steps to adapt to the new regime and ensure that we have proper control of our borders. That is what our reforms will deliver.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I strongly support the measures announced by the Prime Minister and, in particular, his framing of the issue as a matter of fairness, because tough but fair border controls and asylum policy is exactly where the British people are. Does he agree that in communities across the country, including my constituency, the visible measure of success will be when some of the hotels currently housing asylum seekers can be returned to their normal use? Will he make that a priority?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend both for absolutely championing the issue for his constituents and for the advice that he has provided to the Home Secretary and me, given his experience, on how best to tackle the problems that we face. I very much value and appreciate that support. He is absolutely right: what people want to see is our hotels going back to their normal use in their communities and flights departing that remove people who should not be here. The Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and I will work tirelessly to deliver that for him and for the country.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister talks about fairness, yet what he set out is the very opposite of a fair and efficient system. The best way to stop desperate people from dying in small boats and to stop the criminal gangs is for the Government to promote more safe and legal routes. Why are they so incapable of doing that effectively? Why can he find 500 new staff for his Albanian scheme but only eight people to process the 11,000 asylum applications from Afghanistan? That means that, contrary to what the Foreign Secretary suggested in the Chamber barely an hour ago, there have been zero Afghans resettled from Afghanistan under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3 since January.
The Prime Minister
We have in fact safely settled more than 23,000 people from Afghanistan in this country. The hon. Member talks about safe and legal routes and actually, in the last year, we issued more humanitarian visas than in any other year since the second world war. That is the strength and depth of our compassion, and that is what we will always do, but we cannot have that compassion and generosity exploited by people who break the rules. There is nothing fair about that, and it does nothing to help the people we really need to target. That is what we will do.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister on the approach that he has outlined today. Are there plans to examine the processes used by other states who are signatories to the European convention on human rights that enable them to be so much more robust in dealing with these issues within the law? Will he commit to working with those countries to develop safe and legal routes so that together we can ensure that that robust approach applies in the United Kingdom just as it does in those other countries?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question and the answer is yes: that is what we have done over the past few weeks and what we will continue to do, and our Albania deal builds on exactly that learning. But where we can learn from other countries about how to do this faster and better, with a higher rejection rate, that is exactly what we want to achieve. With his support, I know we can do it.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I am a bit worried: while the Prime Minister might be okay with his cheerleaders in here, I think he is out of touch, because the British public—[Interruption.] The public do know who has been in charge for the past 12 years. So as a matter of accountability, which of the decisions made while the Prime Minister was sat around the Cabinet table would he point as the reason why the backlog is now 14 times bigger than when Labour left office?
The Prime Minister
Difficult though the backlog is, it is half the size that it was when Labour was in office; the hon. Lady needs to get her numbers right. She talks about the British people: what the British people want is an asylum system that says, “When you come here illegally, you cannot stay here, because that is not right and it is not fair.” If she wants to be on the side of the British people, she should back our new legislation.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the measures he has outlined today, and I particularly thank him for his personal determination to find practical solutions to a very real problem. In my constituency the Home Office has, with Clearsprings, its contractor, identified a disused building for dispersal accommodation. While I greatly welcome the move from hotels to more permanent accommodation, will my right hon. Friend make sure the Home Office listens to the concerns and worries of the local authority, police and public health, and make sure we are deciding on locations that are appropriate and suitable?
The Prime Minister
I am really happy to hear from my hon. Friend, who has rightly long championed this issue. I know she has spoken to the Minister for Immigration about her concerns in her local area. I thank her for her constructive attitude in working with us, but she is absolutely right, and we will sit down and listen to her and her local authority about what is appropriate and deliver sensible solutions.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Because the existing system has failed so miserably, we have asylum seekers in hotels throughout the United Kingdom. I shall once again be meeting with asylum seekers in my constituency prior to Christmas. Decanting them to disused holiday parks, former student halls and surplus military sites does not solve the problem. When can I tell them that they will be allowed to sit down with an official from the Home Office so that they can start their legal process of immigration?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right: what will solve the problem is stopping people coming here illegally in the first place. That is how we will solve the hotel problem. That is what our new legislation will deliver, and I hope he will support it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s action plan to tackle the problem of small boat crossings and thank him for being true to his word in prioritising this issue. The big issue in Kettering is that the Royal Hotel, which is slap bang in the middle of town, has been designated as an asylum hotel; it is one of the most inappropriate settings imaginable. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents in Kettering that the plan he has announced today will be the quickest way to end the use of such hotel accommodation?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to stand up for his constituents, but he is also absolutely right to highlight that our approach is the best way to relieve the pressure on local services, including the use of hotels, so that we can return them back to their everyday use. We will do that fastest by providing alternative sites, which we are working on, and also by stopping the flow of small boats, and that is what our plan will deliver.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We have many thousands of asylum seekers across Teesside, and I am personally very proud of how welcoming our communities can be. However, my team in Stockton is working with many asylum seekers who have been waiting for years and years for their asylum applications to be processed, and they have waited in despair and fear. All they want is a decision. How many of them can expect one in the next few months?
The Prime Minister
The Home Secretary and I want to see exactly the same thing. That is why with our new plan we will cut the initial asylum backlog by the end of next year. People should get swift processing, but in order to deliver that sustainably we need to reduce the pressure on the system, and that means stopping the flow of new illegal migrants coming here.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
It is absolutely right that there is alignment with our main European counterparts in how we deal with asylum claims from safe countries, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the agreement with Albania. Given the automatic return principle that will apply to arrivals from Albania, there will be an incentive to try to conceal their true country of origin on arrival. We already know that that is a problem with the channel crossings, with people disposing of their ID documents mid-crossing, often at the direction of people smugglers. In anticipation of this issue, can he reassure the House that there will be a sufficiently robust evidential threshold that will prevent people from falsifying their claim?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent suggestion. I also give her the reassurance that for the first time we will have British officials stationed in Albania, particularly at Tirana airport, and Albanian officials here in the UK to deal with the problem that she identifies. I am confident that that joint working will help us deliver the solution we want.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister’s statement today could not be more out of touch with the people who come to my surgeries week in, week out—and I have the highest immigration case load in Scotland. Can he tell me why Mr H has been waiting a year past August for his family reunion? He is from Afghanistan. Mr A has been waiting to see his family as well. These men come to my surgeries in tears because they cannot get reunited with their families. The truth is that the Prime Minister’s safe and legal routes just are not working. For those who do not even have the misfortune to be from Afghanistan—if they are from other countries—there is no legal route, and that is why so many people are coming here in boats. That is the truth of the situation. Will he accept it is unreasonable to make people wait for as long as he is in absolute misery, for a decision that just is not coming?
The Prime Minister
I do not want people to wait, and that is why we need to stop the flow of illegal migrants coming here, because they put unsustainable pressure on the system. That means we cannot process for her constituents and others as quickly as we would like. However, with the new plan we have put in place, we will be able to, and once we pass new legislation to stop the flow of small boats, we will have far less pressure on the system and be able to get people the decisions they need.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which will answer many of the concerns expressed to me by constituents in Barry and across the Vale of Glamorgan. My right hon. Friend is taking a comprehensive, detailed approach with practical steps to resolve this problem. In spite of the calls from Opposition Members, does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is a dynamic environment that will constantly evolve and change? Will he remain open-minded to extending the regulations, and tightening the regulations where necessary, to respond to the ingenuity and innovation shown by some of these people traffickers?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to remain dynamic and nimble with the new challenges we face. I have said this will not be an easy problem to fix or one we can do overnight, but I am confident that if we apply ourselves in the way I have set out, we will be able to stop the flow of illegal migrants over time, and I welcome his support in doing that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
How much of what the Prime Minister is announcing today will be paid for out of the aid budget?
The Prime Minister
Under the Development Assistance Committee OECD rules, the first year of resettlement costs for asylum seekers is actually covered by international agreements on aid. The Chancellor has provided extra funding to deal with some of the pressures we are seeing as a result of the 150,000 Ukrainians who are here, and we remain one of the largest spenders on international development anywhere in the world, and that is something of which we can all be proud.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I very much welcome what the Prime Minister has announced today. As he knows, Stoke-on-Trent has taken more than our fair share of asylum seekers and refugees. That has put significant pressure on services, council services, schools, hospitals and the police. Will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to put in place the money and the financial support to support those services?
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his local community and the local council in Stoke for what they do? They go above and beyond to provide support. He is right that they deserve our support, too, and I know that the Minister for Immigration has recently met the council, where engagement will continue.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Back in the summer, checks on the land border between Albania and Kosovo were relaxed, so there was no need for citizens of either state to register at the border when crossing. According to INSTAT, the Albanian Institute of Statistics, more than 2.5 million people entered Kosovo from Albania in 2021. When I was travelling between London and Pristina about 20 years ago, I was stopped and questioned by British border staff. Will the Government be embedding UK Border Force staff at Pristina airport, given that the national and cultural border between Albania and Kosovo is porous?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion; I am sure that is something the Home Secretary will discuss with her counterparts. As for his broader point, he is right. For the first time, we have UK officials in Albania working closely with the Albanian authorities to disrupt the flow of illegal migrants at source, and I will take his suggestion on board.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on this issue. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the Pickwell Foundation, the volunteers and the GPs who are currently looking after people seeking asylum who have been badly placed in a hotel in Ilfracombe. On Monday, a single mum and her eight-month-old daughter will make a 10-hour round trip to Cardiff for a biometrics and interview appointment. Given his plans to streamline the asylum system, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as matters improve, that will no longer take place?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s local community in Ilfracombe for the support they are providing; they deserve credit and praise for that. As for her question, we want a processing system that is humane but also swift and effective for people, and that is what our reforms will deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. This is clearly a complex and difficult issue, and he is trying to find a way forward. He has outlined the further steps that can be taken to halt the illegal crossings that are causing people to lose their lives in dreadful winter weather, which include working alongside the French Government and port authorities to prevent the trips from happening, but will he also use private companies with expertise, skills and high ethical standards? I furnished the Home Secretary with the contact details of one such company that is keen and able to assist.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a complex issue. We are happy to look at all the different ways in which we can make a difference. I look forward to taking his suggestion on board, and the Home Secretary will have heard what he has said.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I was present at the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe, which was alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The legal point that she made is entirely right, and the Government must address it because it is very serious. It is possible, under current legislation, to arrest someone who lands on our shores and to detain them, but very few have been arrested under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 because there are not legal routes that these people can take.
I am not in favour of the Opposition’s argument in favour of more open legal routes because, with 100 million displaced people in the world, it is a policy that leads nowhere, but we have to address this point. The problem is that every time we pass new legislation, it is trumped by human rights lawyers who, correctly under the law, appeal to the Refugee convention, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if this new legislation does not work, we will consider a derogation from the Refugee convention?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent question. What our legislation will deliver is a system whereby someone who comes here illegally will not have the right to stay, and we will be able to remove them to their own country or a safe third country. That is the system of migration that I think he and his constituents want to see, and it the system that this Government will deliver.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the senior Home Office officials who have followed up my references to the unacceptable process of allocating a hotel in Earl Shilton. I am grateful for the changes that we have seen. In his statement, the Prime Minister said it was unfair and appalling that we were spending £5.5 million a day on this system. It is unfair to those who are housed there, it is unfair to the communities who see people spending this money, and it is unfair to the taxpayer. The Prime Minister said that he had identified 10,000 spaces. Can he say when those will become available and when people will be moved out of the hotels?
The Prime Minister
This is something that my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is working on at pace. We are keen to move as quickly as we can and to secure value for taxpayers’ money through these commercial negotiations. We think most of these sites can be brought on at around half the cost of hotels, which represents a significant saving. We are keen to deliver it as quickly as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I want to be able to call everybody, but that requires short questions.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Living in limbo in a hotel with an uncertain future is extremely stressful, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s plans to process claims as quickly as possible, but processing is only the first step. He talks about 117,000 claims. Does the system have the capacity to ensure that people who make a successful claim are moved into permanent accommodation, and that those who make unsuccessful claims are removed quickly?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want not only to process people swiftly, but to have the ability either to integrate them in the community, where required—we have done that brilliantly through other schemes—or to remove them if they should no longer be here. That is why one strand of this work is about strengthening and tightening our returns agreements with other countries, which should be a key part of our diplomacy. We must have the ability to return people to safe countries, which is something we will work on next year.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comprehensive statement, including his willingness to reform assessment processes, but may I ask him about accountability? We see many Government processes to improve and achieve a policy outcome, but the public do not see those outcomes achieved. They are worried that officials and agencies are not held properly to account for achieving those objectives. What are his thoughts on achieving the policy outcomes he has outlined today?
The Prime Minister
I am confident because, in the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister, we have a crack team. I know they will work tirelessly with their team to drive through the reforms announced today. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is right to hold us to account for that. Transparent metrics on processing, for example, are already published quarterly. People want to see flights returning people to Albania and elsewhere, and people coming out of hotels. That is what we want to deliver next year.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency found in July 2006 that there was a backlog of between 400,000 and 450,000 cases. On that basis, this announcement is very welcome. I thank the Prime Minister for taking hold of this issue. When will we see an actual reduction in the number of people in hotels across the country? What capacity will we have to maintain those who claim asylum, and who have a valid claim, in facilities other than hotels across the UK?
The Prime Minister
The Immigration Minister, the Home Secretary and I are keen to deliver alternative sites as quickly as we can commercially negotiate and get them up and running. I want to see what my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) wants to see, which is people moving out of hotels and less pressure on local communities. That is the type of accommodation we want to deliver.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for their great progress on this immigration action plan, particularly their progress with both the UNHCR and Albania. He will know that delivery is key. In Gloucester, we do not want the situation to be as it was in May 2010, when not only did my Labour predecessor refuse to hand over any casework files, but we subsequently found more than 4,000 asylum cases, some of which had been waiting for resolution for more than 10 years.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a powerful point. I agree that we need to deliver now, and we have a plan in place. That is what we will focus on next year for his constituents and for the country. I am confident that we can do it.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I refer my right hon. Friend to the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Can he specifically confirm that the legislation to be introduced next year will deal with the impediment set up by the European convention on human rights?
The Prime Minister
Our legislation will deliver a system whereby a person who comes here illegally will have no right to stay and will be removed to their own country or a safe third-country alternative. I think that is a system the British people want to see, and it is the system our legislation will deliver.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
A person who enters this country illegally should have no right to stay here and should be swiftly deported—it really is as simple as that. I commend the Prime Minister for his bold statement in looking to legislate to that end. Does he agree that starting flights to Rwanda as soon as possible is absolutely integral to delivering this plan?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend put it clearly, succinctly and very well, and I completely agree with him. We are keen to restart those flights as soon as we can—we await the next stage of our legal proceedings—but he should be in no doubt but that we remain determined to make that policy work.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for their renewed focus on this really key point, which matters a lot not just to my constituents in Dudley North, but across the country. I will again address the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made and perhaps be a bit more specific with the question. If the Prime Minister’s future legislation is indeed scuppered by an intervention by the judiciary or human rights activists’ lawyers, will he have the political will to still force it through and implement what he intends to do?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank my hon. Friend for all his engagement with me and the Home Secretary on this issue. I know how important it is to his constituents, and I hope he is pleased by the steps we are taking today, but he is right that we need to go further. That is why our legislation will make it unequivocally clear that those who come here illegally have no right to stay, and his communities should be confident that that is what this Government will deliver.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal attention to this matter. I welcome his ambition for a fair and effective system rooted in an understanding that the world has changed since the 1950s, but the devil is in the detail. On a practical point, dozens of hotels have short-term—three-month—contracts with the Home Office to deliver emergency accommodation for asylum seekers right across the UK. My concern and my residents’ concern is: will he reassure us, please, that these contracts will not simply be renewed quietly and simply rolled over, but will be subject to the same level of scrutiny that is promised on new contracts, including consultation with the MP, the council and local public services?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will make sure that the Home Office looks at these things not with the automaticity that he suggested might happen, but reviews them afresh and makes sure that they are still fit for purpose.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his significant engagement in recent weeks on this and other issues. For the benefit of my constituents across Workington, can he set out his expected timescales for, first, removal of the threat of unsuitable accommodation in Workington being used, and, secondly, flights leaving the ground to Rwanda?
The Prime Minister
What I can tell my hon. Friend’s constituents and community is that we want to deliver on this as soon as practically possible. Our new deal with Albania will take effect in a matter of weeks, so we will be able to swiftly return people—those who are already here and any new arrivals—back to Albania. He knows that we are keen to press on with finding new sites as soon as we can commercially negotiate them to take people out of hotels. Of course, with regard to Rwanda, we are waiting for the latest court judgment, but he should be in no doubt but that we want to deliver on that policy.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making this a top priority, and I look forward to backing the legislation in the new year. Turning to the legislation we already have, there are significant powers of detention in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Will he look again at how we can implement those, at the very least for those who are accused of committing heinous crimes, particularly against children?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. We do have new powers, particularly on the enforcement side. We are very keen to use them to strengthen the deterrent impact, but as he knows, we need to go further, and that is what our new legislation will do.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I very warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today, and he is absolutely right. People living in Runnymede and Weybridge want to see fairness in the system, which this announcement will deliver. I particularly welcome the new returns agreement with Albania. Does he agree that what will cut the Gordian knot is having multiple returns agreements with multiple countries, so that when people’s applications are processed and found wanting, they can be returned swiftly?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a matter of priority, we are looking at those countries with which we already have returns agreements, but where we are not sufficiently able to send people back. We will renew our diplomatic efforts to make that a priority, but also use visa penalties, where appropriate, to get the outcomes that we need.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement and the personal attention he has devoted to this issue. My constituents continue to be concerned about the use of the Novotel in Ipswich, which is on a 12-month contract; I thought it was six, the Home Office told me it was six, but it turned out to be 12—but that is by the bye. I welcome the move towards cheaper and more basic accommodation, but can the Prime Minister indicate when my constituents will get a timescale for when the Novotel can be back in proper use?
The Prime Minister
I share the frustration of my hon. Friend and his constituents that their local hotel, like so many others, is currently being used to house illegal migrants. That is wrong and we want to stop it as quickly as we can. The Immigration Minister is working on finding alternative sites as fast as possible, but we also want to stop the flow of new illegal migrants so that there is not unsustainable pressure on our local services. That is what my hon. Friend and his community want, and that is what we will deliver.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
Earlier this year my local paper, the Leigh Journal, wrote about the human misery inflicted on the constituency of Leigh by a Balkan organised crime group that was engaging in people trafficking, but we have heard from some in the Opposition today that there is “no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is sadly not the case and that we have to face reality if we are to deal with this issue?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and very clear point. At issue today is illegal migration, which has significantly increased in the past couple of years and is putting unsustainable pressure on our local communities and public services. It must end, and our reforms are a significant step forward in delivering that outcome.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Having been briefly the Minister for tackling illegal migration this summer, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Can he provide more details on how the new small boats operational command will help to ensure that no small boat can arrive undetected on our shores?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his support of our approach. The new small boat operational command will bring together our civilian capabilities, our military and the NCA in a more unified way than before and supplement that with new technology—aerial or land-based surveillance, drones and radar—and in doing all that will be able to maintain an exceptionally high interception rate and increase the level of prosecutions we currently see. I know that is something he will want to see happen.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, albeit cautiously because they want to see delivery on the ground, but the mask has slipped on the Labour party. Labour Members have been absent throughout the majority of this statement in their north Islington coffee bars, drinking chai lattes and scoffing down quinoa. Over 19,000 people have now signed a petition titled “End Serco’s Abuse of Stoke-on-Trent” because Serco is too busy taking up our hotels. In fact, the Prime Minister’s own constituents have signed the petition in this cause. Will he agree with my constituents and his, and end Serco’s use of hotels in Stoke-on-Trent?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and his local community for the way they have approached this problem and the support they give to people who need refuge. He is right that we cannot exploit that generosity and compassion, so we must relieve the pressure on hotels, and that is what our plan will deliver. Ultimately what we all want to see and what the people of Stoke-on-Trent want to see is an end to the boats coming, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Point of Order
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, we seem to have been waiting for many years for the tobacco control plan from the Government—a plan to reduce and then eradicate smoking in communities by 2030. Sadly, despite promises from a series of Health Ministers, we are still waiting. Now we have mixed reports about the Government plans on funding and the proposal to increase the age at which people can buy tobacco products. Many thousands of people continue to die from smoking every year and many more suffer chronic ill health. We need action now. Have you had any indication from the Government that they plan to publish the tobacco control plan and/or make a statement, not just on the 2030 target, but on their policy going forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. I can tell him that I have had no indication from the Government that they intend to make a statement on the subject, but I am very aware that we have a well-occupied Treasury Front Bench and I am sure they will have noted his comments and will feed his concerns back.
Bill Presented
Coal Extraction and Use Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron, supported by Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper, Wendy Chamberlain and Wera Hobhouse, presented a Bill to require Parliamentary approval of coal extraction from new coal mines commissioned after November 2022; to require the Secretary of State to set targets for phasing out the extraction and use of coal and to report to Parliament on performance against those targets; to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for increasing the use of renewable energy sources for steel production in place of coal; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 215).
Free School Meals (Primary Schools)
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Free School Meals (Primary Schools) Bill 2022-23 View all Free School Meals (Primary Schools) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend eligibility for free school meals to all children in state primary schools; and for connected purposes.
When I secured an opportunity to bring this Bill to Parliament, I put out a call asking parents, teachers and anyone else to get in touch with me to explain the difference that free school meals for all would make. Although I cannot do justice to the strength of feeling conveyed to me in the hundreds of emails, messages and letters I was sent, I want to begin with a snapshot of what I was told.
Peter is a teacher in Leeds who told me about a seven-year-old child at his school who burst into tears in front of him, scared that there was not any food at home. He told me about a year 3 pupil who would steal bagels from the breakfast club and put them in his bag to take home so that he had something to eat later. He told me about children who brought packed lunches into school consisting of nothing but a few biscuits or a couple of slices of bread.
Another teacher told me of young children who would steal food from shops on the way to school. When caught, they would explain that it was the only way they would have food, and they were too scared to ask for help.
My constituent Laura told me how scared she is about when her five-year-old boy gets too old for universal free school meals. She does not know how she will pay for packed lunches.
People who received free school meals as children explained to me that they do not know how they would have managed without them. Others explained the shame they felt or the bullying they endured after being identified as a free school meal kid. My inbox is flooded with heartbreaking accounts like those. Of course, they are just a tiny example of the pain and anguish that children experience when they are denied a decent meal.
Today, about 4 million children are growing up in poverty in Britain, and almost 1 million kids live in poverty but do not have access to free school meals. Those millions of heart-wrenching accounts, just like those I have described, will never get aired or acknowledged. My Bill is a response to that injustice. It is a solution to children crying because they have not had a decent meal all day, and an answer to kids who feel that they have to steal food just to get by. It would extend free school meals to all primary school children, guaranteeing that they get a good, healthy meal each day.
The arguments in the Bill’s favour are overwhelming. The London Borough of Newham, which self-funds the policy, found that it improved concentration, attainment and behaviour. A Government pilot found that free school meals resulted in children being months ahead academically, and that children from the poorest backgrounds benefited most of all. That is no surprise. One teacher told me:
“When the day consists of long hungry hours, where a substantial meal is nowhere in sight, who wouldn’t struggle to learn and concentrate?”
The Bill would not only combat educational inequality but improve children’s health. Just 1.6% of packed lunches are estimated to meet the Government’s school food standards of nutrition, so it is hardly surprising that obesity rates fell when the Government introduced infant free school meals in 2014, as unhealthy packed lunches were replaced with healthy school meals.
The arguments for why free school meals must be for all children are clear. The existing means-tested policy, which requires the family’s income to be below the horrifyingly low figure of just £7,400 and for them to qualify for certain benefits, not only excludes nearly half a million children who are in poverty but entails a complicated application process that creates a barrier for some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised communities. More fundamentally, means testing separates children, puts labels on them and provokes stigma. Pupils who receive free school meals tell me that they feel embarrassed and ashamed, and that they are mocked and bullied. We might wish that those things did not happen, but they do.
Earlier today, I was on “Good Morning Britain”, and the presenter, Richard Madeley, told me that he remembered the stigma that kids on free school meals faced even in his day. That stigma is an unavoidable part of means testing, but it does not exist with universal provision. Free school meals for all means that all children eat together and learn together, and it avoids the trap of second-rate provision for the poorest. Too often, services just for the poor end up being poor services.
The overwhelmingly clear benefits of free school meals for all are why countries from India to Sweden have adopted the policy; they are why the Scottish Government have implemented the policy and why the Welsh Government are doing likewise. Championed by the London Mayor Sadiq Khan, London boroughs from Islington and Newham to Southwark and Tower Hamlets are self-funding this policy, with the new Labour administration in Westminster shortly joining them. But aside from these small pockets in the capital, while children in Scotland and Wales can look forward to free school meals for all, kids in England are denied them.
I am sure that Conservative Members will want to ask the question I always get asked when I speak to the media about free school meals for all: how will you pay for it? It is always asked as if it is a “gotcha”, as if the aim for every child to have a good meal a day was utopian and an impossible fantasy. It is a strange question to ask, after just being told that the policy is a reality in other parts of the UK and across the world. It is as if children in England were uniquely difficult to feed. It also forgets—as Conservative Members are only too pleased for us to forget—that there is immense wealth in this country. For example, there was enough wealth for the Chancellor to give a tax cut to the bankers worth an estimated £18 billion in the autumn statement, and there was so much wealth that the richest 177 people in the country added an extra £55 billion to their fortunes this year, taking their combined wealth to over £650 billion. Just for clarity, that is 65 and 10 zeros.
If Conservative Members want a more direct way to fund this, however, I have an easy answer for them. Private schools currently receive a tax break worth £1.7 billion a year, which is nearly double the cost of this policy. So the question I put to the House is: do we want to protect tax breaks for elite private schools or do we want to feed hungry kids? This Conservative Government are making a choice. They are choosing to protect tax breaks for the wealthy while denying food to hungry kids.
Free school meals for all was a vital policy before this cost of living crisis, but now it is an even more urgent demand. Families who were forced to choose between heating and eating are now unable to do either. Parents who were just about coping yesterday cannot cope today, and this winter a third of all children are predicted to go hungry. Some 70% of food banks report that they will need either to turn people away or to cut the size of their emergency rations. Soaring food prices and rocketing energy bills have pushed people to the brink. Children are going to bed hungry at home and they are forced to learn on hungry stomachs at school. Let us end this injustice and guarantee that every child gets a good healthy meal each day.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Zarah Sultana, Ian Byrne, Kim Johnson, Sir Stephen Timms, Caroline Lucas, Daisy Cooper, Munira Wilson, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Andy McDonald and Lloyd Russell-Moyle present the Bill.
Zarah Sultana accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 214).
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2022 - large print - (13 Dec 2022)
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “a National Park the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and the opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area by the public, under section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, under section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000”
Government new clause 49—Community land auction arrangements and their purpose.
Government new clause 50—Power to permit community land auction arrangements.
Government new clause 51—Application of CLA receipts.
Government new clause 52—Duty to pass CLA receipts to other persons.
Government new clause 53—Use of CLA receipts in an area to which section (Duty to pass CLA receipts to other persons)(1) duty does not relate.
Government new clause 54—CLA infrastructure delivery strategy.
Government new clause 55—Power to provide for authorities making joint local plans.
Government new clause 56—Parliamentary scrutiny of pilot.
Government new clause 57—CLA regulations: further provision and guidance.
Government new clause 58—Expiry of Part 4A.
Government new clause 59—Interpretation of Part 4A.
Government new clause 60—Street votes: community infrastructure levy.
Government new clause 63—Marine licensing.
Government new clause 64—Fees for certain services in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Government new clause 67—Power to decline to determine applications in cases of earlier non-implementation etc.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 67, in proposed new section 70D(1)(d), after “subsection (2) or (3)” insert “or (3B)”.
Amendment (b) to Government new clause 67, before proposed new section 70D(4) insert—
“(3B) This subsection applies in a case where there has been a failure adequately to fulfil conditions attached to a previous planning permission.”
Government new clause 68—Duty to grant sufficient planning permission for self-build and custom housebuilding.
Government new clause 69—Street votes.
Government new clause 77—Nutrient pollution standards to apply to certain sewage disposal works.
Government new clause 78—Planning: assessments of effects on certain sites.
Government new clause 79—Remediation.
Government new clause 118—Pre-consolidation amendment of planning, development and compulsory purchase legislation.
Government new clause 119—Registration of short-term rental properties.
New clause 3—Solar panel requirements for new homes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day this Act is passed, use the power under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to make building regulations for the purpose in subsection (2).
(2) That purpose is to provide that all new homes built in England from 1 April 2025 must have solar panels installed.”
This new clause would require new homes in England from 1 April 2025 to have solar panels.
New clause 5—Ecological surveys prior to planning application—
“(1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 57 (planning permission required for development) insert—
‘57A Ecological surveys prior to planning permission
(1) Before making an application for planning permission the applicant
must undertake an ecological survey of the proposed site to establish
whether the proposed development threatens the habitat of a
vulnerable species.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about—
(a) such ecological surveys and requirements to undertake them,
(b) the definition of “vulnerable species” for the purposes of this
section,
(c) the mitigation hierarchy being duly followed, and
(d) the relocation of species to suitable alternative habitats where
clearance or destruction of the habitat cannot be avoided or
mitigated onsite.
(3) A person who alters a potential development site—
(a) prior to the completion of an ecological survey under this section,
and
(b) without due regard to potential habitats of vulnerable species
on the site commits an offence.
(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about offences
under subsection (3).’
(3) After section 58A (permission in principle) insert—
‘58AA Duty of regard to wildlife habitats in granting permissions
In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for the development of land in England which threatens the habitat of a vulnerable species under section 57A the local planning authority or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State must have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the habitat.’”
This new clause requires ecological surveys establishing whether a proposed development threatens habitats of a vulnerable species before a planning application. It also requires planning authorities to take vulnerable species’ habitats into account in planning decisions and creates an offence relating to destroying habitats prior to the ecological survey.
Amendment (a) to new clause 5, in proposed new section 57A(1), leave out
“the habitat of a vulnerable species”
and insert—
“(a) the habitat of—
(i) any vulnerable or endangered species, or
(ii) any species of red status bird, or
(b) ancient woodland.”
Amendment (b) to new clause 5, after proposed new section 57A(5), insert—
“(6) In this section—
‘vulnerable or endangered species’ means a species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
‘red status bird’ means any species of bird on the latest Birds of Conservation Concern red list.”
Amendment (c) to new clause 5, at end insert—
“(4) Where an ecological survey identifies that a proposed development constitutes a threat under subsection (1), any consideration of a planning application in relation to the proposed development by the local planning authority must begin with a presumption against development.”
New clause 6—Disposal of land held by public bodies—
“(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022.’
(3) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.
(4) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsection (5).
(5) After section 211 (acquisition, use and maintenance of property) insert—
‘211A Disposal of land held by NHS bodies
Any power granted by this Act to an NHS body to dispose of land is exercisable in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022 as if the NHS body were a local authority.’
(6) Subject to subsection (8), a disposal of land is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (7).
(7) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—
(a) after paragraph 1 insert—
‘(1A) This consent also applies to any NHS body in England as if it were
a local authority in accordance with section 211A of the National
Health Service Act 2006;’;
(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;
(c) for paragraph 3(1)(vii) substitute—
‘(viii) a Police and Crime Commissioner established under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011;’;
(d) for paragraph 3(1)(ix) substitute—
‘(ix) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime;’;
(e) for paragraph 3(1)(x) substitute—
‘(x) the London Fire Commissioner;’;
(f) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—
‘(xiii) a combined authority;
(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;
(xv) the Greater London Authority;
(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this subparagraph.’
(8) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.”This new clause would bring an amended and updated version of the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 into primary legislation, extends its application to NHS bodies and clarifies that the Consent applies to Police and Crime Commissioners, MOPAC and the London Fire Commissioner.
New clause 8—National Parks purposes—
(1) Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is amended in so far as it applies to England as follows.
(2) For section 5(1) substitute—
‘(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose—
(a) of restoring, conserving and enhancing the—
(i) biodiversity and the natural environment;
(ii) natural beauty; and
(iii) cultural heritage
of the areas specified in the next following subsection; and
(b) of providing equal opportunities for all parts of society to
improve their connection to biodiversity and the natural
environment, natural beauty and cultural heritage of those areas
and the enjoyment of their special qualities.’
(3) For section 5(2) substitute—
‘(2) The said areas are those extensive tracts of country in England which it appears to Natural England that by reason of—
(a) their biodiversity and natural environment, natural beauty and cultural heritage; and
(b) the opportunities they afford for providing equal opportunities for all parts of society to improve their connection to biodiversity and the natural environment, natural beauty and cultural heritage of those areas and the enjoyment of their special qualities, having regard both to their character and to their position in relation to centres of population,
it is especially desirable that the necessary measures shall be taken for the purposes mentioned in the last foregoing subsection.’
(4) Omit section 5(2A).
(5) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) In subsection (1) above—
“biodiversity” has the meaning given to the term “biological diversity” by Article 2 of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992;
“natural environment” has the meaning given by section 44 of the Environment Act 2021;
“natural beauty” has the meaning given by section 114(2) of this Act;
“cultural heritage” means any building, structure, other feature of the natural or built environment or site, which is of historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest.’
(6) The amendments made by subsections (1) to (5) above are without prejudice to the continuing validity of any designation of an area as a National Park under subsection (3) of that section.”
This new clause will amend the statutory purposes of National Parks to make it clearer that National Parks should actively recover nature and improve people’s connection with nature, as recommended by the Glover Review. Part (3) amends the criteria for designating new National Parks in line with the updated purposes.
New clause 9—Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated—
“(1) Section 11A (Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designed) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is amended in so far as it applies to England as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) A National Park authority, in pursuing in relation to the National Park the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act, shall seek to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation, in particular through policies and projects that restore, conserve and enhance biodiversity and the natural environment while also reducing, or increasing the removal of, greenhouse gas emissions or supporting climate adaptation.’
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
‘(2) In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority must further the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of restoring, conserving and enhancing the natural environment and biodiversity, natural beauty and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.’”
This new clause implements two recommendations from the Glover Review, to give National Park authorities a new duty to address climate change and to strengthen the existing duty on public bodies to “further” National Park purposes.
New clause 10—National Park Management Plans—
“(1) Section 66 (National Park Management Plans) of the Environment Act 1995 is amended in so far as it applies to England as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) A National Park Management Plan must include targets and actions to be achieved before the review of the plan under subsection (4) by the National Park authority and other relevant authorities that are exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the National Park.
(1B) The targets and actions must include those that will contribute to—
(a) the furthering of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;
(b) the achievement of targets as may be set under
(i) sections 1 to 7 of the Environment Act 2021;
(ii) environmental improvement plans prepared under sections 8 to 15 of that Act; and
(iii) the Climate Change Act 2008 for the protection of the climate, including in respect of the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change; and
(c) the implementation of any local nature recovery strategies for an area within the National Park prepared under sections 104 to 107 of the Environment Act 2021.
(1C) In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, a relevant authority must—
(a) in the case of a relevant authority other than a National Park authority, assist with the preparation of the National Park Management Plan by providing to the National Park authority a list of the actions that the relevant authority will take reasonable steps to undertake over the 5 years of the Plan to further the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;
(b) take reasonable steps to undertake those actions within that period; and
(c) in the case of a relevant authority other than a National Park authority, at least six months prior to the commencement of the review of the National Park Management Plan, provide to the National Park authority the details of the actions that the relevant authority has undertaken during the period to which the Plan relates.
(1D) For the purposes of (1A) and (1B) “relevant authority” has the same meaning as in section 11A(3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.’
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) At least three months prior to the commencement of a review under subsection (4) a National Park authority must publish a report setting out, in particular, details of—
(a) targets and actions in the National Park Management Plan that have been achieved;
(b) targets and actions that have not been achieved;
(c) targets and actions that the National Park authority is not yet able to determine whether they have been achieved, the reasons for that and the steps the National Park authority or any other relevant authority intends to take in order to determine whether the target or action has been achieved, and, in respect of (b), the reasons why a target or action has not been achieved and the steps the National Park authority or any other relevant authority has taken, or intends to take, to ensure the target or action is achieved as soon as reasonably practicable.
(4B) Within three months of the publication of the report prepared in accordance with subsection (4A) Natural England must provide and publish advice to the National Park authority and any relevant authority as it sees fit, in relation to the National Park Management Plan that is to be reviewed, on—
(a) the extent to which and reasons why any targets in that Plan have not been met;
(b) actions that should be taken by the National Park authority or any relevant authority to ensure that the target is achieved as soon as possible; and
(c) targets to be set in the revised plan.
(4C) Advice given under (4B) must also contain the reasons for that advice.
(4D) It shall be the duty of a National Park authority and any relevant authority to follow the advice given under subsection (4B) unless it appears unreasonable to do so, in which case the National Park authority or relevant authority must publish a statement giving reasons why it is not following that advice.
(4E) At the same time as the publication of a report under paragraph (c) of subsection (6), a National Park authority must publish a report on its response to the advice given under (4B) and any actions taken by the National Park authority or any other relevant authority as a result of the advice given under paragraph (b) of subsection (4B).’
(4) For subsection (7) substitute—
‘(7) A National Park authority which is proposing to publish, adopt or review any plan under this section must publish notice of the proposal and a copy of the plan, together (where appropriate) with any proposed amendments of the plan and consult—
(a) every principal council and corporate joint committee whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the relevant Park;
(b) Natural England;
(c) the Environment Agency;
(d) any other relevant authority that is exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park; and
(e) the general public.’
(5) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(7A) A National Park authority must take into consideration any observations made by any of the persons consulted under subsection (7).’
(6) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) Any plan which a National Park authority publishes, adopts or amends following a review under this section shall not be made operational until it is approved in writing by the Secretary of State on advice from Natural England.’
(7) After section 66 insert—
‘66A Guidance on the preparation of National Park Management Plans: England
(1) Natural England must issue guidance to National Park authorities on the preparation, content and implementation of National Park Management Plans.
(2) Guidance must be—
(a) published by Natural England in such manner as Natural England sees fit;
(b) kept under review; and
(c) revised where Natural England considers it appropriate.
(3) A National Park authority must have regard to the guidance when preparing and implementing a National Park Management Plan.
66B Annual reports on the implementation of National Park Management Plans: England
(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, a National Park authority in England must prepare a report on the implementation of the current National Park Management Plan during that year and send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and Natural England.
(2) The report must include an assessment of—
(a) the progress that has been made during the financial year in achieving the targets and actions set out in the National Park Management Plan;
(b) the further progress that is needed to achieve those targets and actions and the steps the National Park authority or any other relevant authority will take to ensure the target or action is achieved before the next review of the Plan under subsection (4) of section 66; and
(c) whether those targets and actions are likely to be achieved before the next review of the Plan under subsection (4) of section 66.
(3) A relevant authority other than a National Park authority that is exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park in England must contribute to the report by providing to the National Park authority the details of the actions that the relevant authority has undertaken to further the purposes of the National Park specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 during the financial year to which the report relates.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and publish the report.
(5) “Relevant authority” has the same meaning as in section 11A(3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
66C Duty to provide advice or other assistance on request: England
Natural England must, at the request of a National Park authority or other relevant authority, provide advice, analysis, information or other assistance to the authority in connection with—
(a) the authority's functions under this or any other Act; and
(b) the progress made towards meeting the targets and actions included in a National Park Management Plan.
66D Strategic priorities and objectives for National Parks: England
(1) Within six months of the entering into force of this section, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out strategic priorities and objectives for National Park authorities and relevant authorities in carrying out relevant functions.
(2) National Park authorities and relevant authorities must carry out those functions in accordance with any statement published under this section.
(3) In formulating a statement under this section, the Secretary of State must further the purposes in section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (“the 1949 Act”).
(4) Before publishing a statement under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) National Park authorities;
(b) Natural England; and
(c) such relevant authorities as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(5) Before publishing a statement under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay a draft of the statement before Parliament; and
(b) then wait until the end of the 40-day period.
(6) The Secretary of State may not publish the final statement under this section if, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it.
(7) “The 40-day period” 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).
(8) When calculating the 40-day period, ignore any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.
(9) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with this section, publish a revised statement no later than five years after the publication of each statement.
(10) In this section—
“relevant authorities” shall have the same meaning as in section 11A of the 1949 Act; and
“relevant functions” means, for National Park authorities, the functions mentioned in Part III of this Act and, for relevant authorities, those functions mentioned in section 11A(2) of the 1949 Act.’”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Glover Review that National Park Management Plans should contain targets, priorities and actions to deliver the purposes of National Parks. It would also require National Park authorities and other public bodies to set out what steps they will take to achieve those targets, priorities and actions.
New clause 11—National Park Authorities—
“(1) Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 is amended in so far as it applies to England as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(3) after “must” insert “not”.
(3) In paragraph 2(3)(c) omit “only at the request of that council”.
(4) After paragraph 2(4) insert—
“(4A) In appointing local authority members of a National Park authority, a principal council must have regard to the desirability of—
(a) the members (between them) having experience of, and having shown some capacity in, the purposes of National Parks specified in subsections (1) of section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; and
(b) maintaining an overall balance between members with experience of and capacity in those purposes.”
(5) After paragraph 3(2) insert—
“(2A) In appointing parish members of a National Park authority the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of—
(a) the members (between them) having experience of, and having shown some capacity in, the purposes of National Parks specified in subsections (1) of section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; and
(b) maintaining an overall balance between members with experience of and capacity in those purposes.”
(6) After paragraph 4(1) insert—
“(1A) In appointing members of a National Park authority the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of—
(a) the members (between them) having experience of, and having shown some capacity in, the purposes of National Parks specified in subsections (1) of section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; and
(b) maintaining an overall balance between members with experience of and capacity in those purposes.””
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to amend secondary legislation to increase the proportion of National Park authority members who are nationally appointed, on the basis of their skills and experience. It would also require that consideration is given to ensuring members have relevant experience.
New clause 12—Requirements to encourage the development of small sites—
“(1) In respect of a development where the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied, local authorities must support opportunities to bring forward sites and apply a presumption in favour of development.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) the site is less than 0.25 hectares in area, and
(b) the site contains over 60% affordable housing.
(3) In this section, “affordable housing” has the same meaning as in Annex 2 of the NPPF.”
This new clause would provide for a presumption in favour of development for affordable-led small sites and encourage councils to bring forward small sites for development.
New clause 13—Duty of regard to the right to nature—
“(1) It is the duty of public authorities when exercising their functions under this Act to have special regard to the right to nature.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the “right to nature” means the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
(3) Contributing to providing and maintaining a clean, healthy and sustainable environment includes increasing access to natural spaces and reducing geographical inequalities in this access.”
This new clause would create a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and require authorities to increase access to nature and to ensure access is equitably distributed across different communities.
New clause 14—FloodRe Build Back Better scheme participation—
“(1) The Financial Conduct Authority must, before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day this Act is passed, make rules under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requiring insurance companies participate in the FloodRe Build Back Better scheme to reimburse flood victims for costs of domestic flood resilience and prevention measures.
(2) In making those rules the Financial Conduct Authority must have regard to its operation objectives to—
(a) protect consumers, and
(b) promote competition.”
This new clause would require the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules requiring insurance companies to participate in the currently voluntary Build Back Better scheme, which was launched by FloodRe in April 2022.
New clause 15—Minimum requirements for flood mitigation and protection—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day this Act is passed, use the power under section 1 of 5 the Building Act 1984 to make building regulations for the purpose in subsection (2).
(2) That purpose is to set minimum standards for new build public and private properties in England for—
(a) property flood resilience,
(b) flood mitigation, and
(c) waste management in connection with flooding.”
This new clause would require the Government to set minimum standards for flood resilience, flood mitigation and flood waste management in building regulations.
New clause 16—Duty to make flooding data available—
“(1) The Secretary of State and local authorities in England must take all reasonable steps to make data about flood prevention and risk publicly available
(2) The duty under subsection (1) extends to seeking to facilitate use of the data by—
(a) insurers for the purpose of accurately assessing risk, and
(b) individual property owners for the purpose of assessing the need for property flood resilience measures.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Government and local authorities to make data about flood prevention and risk available for the purpose of assisting insurers and property owners.
New clause 17—Flood prevention and mitigation certification and accreditation schemes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish—
(a) a certification scheme for improvements to domestic and commercial properties in England made in full or in part for flood prevention or flood mitigation purposes, and
(b) an accreditation scheme for installers of such improvements.
(2) The scheme under subsection (1)(a) must—
(a) set minimum standards for the improvements, including that they are made by a person accredited under subsection (1)(b), and
(b) provide for the issuance of certificates stating that improvements to properties have met those standards.
(3) The scheme under subsection (1)(a) may make provision for the certification of improvements that were made before the establishment of the scheme provided those improvements meet the minimum standards in subsection (2)(a).
(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) A draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Government to establish a certification scheme for improvements to domestic and commercial properties in England made for flood prevention or flood mitigation purposes and an accreditation scheme for installers of such improvements.
New clause 18—Insurance premiums—
“(1) The Financial Conduct Authority must, before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day this Act is passed, make rules under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requiring insurance companies to take into account the matters in subsection (2) when calculating insurance premiums relating to residential and commercial properties.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) that certified improvements have been made to a property under section [flood prevention and mitigation certification and accreditation schemes], or
(b) that measures that were in full or in part for the purposes of flood prevention or mitigation have been taken in relation to the property that were requirements of the local planning authority for planning permission purposes.”
This new clause would require the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules requiring insurance companies to take into account flood prevention or mitigation improvements that are either certified or planning permission requirements in setting insurance premiums.
New clause 19—Flood Reinsurance scheme eligibility—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day this Act is passed—
(a) establish a new Flood Reinsurance scheme under section 64 of the Water Act 2014 which is in accordance with subsection (2), and
(b) lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under that section to designate that scheme.
(2) A new Flood Reinsurance scheme is in accordance with this section if it extends eligibility to—
(a) premises built on or after 1 January 2009 which have property flood resilience measures that meet the standard under section [minimum requirements for flood mitigation and protection](2)(a), and
(b) buildings insurance for small and medium-sized enterprise premises.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations require public bodies to share business rates information with the scheme established under subsection (1)(a) for purposes connected with the scheme.
(4) The Water Act 2014 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (9).
(5) In section 64 (the Flood Reinsurance scheme), after “household premises”, in each place it occurs, insert “and small and medium-sized enterprise premises”.
(6) In section 67 (scheme administration), after “household premises”, in each place it occurs, insert “and small and medium-sized enterprise premises”.
(7) After section 69 (disclosure of HMRC council tax information) insert—
“(69A) Disclosure of business rates information
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require public bodies to disclose information relating to business rates to any person who requires that information for either of the following descriptions of purposes—
(a) purposes connected with such scheme as may be established and designated in accordance with section 64 (in any case arising before any scheme is so designated);
(b) purposes connected with the FR Scheme (in any case arising after the designation of a scheme in accordance with section 64).
(2) A person to whom information is disclosed under regulations made under subsection (1)(a) or (b)—
(a) may use the information only for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), as the case may be;
(b) may not further disclose the information except in accordance with those regulations.”
(8) In section 82(5) (interpretation)—
(a) for “69” substitute “69A”;
(b) after “household premises” insert “small and medium-sized enterprise premises”.
(9) In section 84(6) (regulations and orders), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 69A (disclosure of business rates information),”.”
This new clause would require the Government to extend the FloodRe scheme to premises built since 2009 that have property flood resilience measures that meet minimum standards and buildings insurance for small and medium-sized enterprise premises.
New clause 20—Strengthening local powers on new home standards, affordable housing and bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make Building Regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 providing that new homes in England must meet the full requirements of the Future Homes Standard from 1 January 2023.
(2) A local authority in England may choose to require and enforce minimum carbon compliance standards for new homes in its area which exceed the Future Homes Standard from that date.
(3) Notwithstanding the National Planning Policy Framework, a local planning authority may mandate that any new housing in its area is affordable.
(4) A local planning authority may define “affordable” for the purposes of subsection (3).
(5) Notwithstanding section 66 of the Transport Act 1985, a local authority in England shall have power to provide a service for the carriage of passengers by road which requires a PSV operator’s licence.”
This new clause would bring forward the date for which the Future Homes Standard for carbon compliance of new homes would apply and give local authorities the option of imposing higher standards locally; it would enable local authorities to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction is affordable and confer new powers on local authorities to run their own bus services.
New clause 40—Requirement to hold a referendum on fracking applications—
“(1) This section applies to any planning application for the purposes of, or in connection with, hydraulic fracturing.
(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application to which this section applies unless it has been approved by a referendum in accordance with subsection (3).
(3) A referendum is in accordance with this subsection if—
(a) it is a poll of all local authority electors resident in the license area or the impact zone of the proposed hydraulic fracturing site; and
(b) it is approved by the majority of such electors who vote in the referendum.
(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about the conduct of referendums under subsection (3).
(5) In making regulations under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must have regard to the provisions of the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014).
(6) The total referendum expenses incurred must be paid in full by the planning applicant.”
New clause 43—Planning permission required for use of dwelling as second home—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 55 (meaning of “development” and “new development”), after subsection (3)(a) insert—
“(aa) the use of a dwelling as a second home following a change in ownership involves a material change in the use of the building (whether or not it was previously used as a second home);”.”
This new clause would mean planning permission would be required for a dwelling to be used as a second home following a change of ownership.
New clause 44—Local authorities to be permitted to require that new housing in National Parks and AONB is affordable—
“(1) Notwithstanding the National Planning Policy Framework, a local planning authority may mandate that any new housing in its area that is within—
(a) a National Park, or
(b) an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
is affordable.
(2) A local planning authority may define “affordable” for the purposes of subsection (1).”
This new clause would enable local authorities to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction and within a National Park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is affordable, and to define “affordable” for that purpose.
New clause 47—Disability accessibility standards for railway stations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that railway stations in England—
(a) provide step-free access from street to train, and
(b) meet in full and as soon as possible the disability access standards in the Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations Code of Practice published by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland in March 2015.
(2) Any requirements made in conjunction with that duty may not make any exemptions or concessions for small or remote stations.
(3) In undertaking the duty in subsection (1) the Secretary of State may—
(a) make an application to the Office of Rail and Road under section 16A (provision, improvement and development of railway facilities) of the Railways Act 1993;
(b) revise the code of practice under section 71B (code of practice for protection of interests of rail users who are disabled) of the Railways Act 1993;
(c) amend the contractual conditions of any licenced railway operator;
(d) instruct Network Rail to take any action the Secretary of State considers necessary in connection to the duty.
(4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on performance against the duty.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that railway stations meet disability access standards.
New clause 72—Super-affirmative procedure for EOR regulations made under Part 5—
“(1) If the Secretary of State proposes to make EOR regulations which fall under section 195(5), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal, and
(b) sets it out in the form of draft EOR regulations.
(2) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (1) (“the 60-day period”), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament draft regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications).
(3) In preparing draft regulations under this Part to give effect to the proposal, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft regulations during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations, and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament
charged with reporting on the draft regulations.
(4) When laying before Parliament draft regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document laid before Parliament under subsection (1).
(5) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than 4 days.”
This new clause would require EOR regulations made under Part 5 to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure.
New clause 73—National development management policy—
“(1) A national development management policy must not include any provision that—
(a) requires any housing to be built on the green belt; or
(b) encourages the building of housing on the green belt.
(2) For the purpose of this section, “the green belt” means any land designated as green belt by a local planning authority.”
This new clause would ensure that the government cannot use national development management policies to allow housing to be built on green belt land.
New clause 80—Prohibition of onshore developments for purposes of oil and gas searching, boring and extraction—
“(1) The Petroleum Act 1988 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In section 3 (licences to search and bore for and get petroleum), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) But the appropriate authority may not issue any new such onshore licence after the day on which the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 is passed.
(2B) The prohibition in subsection (2A) includes licences or consents relating to hydraulic fracturing.”
(3) A planning authority or Secretary of State may not grant planning permission to any proposed development for the purposes of searching for, boring for or getting petroleum.
(4) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would prevent planning authorities or the Secretary of State from granting planning permission to any new onshore oil or gas developments, including hydraulic fracturing.
New clause 81—Prohibition of development for the purpose of coal-mining—
“(1) The Coal Industry Act 1994 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In section 26 (Grant of licences), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) But the appropriate authority may not issue any new such licence after the day on which the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 is passed.
(2B) The prohibition in subsection (2A) includes licences or consents relating to—
(a) any new coal mine; and
(b) the expansion of, or extension to, any existing coal mine (including time-extension applications).”
(3) A minerals planning authority must not grant planning permission to any proposed development for the purposes of coal-mining operations.
(4) A minerals planning authority must not grant any extension of existing planning permission to any development for the purposes of coal-mining operations.
(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 83—Industrial support reporting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports on—
(a) the rates of the matters in subsection (2), and
(b) the extent to which the fiscal and regulatory framework supports growth in those matters in areas with rates of poverty, unemployment or economic inactivity above the national average.
(2) The matters are—
(a) new factory openings,
(b) investment in new factory equipment,
(c) the introduction of tailored skills-acquisition programmes, and
(d) the creation of manufacturing jobs.
(3) The first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2023.
(4) A further such report must be laid before Parliament in each subsequent calendar year.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the rates of, and the extent to which the fiscal and regulatory framework supports, new factory openings, investment in new factory equipment, introduction of tailored skills-acquisition programmes and creation of manufacturing jobs in areas with rates of poverty, unemployment or economic inactivity above the national average.
New clause 85—Wildbelt—
“(1) Local planning authorities should maintain a register of wildbelt land in their local areas (see section 106(c) of the Environment Act 2021).
(2) Wildbelt land must be recognised in Local Plans based on areas identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
(3) Local planning authorities must act in accordance with Local Nature Recovery Strategy wildbelt designations in the exercise of relevant functions, including land use planning and planning decisions.
(4) Wildbelt land should not be subject to land use change that hinders the recovery of nature in these areas.”
This new clause would secure a land designation in England that provides protection for sites being managed for nature’s recovery, identified through the Local Nature Recovery Strategies created by the Environment Act. Sites designated as wildbelt in Local Plans would be subject to only moderate controls, precluding development but allowing farming and other land uses which do not hinder the recovery of nature.
New clause 86—Wildbelt & the Environment Act—
“In section 106(5) of the Environment Act 2021, after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) any sites identified as having potential for nature’s recovery, to be known as wildbelt sites;””
New clause 87—Energy efficiency measures in listed buildings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations about the use of energy efficiency measures in residential listed buildings.
(2) The aim of the regulations must be to make it easier for owners of residential listed buildings to improve the energy efficiency of those buildings.
(3) The regulations may impose any requirement upon Historic England that the Secretary of State considers necessary in order to achieve the aim in subsection (2).
(4) In this section, “energy efficiency measures” include—
(a) the installation of heat pumps; and
(b) any measure aimed at improving the energy efficiency rating of a property.”
New clause 88—New Permitted Development Right—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, create a new permitted development right to allow existing residential buildings to be redeveloped without further planning consent if—
(a) the building is in an urban area,
(b) the local authority has issued one or more design codes for the area in which the building is situated, and the redevelopment complies with it,
(c) the building is not a listed building or subject to other heritage protections, and
(d) the redevelopment complies with all relevant building safety regulations.
(2) Subsection (1) comes into force after a period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) A local planning authority must issue one or more design codes for residential buildings in all urban areas within their boundaries within six months of the passage of this Act.”
This new clause would create simplified residential planning permission for homes in towns and cities which comply with designs that have been pre-approved by their Local Authority.
New clause 89—Peat Extraction: no compensation for alteration of planning permissions—
“(1) Section 107 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5), insert—
“(6) From 1 January 2024, this section does not apply to permissions relating to the extraction of peat.””
This new clause removes a barrier that prevents Mineral Planning Authorities taking action to bring to an end the extraction of peat within England. It is timed to coincide with the expected legal ban on the sale of peat and peat containing products in England and Wales.
New clause 92—Chief Planning Officers—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1 insert—
“1A Planning authorities: chief planning officer
(1) Each planning authority must have a chief planning officer.
(2) The role of an authority’s chief planning officer is to advise the authority about the carrying out of—
(a) the functions conferred on them by virtue of the planning Acts, and
(b) any function conferred on them by any other enactment, insofar as the function relate to development.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to planning authorities concerning the role of an authority’s chief planning officer.
(4) A planning authority may not appoint a person as their chief planning officer unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.
(5) In deciding what constitutes appropriate qualifications and experience for the role of chief planning officer, a planning authority must have regard to any guidance on the matter issued by the Secretary of State.””
This new clause would place a duty on local planning authorities to appoint a Chief Planning Officer to perform planning functions and requires them to appoint sufficiently qualified persons to perform them with regard to guidance from the Secretary of State.
New clause 94—Vacant higher value local authority housing—
“(1) The Housing and Planning Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out Chapter 2 of Part 4 (Vacant higher value local authority housing).”
This new clause would implement the decision set out in the 2018 social housing green paper to not require local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher value council homes as provided for by the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
New clause 95—Review of Permitted Development Rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a review of permitted development rights under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
(2) The review should include an assessment of—
(a) the past effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets;
(b) the quality of housing delivered under permitted development rights;
(c) the impacts of permitted development on heritage, conservation areas and setting;
(d) the estimated carbon impact of the use of permitted development rights since the expansion of permitted development to demolition;
(e) the relative cost to local planning authorities of processing permitted development compared to full planning consents;
(f) potential conflict between existing permitted development rights and the application of national development management policies;
(g) the impact of permitted development rights, or other policies in this Bill designed to deliver streamlined consent, on the efficacy of levelling-up missions.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report of the recommendations made by this review no later than twelve months after this Act comes into force.”
This new clause would commit the government to carrying out a comprehensive review of permitted development rights within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent.
New clause 96—Local authority planning committee meetings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision relating to—
(a) requirements to hold local authority planning committee meetings;
(b) the times at or by which, periods within which, or frequency with which, local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;
(c) the places at which local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;
(d) the manner in which persons may attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings;
(e) public admission and access to local authority planning committee meetings;
(f) the places at which, and manner in which, documents relating to local authority planning committee meetings are to be open to inspection by, or otherwise available to, members of the public.
(2) The provision which must be made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) includes in particular provision for persons to attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings without all of the persons, or without any of the persons, being together in the same place.”
This new clause would allow local authorities to hold planning committee meetings and reach planning decisions virtually or in a hybrid form.
New clause 97—Chief Planning Officers—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1 insert—
“1A Planning authorities: chief planning officer
(1) Each planning authority must have a chief planning officer.
(2) The role of an authority’s chief planning officer is to advise the authority about the carrying out of—
(a) the functions conferred on them by virtue of the planning Acts, and
(b) any function conferred on them by any other enactment, insofar as the function relate to development.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to planning authorities concerning the role of an authority’s chief planning officer.
(4) A planning authority may not appoint a person as their chief planning officer unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.
(5) In deciding what constitutes appropriate qualifications and experience for the role of chief planning officer, a planning authority must have regard to any guidance on the matter issued by the Secretary of State.””
This new clause would place a duty on local planning authorities to appoint a Chief Planning Officer to perform planning functions and requires them to appoint sufficiently qualified persons to perform them with regard to guidance from the Secretary of State.
New clause 98—Duty with regard to climate change—
“(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when preparing—
(a) national policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,
(b) a development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the PCPA 2004.
(2) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure consistency with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when exercising a relevant function under a planning enactment.
(3) A relevant planning authority when—
(a) exercising a planning function must have special regard to, and aim to ensure consistency with, achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and
(b) making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a relevant planning authority is as set out in section 81 (a) and (b) and (d) to (j).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) a relevant function is a function that relates to the development or use of land.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) a planning function is the preparation of—
(a) a spatial development strategy;
(b) a local plan;
(c) a minerals and waste plan;
(d) a supplementary plan; or
(e) any other policy or plan that will be used to inform a planning decision.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (6) a planning decision is a decision relating to—
(a) the development or use of land arising from an application for planning permission;
(b) the making of a development order; or
(c) an authorisation pursuant to a development order.
(8) In relation to neighbourhood planning, a qualifying body preparing a draft neighbourhood plan or development order must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(9) For the purposes of this section, achieving the mitigation of climate change shall include the achievement of—
(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(10) For the purposes of this section, achieving adaptation to climate change shall include the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including—
(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”
This new clause would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan-making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies or exercising their functions in planning decision-making.
New clause 99—Permitted development: temporary use of land—
“(1) Section 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Where the proposed use of any land is to operate a commercial helicopter service—
(a) the local planning authority must be notified of the date the site will be used for this purpose, and
(b) the site must be approved for use for this purpose by the local planning authority.””
New clause 100—Planning Application Fees—
“(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A local planning authority may make provision as to how a fee or charge under this section is to be calculated (including who is to make the calculation).””
This new clause would allow local authorities to set the fees for planning applications, in order that the cost of determining an application is reflected by the fee charged.
New clause 101—Greenbelt protection in the NPPF—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) The NPPF must provide that when considering any planning application in the greenbelt, unmet housing need does not constitute very special circumstances.”
This new clause would ensure that unmet housing need cannot constitute a very special circumstance when assessing harm caused by development on the greenbelt, to align with the Written Statement HCWS423 of 17 December 2015. This would, for example, enable a local planning authority to refuse an inappropriate speculative development in the absence of a local plan.
New clause 102—Calculation of housing need—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision requiring local planning authorities to use the most recently published ONS household projections when preparing their local plans.
(2) The NPPF must provide that when considering any planning application, unmet housing need is calculated using the most recent ONS household projections.”
This new clause would end the mandatory use of outdated 2014 ONS household projection figures when calculating unmet housing need using the standard method.
New clause 103—Onshore wind in the National Planning Policy Framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) The NPPF must not contain a presumption against a proposed wind energy development involving one or more turbines.”
This new clause would remove the presumption against onshore wind turbines, which is currently prevented in all cases by the inclusion of Footnote 54 in the NPPF.
New clause 104—Deliberative democracy: local planning—
“(1) Before the preparation of any development or outline plan the local planning authority must undertake a process of deliberative democracy which involving the community to set—
(a) the balance of economic, environmental, infrastructure and special plans,
(b) the type of housing to be delivered,
(c) the infrastructure that is required to be hosted,
(d) the type of economic space, and
(e) environmental considerations, including making sites sustainable.
(2) A process of deliberative democracy under this section must—
(a) invite all residents of the local authority area to apply to be a representative in the deliberative democracy process,
(b) include measures to try to ensure that there will be a diverse representation of that community in the process, and
(c) provide for a forum of representatives that—
(i) will determine its terms of terms of reference, number of meetings and agenda at its first meeting, and
(ii) will produce a report from the deliberative democracy process.
(3) A report under subsection (2)(c)(ii) may determine the scope of development on a site.”
This new clause would introduce a deliberative democracy forum comprised of members of the public prior to the formation of a new development plan or outline plan.
New clause 105—Nature restoration duty—
“(1) It is the duty of relevant Ministers to identify of and maintain a network of sites for the purposes of restoring and protecting the natural environment in local areas.
(2) By 2030 and thereafter, the network must include at least 30% of land in England that is protected, monitored and managed as a "protected site" or other effective area-based conservation measures for the protection and restoration of biodiversity.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), "protected site” means a site that satisfies the following conditions—
(a) habitats, species and other significant features of the natural environment with biodiversity value within the site are strictly protected from direct and indirect harm;
(b) management and monitoring provisions are made to ensure that habitats, species and other significant features of the natural environment with biodiversity value within the site are restored to and maintained at favourable condition and are subject to continuing improvement; and
(c) provision is made to ensure that conditions (a) and (b) are met in perpetuity.
(4) In carrying out duties under this section, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) any areas of special interest for biodiversity in England as defined in section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
(b) all irreplaceable habitats; and
(c) areas identified in Local Nature Recovery Strategies that are protected in the planning system and managed for the recovery of the natural environment have been identified and designated as a protected site.”
This new clause would require relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature to protect at least 30% of the land in England for nature by 2030. The clause defines the level of protection sites require to qualify for inclusion in the new network and requires key sites for nature to be included within it.
New clause 106—Churches and church land to be registered as assets of community value—
“(1) The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2421/2012) are amended as follows.
(2) After regulation 2 (list of assets of community value), insert—
“2A Parish churches and associated glebe land are land of community value and must be listed.””
This new clause would require parish churches and associated glebe land to be listed as assets of community value, meaning communities would have the right to bid on them before any sale.
New clause 107—Licensing scheme: holiday lets—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require each relevant local authority in England to introduce a local licensing scheme for holiday lets.
(2) Any local licensing scheme introduced pursuant to regulations made under subsection (1) must require any owner of a holiday let to—
(a) obtain any fire, gas and electricity safety certificates as specified by the scheme;
(b) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations;
(c) secure a licence for the holiday let from the local authority prior to trading;
(d) obtain a licence and renew this licence—
(i) every three years,
(ii) when the property changes ownership, or
(iii) when there is a change in the person holding day to day responsibility for the property; and
(e) not let out a property without a valid licence.
(3) A local authority introducing a licensing scheme must—
(a) outline—
(i) the terms and conditions of the licence,
(ii) the application process for securing the licence, and
(iii) the licence renewal process;
(b) determine an annual licence fee for each licensed property;
(c) inspect any property prior to issuing a licence;
(d) require the owner of a short term holiday let to—
(i) apply for and hold a licence to operate for each property they let prior to trading,
(ii) pay a licence application fee and annual charge for the licence,
(iii) renew the licence as required by the local authority under their licensing scheme,
(iv) pay any fines associated with breaches of a licence as laid out in the local licensing scheme,
(v) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations, and
(vi) provide up to date property details including details of who will hold responsibility for the day to day management of the property;
(e) maintain an up to date list of all licensed short term holiday let properties within the local authority area to include—
(i) the address of the property,
(ii) whether this is a shared property occupied by the owner or a separate let,
(iii) how many people are eligible to stay at the property, and
(iv) how many days of the year that the property will be advertised for letting and be let;
(f) inspect the property following a report from the public of an issue of concern relating to the property or to any other property owned by the same person;
(g) monitor compliance with the licensing scheme;
(h) publish an annual report on the number and location of licences including the number and location of licences in each ward and their impact on local residential housing supply and details of any breaches reported and fines issued; and
(i) provide residents adjacent to the short term holiday let contact details of their enforcement officer should they experience any issue at the property.
(4) A licensing scheme must allow the local authority to—
(a) set out details of any area where the granting or renewal of licences will be banned, suspended or limited;
(b) set limits and or thresholds on the level of the licencing permitted in any area;
(c) require property owners to renew their licences every three years, or when a property changes in ownership;
(d) issue fines or remove a licence of a property if—
(i) fire, health and safety conditions are breached,
(ii) criminal activity occurs at the property, or
(iii) excess noise and nuisance or anti-social behaviour rules as set out in the licensing conditions are repeatedly breached, or
(iv) the registered owner or the person listed as holding responsibility for the property has had licences on other properties removed; and
(e) issue penalties or licensing bans on those renting properties without a licence.
(5) In this section—
an
“area” may be—
(a) a polling district;
(b) a ward; or
(c) the whole local authority area;
“holiday let” means—
(a) a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday, or
(b) any part of a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant to occupy that part of the house for a holiday;
“relevant local authority” means—
(a) a district council in England;
(b) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council;
(c) a London borough council; (d) the Common Council of the City of London.”
This new clause provides for the introduction of a licensing scheme for holiday lets.
New clause 108—Review of Permitted Development Rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act gaining Royal Assent, commission and publish an independent review of permitted development rights under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).
(2) The review should include an assessment of—
(a) the past effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets;
(b) the quality of housing delivered under permitted development rights;
(c) the impacts of permitted development on heritage, conservation areas and setting;
(d) the estimated carbon impact of the use of permitted development rights since the expansion of permitted development to demolition;
(e) the relative cost to local planning authorities of processing permitted development compared to full planning consent;
(f) potential conflict between existing permitted development rights and the application of national development management policies;
(g) the impact of permitted development rights, or other policies in this Bill designed to deliver streamlined consent, on the efficacy of levelling-up missions.
(3) The review should make recommendations.”
This new clause requests a review of permitted development rights to run in conjunction with the development of national development management policies, which will examine the potential for conflict between existing rights and likely national policies. This review would examine the interaction between other permissive and streamlined consent provisions in the Bill.
New clause 109—Cycling, walking and rights of way plans: incorporation in development plans—
“(1) A local planning authority must ensure that the development plan incorporates, so far as relevant to the use or development of land in the local planning authority’s area, the policies and proposals set out in—
(a) any local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans prepared by a local transport authority;
(b) any rights of way improvement plan.
(2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the local planning authority shall also have regard to any policies or proposals contained within a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans and any rights of way improvement plan which have not been included as part of the development plan, so far as material to the application.
(3) In this section—
(a) “local planning authority” has the same meaning as in section 15LF of PCPA 2004;
(b) “local transport authority” has the same meaning as in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000;
(c) a “rights of way improvement plan” is a plan published by a local highway authority under section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
This new clause would require development plans to incorporate policies and proposals for cycling and walking infrastructure plans and rights of way improvement plans. Local planning authorities would be required to have regard to any such policies and proposals where they have not been incorporated in a development plan.
New clause 110—Consistency with the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change—
“(1) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure consistency with the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in preparing—
(a) national policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,
(b) a development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
(2) A relevant planning authority when making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a relevant planning authority is as set out in section 81.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) a planning decision is a decision relating to—
(a) development arising from an application for planning permission;
(b) the making of a development order granting planning permission;
(c) an approval pursuant to a development order granting planning permission.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the mitigation of climate change shall include the achievement of—
(i) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(ii) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(b) adaptation to climate change shall include the achievement of long-term resilience to all climate-related risks, such as risks to health, well-being, food supply and infrastructure, including but not limited to—
(i) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(ii) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.
(6) The meaning of the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change given by subsection (5) applies for the purposes of—
(a) Parts 2 and Part 3 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
(b) section 334 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and
(c) Part 10A of the Planning Act 2008.”
This new clause would require planning policy prepared by the Secretary of State to inform local plan-making and planning decisions, and planning decisions themselves (including those made by the Secretary of State) to be consistent with national targets and objectives for the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change. To ensure consistency in implementation, the clause extends the definition to the requirements relating to the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change set out in the bill.
New clause 111—Vacant higher value local authority housing—
“(1) The Housing and Planning Act 2016 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) Leave out Chapter 2 of Part 4.”
New clause 112—Registers of persons seeking to acquire land to build a home—
“(1) Section 1 of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (A1) omit the words “or completion”.
(3) At the end of subsection (A1) insert “, where the individuals will have the main input into the full design and layout of their home.”
(4) In subsection (A2), for “who” substitute “, firm, business or company who or which”.
(5) At the end of subsection (A2) insert “, firm, business or company; and nor does it include off-plan homes, nor homes purchased at the plan stage prior to construction and without the main input into the full design and layout from the individual or individuals who will be the future occupiers.””
This new clause would clarify the legislation with respect to self-build and custom housebuilding to recognise that most homes are built by building firms, businesses or companies for individuals who want to build a home and that self-build and custom housebuilding means individuals must have main input into the full design and layout of their home.
New clause 114—Onshore wind planning applications—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Bill securing Royal Assent remove from the National Planning Policy Framework the current restrictions on the circumstances in which proposed wind energy developments involving one or more turbines should be considered acceptable.
(2) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended in accordance with subsection (3).
(3) In section 19 (preparation of local development documents), after (1B) insert—
“(1BA) Each local planning authority must consider how the desirability of the deployment of renewable energy, and specifically onshore wind generation, can be achieved in the local authority’s area.””
This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to revising the National Planning Policy Framework within six months of the Bill securing Royal Assent to remove the onerous restrictions it currently places on the development of onshore wind projects by deleting footnote 54 and ensure that local authorities are required to proactively identify opportunities for the deployment of renewable energy including onshore wind generation.
New clause 115—Duty to grant sufficient planning permission for self-build and custom housebuilding (No. 2)—
“(1) Section 2A of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) omit “suitable”; and
(b) for “in respect of enough serviced plots” substitute “for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding on enough serviced plots”.
(3) Omit subsection (6)(c).
(4) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6) Development permission must specify the precise number of dwellings which fall within the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in this Act and must be subject to an express planning condition or planning obligation specifically requiring dwellings to be built in line with the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding in this Act, and only in respect of the specific number of dwellings so identified.”
(5) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) Where individuals and associations of individuals who have registered on the register identified in section 1 have not had their demand met from one base period, they will have their demand added to the subsequent base period, provided those individuals or associations of individuals remain on the register or register in that subsequent base period.
(11) Unmet demand for self-build and custom housebuilding carries forward each year until it is met, provided the individual or associations of individuals continue to remain on the register or register each year and have not had their demand met.
(12) Once an individual or associations of individuals has been entered on the register identified in section 1, they shall not be removed from that register during the base period or for the three subsequent years during which the relevant authority is under a duty to meet the requirement for the base year in which the individual or associations of individuals has registered, other than with the express written consent of the individual or associations of individuals.””
This new clause provides that planning permission only qualifies towards meeting the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding if it is actually for self-build and custom housebuilding. It would also introduce a requirement to specify the precise number of dwellings which fall within this definition and clarify that the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding as recorded on an authority’s register is cumulative.
New clause 120—New use classes for second homes—
“(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 (dwellinghouses) for “whether or not as a sole or” substitute “as a”
(3) After paragraph 3 insert—
“3A Class C3A Second homes
Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a secondary or supplementary residence by—
(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;
(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or
(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within class C4).
Interpretation of Class C3A
For the purposes of Class C3A “single household” is to be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004.””
New clause 121—New use classes for holiday rentals—
“(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 (dwellinghouses) after “residence” insert “other than a use within Class C3A)”.
(3) After paragraph 3 insert—
“Class C3A Holiday rentals
Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a holiday rental property.””
New clause 122—Report on a resources and skills strategy for the planning sector—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the—
(a) resources; and
(b) skills
within and to local planning authorities.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of this review before Parliament no later than 6 months after this Act comes into force.
(3) A report under subsection (2) must include a strategy for—
(a) increasing resources to; and
(b) supporting the capacity of
local planning authorities.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review resources and skills within local planning authorities and those potentially available to them such as Planning Performance Agreements and to report the findings to Parliament.
New clause 123—Housebuilding targets at a local level—
“(1) The Secretary of State must set each local authority a reasoned housebuilding target.
(2) If the local authority accepts the housebuilding target set by the Secretary of State, it must be incorporated into the local plan.
(3) If the local authority does not accept the housebuilding target set by the Secretary of State, the decision on the housebuilding target is subject to a decision at the local inquiry stage.”
New clause 124—Public consultation on planning and women’s safety—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, open a public consultation to establish the impact of proposed changes to the planning system on women’s safety.
(2) Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended in accordance with subsection (3).
(3) After subsection (2A), insert—
“(2B) In dealing with an application for planning permission for public development, a local planning authority must establish a review of how the proposed development would impact women’s safety. The review must in particular, consider the impact of proposed development on—
(a) open spaces,
(b) layout of buildings,
(c) unlit or hidden spaces,
(d) visibility of entranceways, and
(e) blind spots.
(2C) The local planning authority must prepare and publish a report setting out the results of the review.””
Government new schedule 1—Amendments of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017: assumptions about nutrient pollution standards.
Amendment 20, in clause 75, page 85, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this Chapter may require relevant planning authorities to process data in accordance with approved data standards relating to the number and nature of—
(a) second homes,
(b) holiday let properties
in the planning authority area.”
This amendment would enable planning data regulations to provide for the collection of data to national standards about second homes and holiday lets.
Amendment 78, in clause 83, page 91, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
“(5C) But the development plan has precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two.”
This amendment gives precedence to local development plans over national policies, reversing the current proposal in inserted subsection (5C).
Amendment 77, page 91, line 30, at end insert
“, subject to subsection (5D).
(5D) But any conflict must be resolved in favour of the development plan in an area if—
(a) in relation to it, regulations under section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for the town and country planning function and the highways function and any functions exercisable under the Environment Act 2021 of a county council or a district council that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA's area,
(b) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for at least one function of another public body that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA's area,
(c) it has a joint spatial development strategy, or
(d) it is in Greater London.”
This amendment would place limits on the primary of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.
Amendment 79, in clause 84, page 92, line 9, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—
“(2) Before designating a policy as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of that policy.
(3) A policy may be designated as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in clause 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in clause 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to it, and—
(a) the consideration period for the policy has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the policy has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—
(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and
(ii) before the end of the consideration period.
(4) In subsection (3)
“the consideration period” ,in relation to a policy, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the statement is laid before Parliament under section 38ZC, and here “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(5) A policy may not be designated a national development management policy unless—
(a) it contains explanations of the reasons for the policy, and
(b) in particular, includes an explanation of how the policy set out takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
(6) The Secretary of State must arrange for the publication of a national policy statement.
38ZB Consultation and publicity
(1) This section sets out the consultation and publicity requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must carry out such consultation, and arrange for such publicity, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in relation to the proposal. This is subject to subsections (4) and (5).
(3) In this section “the proposal” means—
(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or
(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).
(4) The Secretary of State must consult such persons, and such descriptions of persons, as may be prescribed.
(5) If the policy set out in the proposal identifies one or more locations as suitable (or potentially suitable) for a specified description of development, the Secretary of State must ensure that appropriate steps are taken to publicise the proposal.
(6) The Secretary of State must have regard to the responses to the consultation and publicity in deciding whether to proceed with the proposal.
38ZC Parliamentary requirements
(1) This section sets out the parliamentary requirements referred to in sections 38ZA(3) and 38ZD(7).
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.
(3) In this section “the proposal” means—
(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy for the purposes of this Act or
(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment (see section 38ZD).
(4) Subsection (5) applies if, during the relevant period—
(a) either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or
(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State's response to the resolution or recommendations.
(6) The relevant period is the period specified by the Secretary of State in relation to the proposal.
(7) The Secretary of State must specify the relevant period in relation to the proposal on or before the day on which the proposal is laid before Parliament under subsection (2).
(8) After the end of the relevant period, but not before the Secretary of State complies with subsection (5) if it applies, the Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.
38ZD Review of national development management policies
(1) The Secretary of State must review a national development management policy whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.
(2) A review may relate to all or part of a national development management policy.
(3) In deciding when to review a national development management policy the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the policy was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the statement was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out would have been materially different.
(4) In deciding when to review part of a national development management policy (“the relevant part”) the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the relevant part was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.
(5) After completing a review of all or part of a national development management policy the Secretary of State must do one of the following—
(a) amend the policy;
(b) withdraw the policy's designation as a national development management policy;
(c) leave the policy as it is.
(6) Before amending a national development management policy the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the proposed amendment.
(7) The Secretary of State may amend a national development management policy only if the consultation and publicity requirements set out in section 38ZB, and the parliamentary requirements set out in section 38ZC, have been complied with in relation to the proposed amendment, and—
(a) the consideration period for the amendment has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the amendment should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the amendment has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—
(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZA, and
(ii) before the end of the consideration period.
(8) In subsection (7) “the consideration period”, in relation to an amendment, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the amendment is laid before Parliament, and here “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(9) If the Secretary of State amends a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must—
(a) arrange for the amendment, or the policy as amended, to be published, and
(b) lay the amendment, or the policy as amended, before Parliament.”
This amendment stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) for designating National Policy Statements.
Amendment 21, in clause 88, page 94, line 28, at end insert—
“(aa) policies (however expressed) relating to the proportion of dwellings which may be in—
(i) use class 3A (second homes), or
(ii) use class 3B (holiday rentals)
under Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764).”
This amendment would enable neighbourhood plans to include policies relating to the proportion of dwellings which may be second homes and short-term holiday lets under use classes created by NC38.
Amendment 22, page 94, line 28, at end insert—
“(aa) policies (however expressed) limiting new housing development in a National Park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to affordable housing;”
This amendment would enable neighbourhood development plans to restrict new housing development in National Parks and AONBs to affordable housing.
Amendment 74, page 95, line 6, at end insert—
“(B1) A neighbourhood development plan must include proposals to—
(a) achieve net zero,
(b) promote and increase local biodiversity, and
(c) improve local levels of recycling.”
Amendment 4, page 95, line 11, after “contribute” insert
“to the mitigation of flooding and”.
This amendment would require neighbourhood development plans to be designed to secure that the development and use of land in the neighbourhood area contribute to flood mitigation.
Amendment 95, in clause 90, page 96, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) Where regulations under this section make requirements of a local authority that is failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, the plan-making authority must consult the local community on the contents of the relevant plan.”
This amendment would require, in the event of a local authority failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, those taking over the process to consult with the community.
Amendment 23, in clause 92, page 98, line 39, at end insert—
This amendment would protect as heritage assets National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Government amendments 57 and 58.
Amendment 90, page 105, leave out clause 97.
Government amendments 27, 24 and 59.
Amendment 73, in clause 100, page 118, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) But notwithstanding subsection (3) the completion notice deadline may be less than 12 months after the completion notice was served if the local planning authority are of the opinion that—
(a) development has not taken place on the site for prolonged period,
(b) there is no reasonable prospect of development being completed within a reasonable period, and
(c) it is in the public interest to issue an urgent completion notice.
(3B) A completion notice may include requirements concerning the removal of any buildings or works authorised by the permission, or the discontinuance of any use of land so authorised, at the end of the completion period, and the carrying out of any works required for the reinstatement of land at the end of that period.”
This amendment would enable the issuance of completion notices withdrawing planning permission with a deadline of less than 12 months when certain conditions are met, and enable completion notices to require that building works be removed from a site or a site be reinstated to its previous condition.
Government amendment 28.
Amendment 81, in clause 115, page 132, line 21, leave out “a charge” and insert “an optional charge”.
This amendment would ensure that application of the Infrastructure Levy would be optional rather than mandatory.
Amendment 91, page 132, leave out clause 117.
Amendment 87, in clause 118, page 134, line 17, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) Before making any EOR regulations which contain provision about what the specified environmental outcomes are to be, the Secretary of State must ensure they are in accordance with—
(a) the current environmental improvement plan (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021),
(b) biodiversity targets including those required under sections 1 and 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(c) the duty to conserve biodiversity as required under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006,
(d) local nature recovery strategies as required under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021, and
(e) lowering the net UK carbon account as required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This amendment would ensure that when using EOR regulations to specify environmental outcomes the Secretary of State would have to ensure they are in accordance with the current environmental improvement plan and additional criteria.
Amendment 63, page 134, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 20 and insert—
“(a) the current environmental improvement plan (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021);
(b) the protection of the climate, including through meeting the UK’s domestic and international obligations in respect of the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change;
(c) the preservation of the green belt;
(d) the protection of heritage in the built environment.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to climate obligations, the preservation of the green belt and the protection of heritage, as well as to the current environmental improvement plan, when setting EOR regulations.
Amendment 105, in clause 119, page 134, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an environmental outcomes report is required to be prepared in relation to a proposed relevant consent—
(a) the local authority must independently commission a report; and
(b) the developer must provide sufficient funding to the local authority to commission and to provide a reasonable fee for the undertaking of such a report.”
This amendment seeks to remove any conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise, of the developer commissioning an Environmental Outcomes Report, by establishing independent commission through the local authority. It requires the developer to fund not only the report itself but the costs accruing to the local planning authority in undertaking the commissioning process.
Amendment 88, in clause 122, page 138, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State may only make EOR regulations if doing so will result in no diminution of environmental protection as provided for by environmental law at the time this Act is passed.”
This amendment would ensure that the new system of environmental assessment would not reduce existing environmental protections in any way rather than merely maintaining overall existing levels of environmental protection.
Amendment 89, in clause 129, page 142, line 14, leave out “in particular” and insert “not”.
This amendment would ensure that any specified environmental outcomes arising from EOR regulations made would augment not substitute those arising from existing environmental assessment legislation and the Habitats Regulations.
Government amendments 34 to 36, 30, 52, 99, 33, 100, 53, 31, 65, 101, 48, 25, 55, 50, 54, 26, 56, 32, 66, 49 and 102.
Amendment 92, in schedule 7, page 242, line 11, at end insert—
“(6A) In preparing their local plan, a local planning authority may have regard to whether a nationally significant infrastructure development has been granted in their area, and adjust their housing need calculation accordingly.”
This amendment would allow local authorities to consider the impact on available land of the imposition of nationally significant infrastructure developments in their area, such as rail freight terminals, power stations, or expansion of airport facilities.
Amendment 93, page 243, line 14 at end insert—
“(ha) Environmental Outcomes Reports,”.
This amendment would require local planning authorities to have regard to Environmental Outcomes Reports in preparing a local plan.
Amendment 75, page 252, line 5, at end insert—
“15EZA Development prior to the adoption of a local plan
(1) This section applies—
(a) after a draft local plan has been submitted for independent examination under section 15D but before it has been adopted under section 15EA; and
(b) when a local planning authority considers that a planning application might conflict with the provisions of the draft local plan.
(2) The local planning authority may defer a decision on the granting of planning permission for the application in paragraph (1)(b) until the draft local plan has been adopted.”
Amendment 80, page 274, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) In this part—
“mitigation of climate change” means compliance with the objectives and relevant budgetary provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008;
“adaptation to climate change” means the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including the mitigation of the risks identified in relation to section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the achievement of the objectives of the relevant flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”
This amendment requires references to climate change mitigation and adaptation in the inserted sections on plan making to be interpreted in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.
Amendment 85, in schedule 11, page 286, line 34, at end insert—
“(2A) The intention of IL is to enable local authorities to raise money from developments to fund infrastructure to support the development of their areas while allowing planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to continue to be used to provide affordable housing and ensure that development is acceptable in planning terms.”
Amendment 82, page 287, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
“(1) A charging authority in England may, if it determines that IL would be more effective than the community infrastructure levy for delivering infrastructure in its area and would not prevent it meeting the level of affordable housing need identified in its local development plan, in accordance with IL regulations, charge IL in respect of development in its area.”
This amendment to inserted section 204B, which is connected to Amendment 81, would ensure that application of the Infrastructure Levy would be optional rather than mandatory.
Amendment 97, page 289, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 3, page 289, line 37, at end insert—
“(9) IL regulations must provide for exemption from liability to pay IL in respect of affordable housing as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF.”
This amendment would provide for an exemption from liability to pay IL for affordable housing as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
Amendment 5, page 291, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) A charging schedule may—
(a) require a developer to pay their full IL liability for a development before being permitted to commence work on that development,
(b) require infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development to be built before work on that development may commence,
(c) require a developer, at request of the local council, to pay additional money to be held in bond for remedial work.”
This amendment would enable Infrastructure Levy charging authorities to require a developer to pay their full IL liability, or for infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development to be built, before development may commence. And for developers to be required, at the request of the authority to provide money for remedial work.
Amendment 76, page 291, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) A charging schedule must, in accordance with IL regulations require—
(a) that a developer pay their full IL liability for a development before being permitted to commence work on that development,
(b) that infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development be built before work on that development may commence.
(1B) Subsection (1A) applies only to proposed developments of more than 50 units.”
Amendment 84, page 291, leave out from line 37 to line 3 on page 292 and insert—
“(2) A charging authority, in setting rates or other criteria, must ensure that—
(a) the level of affordable housing which is funded by developers and provided in the authority’s area, and
(b) the level of the funding provided by the developers, is maintained at a level which, over a specified period, enables it to meet the level of affordable housing need identified in the local development plan.”
This amendment would require Infrastructure Levy rates to be set at such a level as to meet the level of affordable housing need specified in a local development plan.
Amendment 104, page 291, line 37, leave out from “must” to “that” in line 39, and insert “ensure”.
This amendment would require Infrastructure Levy rates to be set at such a level that funding for affordable housing is maintained at existing levels.
Amendment 86, page 292, line 14, after “development” insert “of the area”.
This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with inserted section 204A(2) on page 282 and ensure that consideration of viability relates to the area as a whole.
Amendment 96, page 292, line 28, at end insert—
“(4A) IL regulations must make provision for a sliding scale of charges increasing in proportion to the share of the development that is on greenfield land, for the purposes of incentivising brownfield development, unless any development on greenfield land is offset by the re-greening of an agreed area of brownfield land in a densely developed or populated area.”
This amendment is offered as an alternative proposition to Amendment 59, adding safeguards intended to prevent extremely dense development in urban centres with an undersupply of open space.
Amendment 2, page 298, line 21, at end insert—
“(ca) facilities providing childcare to children aged 11 or under,
(cb) the provision of subsidised or free schemes to deliver childcare for children aged 11 or under,”.
This amendment would add childcare facilities to the list of “infrastructure” in this schedule and therefore include it in the list of facilities which may be funded, improved, replaced or maintained by the charging authority, as well as allowing local authorities to use levy funds to provide subsidised or free childcare schemes in their area.
Amendment 98, page 301, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) all provision that is captured through the section 106 system.”
Amendment 83, page 312, leave out from line 40 to line 13 on page 313 and insert
“may be given under subsection (4) for authorities that have adopted an IL charging schedule, only if it is necessary for—
(a) delivering the overall purpose of IL mentioned in section 204A(2), or (b) avoiding charging a specific development more than once for the same infrastructure project through both IL and the following powers—
(i) Part 11 (Community Infrastructure Levy) (including any power conferred by CIL regulations under that Part),
(ii) Section 106 of TCPA 1990 (planning obligations), and
(iii) Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (execution of works) unless this is essential to rendering the development acceptable in planning terms.”
This amendment would avoid restrictions being placed on the use of the community infrastructure levy, section 106 obligations, and section 278 agreements at the Secretary of State’s discretion unless necessary to avoid double charging for the same infrastructure provision.
Government amendments 37 to 39, 67, 103 and 68.
Lucy Frazer
Our houses are not just bricks and mortar; they are homes. And those who live around us are not just our neighbours; they are our communities. We all want to live in streets that uplift our spirits and where our children, and their children, can afford to live and own their own homes alongside us. Churchill once said:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]
So too, if we empower our communities, they will empower us.
We know that we can do more to ensure that, when we expand our communities, we do so in the right places, with the right infrastructure, and with the support of local people and local representatives. The think-tank Demos asked people whether they would prefer to have more say over how money is spent in their area, or to have more money. People were twice as likely to say that they would prefer to have more say and less money. Our Bill seeks to provide opportunities for collaboration and empowerment. It provides more opportunity for more homes that are beautiful, supported by infrastructure, delivered with democracy, which level up across our country.
I thank all colleagues for their extensive engagement, highlighting to me, to the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), and to the Secretary of State the issues and concerns in their local areas. All represent different and diverse areas across the country: rural and urban, coastal and remote, island and inner city. I thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for their constructive contribution on this issue and their unwavering commitment to our planning system and their constituents.
I also thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Damian Green) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and the many Members across the House who have contributed significantly to our policy decisions on these issues.
It is important that we build homes this country needs in the places that we need homes most. We have a moral responsibility to get on and build, but we also have a responsibility to our existing communities to do so in the right way and with community support.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My constituents in Rushcliffe are supportive of house building, but they rightly object to being forced to build 660% of the national average, as they were last year, often on greenfield sites and without the infrastructure to match. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Bill will give real teeth to our brownfield-first policy and give power back to local people to shape the future of their communities?
Lucy Frazer
I was pleased to discuss these issues with my hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right that we must build on brownfield first. That is what local communities want. Through not just this Bill, but the consultation that we will bring forward on the national planning policy framework, we will identify how we can encourage local communities to do just that, with incentives through the infrastructure levy, for example, but through other measures too.
The way for a community and local representatives to shape their area’s future is through the local plan. At the moment, local plans are taking too long. The system is too onerous and councils feel that their local constraints are not properly taken into account. The result is that fewer than 40% of planning authorities have adopted a plan in the last five years. That means that, instead of developments being delivered coherently and in collaboration with communities, new houses are being imposed on local people through successive planning applications. Through the Bill and the consultation on the NPPF, which we intend to launch before Christmas, we will ensure that the needs of the community are taken into account when a plan is designed. Once the plan is in place, it will provide protection against other unwanted development.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I completely agree with the Minister about local plans. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has said that on many occasions. May I just ask her, though, whether, in national terms, the Government are still committed to the 300,000 figure, as a target, an objective, an aspiration or whatever and, if they are, how will they achieve that figure unless the numbers agreed in local plans individually throughout the country add up to that 300,000?
Lucy Frazer
I can confirm that the Government are committed to building 300,000 homes because we do need those homes across the country and we need to ensure that young people can get on to the housing ladder. As I have just identified, communities are not agreeing local plans with those figures in them, so they are getting development where they do not want it; it is speculative development. What we will see through this measure is communities coming together with that starting point number, but seeing what works for their communities. When they engage properly on it, I think we will see that housing coming through.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I am a passionate campaigner for brownfield first. When it comes to this point about communities, it is refreshing to hear that the Government have taken on board the points about including communities in that process, making them feel much more involved. Will she, at some point, be giving us further detail on how that process will work and where the opportunities will be for local communities to feed in their views?
Lucy Frazer
I was happy to discuss these very issues with my right hon. Friend, who has written on this issue and I know feels very deeply about it, especially the issue of brownfield land and development. We will ensure that people will build what their local community wants through, for example, not just their local plan, but the mandatory design code. Local areas will have a design code, so that, when a building comes through, it will be in the manner and design that local communities want.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that, from the time I was the shadow Housing Minister 15 to 20 years ago, to the Building Beautiful, Building Better Commission and now the Office For Place, I have emphasised exactly what she has just described. Too often in the modern age, development has been out of scale and out of keeping with the existing built environment. Will she ensure that local authorities are fully informed of their ability to turn down an application for housing purely on design and scale terms?
Lucy Frazer
I know that my right hon. Friend is very interested in these issues and is conscious of beauty and the importance for us to maintain that. Of course local authorities will be able to take their local decisions on those matters that concern them.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am pleased to hear what the Minister is saying about improving the efficiency of the process. She will know that my amendment 75 talks about the fact that the guards are down for local authorities when their local plan is in abeyance. That was brought into sharp relief in the village of Harrold. It was only thanks to local councillor Alison Field Foster and the local parish council that development could be stopped. Is what the Minister is saying today going to close that gap to make my amendment unnecessary, or will there still be a liability for local authorities under her plan?
Lucy Frazer
I have studied carefully my hon. Friend’s amendments, which are all on interesting points. We do not think that there is a need for those amendments, because there are provisions in the Bill to ensure that local communities can make decisions to protect local communities.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the Minister remind the House how the Government will stop developers gaming a local plan and getting permissions that are not within the local plan under some silly rule?
Lucy Frazer
This Bill and the proposals that we are bringing forward through the revised NPPF will do exactly that. At the moment, in 60% of areas, building is through speculative development, not where communities want it. We want to streamline the local plan process, get those plans in place, where communities want it, and then we can start and continue to build.
Lucy Frazer
I will make a little progress, but I am happy to come back to the hon. Member shortly.
In setting the principles for a local plan, we intend to retain a method for calculating local housing need figures. But these will be an advisory starting point. We propose that it will be up to local authorities, working with their communities, to determine how many homes can actually be built. They will take into account considerations such as the green belt, and the existence of a national park or coast. Building densities should not be significantly out of character with an area. We also propose making changes to the rolling five-year land supply, ending the obligation where a planned strategic housing policy is up to date. Communities will have a powerful incentive to get involved in their local plans.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is good to hear the policies that my right hon. and learned Friend is outlining. My constituency has a high housing target that is forcing the closure of a working port. How would the options she has just outlined help my constituency keep a working docks instead of seeing the development of high-rise flats?
Lucy Frazer
I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for her area, which has seen significant building. I cannot comment on any particular local plans, but an area must consider all the things that it needs to thrive, and that includes houses as well as employment facilities.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her words, which are incredibly helpful. Not many constituencies are like Basingstoke, which has built 150,000 houses in the last five decades. Can the Minister give me some comfort that that high level of delivery will be taken into account when future house building needs are decided? At the moment, we have to build 1,400 houses a year, which is just not sustainable, not least for the NHS.
Lucy Frazer
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I was pleased to talk to her about her concerns, because I know that she is a huge advocate for her area. I can give her that comfort that we think it should be taken into account if areas have already over-delivered and taken significant housing. That should be taken into account when putting together the local plan.
Rachael Maskell
Further to the point that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) made, when developers build luxury flats that the local community often cannot afford it adds nothing to the housing numbers that need to be delivered. How will the Bill address that issue?
Lucy Frazer
We are taking a variety of approaches. We emphasise the importance of variety, not just in the types of accommodation provided but in the type of buildings. That is how we get more housing supply, because we will have more uptake. We are also committed to more affordable homes, and we have a £11.5 billion fund to ensure that we get those homes built.
The Bill respects communities, but it also respects the environment. Central to our reforms will be a new system for assessing the impact of development on the environment. The system will replace the bureaucratic maze that we inherited from the EU. We will replace it with a system that is just as protective, but is outcomes based, not systems driven.
Clearly the Bill will not achieve the perfect planning system for every Member, councillor and constituent, when we all live in diverse areas with conflicting needs and interests, but I hope that the amendments will go even further towards improving our planning system.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that Warrington, as a new town, has seen thousands and thousands of homes built in the last 50 years. It is currently in the process of agreeing its local plan—the local planning inquiry finished just last week. I am pleased to hear today that many of the suggestions will be put into law. Can she confirm that there will be a period in which local plans are paused before they are agreed and adopted? Many of the proposals she talks about today are fundamental to making the changes that we need to see in local plans.
Lucy Frazer
I can give a confirmation that there will be some transitional provisions enabling local councils to proceed with the plan that they are about to adopt, but if they want to reflect, there will be an opportunity to do that as well. We believe that we are improving the system through the measures that we have set out.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the right hon. and learned Lady accept that we also need to level up access to green space and nature? Right now, the distribution of green space is very unequal; many people on the lowest incomes simply do not have access to green space at all. Will she look at my new clause 13 and look again at the whole issue of ensuring a right of access to good green space?
Lucy Frazer
As I mentioned just now, the Bill is not just about building; it is also about protecting the environment. A number of measures in the Bill will ensure that we protect our natural spaces—30% of our nature—and our local nature recovery strategies, which are due to begin across England as soon as possible, were committed to in the Environment Act 2021.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, following the talks between Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and me, we should have reached a compromise on a much more community-led, environmentally friendly and regenerative housing policy? As the Minister can hear, however, there is still considerable concern about making sure that we deliver the substance of these things as well as simply the words around them. Will that be reflected in the NPPF?
Lucy Frazer
I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to make sure that we get our planning system right, on behalf of and with so many colleagues on our Benches. I assure him that we in the Department for Levelling Up—me and the Secretary of State—believe that we have come to a better solution. We are committed to delivering it, as I am sure my hon. Friend and others across this House will see in the policy that we will propose in the NPPF and bring forward before Christmas.
Lucy Frazer
I will make a little progress, because I would like to address the Government amendments, which I will do in five categories. First, we are making it easier for people to develop where they want to develop, and where it delivers the best gain to the community and ensures that planned-for development actually happens. I will highlight five measures in this first category.
Through new clauses 49 to 59, we will pilot community land auctions. They will seek to increase the supply of land and aim to capture more land value more effectively to the benefit of the local community. Planning permission will not be granted automatically on sites allocated in the local plan through the auction process.
Through new clauses 60 and 69, we are allowing for street votes enabling residents to come together and propose additional development on their streets in line with their preferences—subject to meeting prescribed requirements—and vote on whether it should be given permission. In speaking to those new clauses, I would like to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the “Strong Suburbs” report by Policy Exchange.
We are making it easier for people to access suitable plots to build their own homes. We are building on the immense work of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). We recognise the importance of self-build and custom housebuilding, and new clause 68 clarifies the duty on authorities to provide for plots for such homes in their planning decisions.
We will also seek to reduce barriers to smaller-scale developments that communities can easily get behind. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) has worked significantly on that area. I can confirm that our intention is to consult on changing national policy to encourage greater use of small sites, especially those that will deliver higher levels of affordable housing.
Importantly, we are ensuring that when permissions are given, developments can be built out quickly. New clauses 48 and 67 deal with that. Members across the House have been concerned about the rate at which development occurs once planning permission has been granted. It is wrong for developers simply to sit on planning permissions, because that increases the number of permissions that have to be granted and risks overdevelopment. The Bill introduces further steps to tackle the issue, including a requirement for developers to report on the rate at which they build, and allowing authorities to deny permission for further development on the same sites where the developers have failed to build out. All those measures will encourage development where people want it and where they have agreed to have it.
Mr Betts
I am not sure whether the Minister has looked at my amendments to her new clause 67. I agree with her about ensuring that builders build out at the required rate. However, some builders build out while ignoring the conditions for the planning permission put on them. I have a really bad case of that in my constituency with Avant Homes, which does not connect with local people, puts mud all over the roads and puts silt in the local brook—that sort of thing. Will she accept that local councils should be entitled to take account of failures to observe conditions when looking at future planning applications?
Lucy Frazer
We are looking at the issue carefully and will consult on further measures that we might be able to bring forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that where there are reasonable avenues that we can explore, we will look closely at them.
Dame Maria Miller
I want to build further on that intervention with regard to building out. In my constituency, many of those who have built out and built houses have not done so to the required quality, leaving many residents having to seek significant remedial works. However, my local authority is not allowed to take that into account when giving future permissions. Could the Minister look at consulting on that? Surely we should be encouraging quality over quantity.
Lucy Frazer
I am happy to discuss that issue further with my right hon. Friend. As I mentioned, we are very concerned about build-out to increase the number of homes, and I know that the Secretary of State feels strongly about quality.
The second set of measures that we are introducing by way of amendments relates to infrastructure, because put simply, we cannot have houses without services to support them. Through the Bill, we will replace the existing system with an infrastructure levy—a non-negotiable liability for the developer based on the value of the development. Our plan is to implement the levy in stages so that we can adapt it according to the latest data and the latest evidence.
Thirdly, we are protecting the environment. On top of our environmental assessment reforms, new clauses 77 to 79 will support the Government’s efforts to protect and enhance our natural environment. We are creating an obligation on water companies to go further to address nutrient pollution and clean up our rivers. That will unlock thousands of new homes, complemented by new wetland and woodland areas, improving people’s access to green space and delivering new habitats for nature. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for her support and to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for working with us so closely to achieve these ends.
Fourthly, we recognise that some areas—Devon and Cornwall, for example—have particular problems with short-term lets, which, while attractive as a tourist industry, mean that large parts of an area have limited long-term residents, creating a real problem for local services. I am grateful to a number of colleagues for highlighting and campaigning on that. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon, for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) as well as others for the work that they have done. As a result of the points that they have raised, we intend to deliver a new registration scheme for short-term lets, starting with a further consultation on the exact design of the scheme, which will launch before the summer recess.
We will go even further by also consulting on a change to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 to enable local areas to better control changes of use to short-term lets, if they wish. Furthermore, the consultation on changes to use classes and the introduction of national permitted development rights to enable change of use where there is no local issue will be launched early next year.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention and for the time she gave me last week to discuss this matter. Can she clarify whether it is now the Government’s intention to make short-term lets a separate category of planning use following the consultation? If so, when would that come in? Will she also ensure that planning departments have the resources to enforce that?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for speaking on this issue and indeed other issues on this topic. We are committing to consulting on the issue. We propose to consult early in the new year. Following that consultation, we hope to bring in some legislation, if that is the result of the consultation. There is a very tight timetable both for that and the registration scheme, and the registration scheme will be coming through in autumn.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister explain why she is not bringing in a licensing scheme that would enable local authorities to determine areas where they could exclude the expansion of Airbnbs or control licences where it was appropriate to do so?
Lucy Frazer
We are bringing through a very important first step to identify where people have short-term lets across the country and where there are local issues. We know there are issues in some local areas, but not in others. We want to establish where they are and where they are causing issues for local communities, so we can make evidence-based policy and bring forward action to ensure those communities are not hollowed out, that people live there and that they can get the services they need. I emphasise that that builds on other action the Government have taken to ensure that we act and that people living in those communities get the support they need.
Fifthly, we are making the process work better. The Bill makes it easier to create new, locally led urban development corporations that can be the planning authority for large-scale development. We are also ensuring that all types of development corporation can have the planning powers they need. In support of that, Government amendments 34 and 36 make technical changes. Through Government new clause 64, we are facilitating charging by statutory consultees for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This recognises that commenting can be a resource-intensive exercise, and we do not want valuable advice to delay development. In addition, the Secretary of State will be given powers to commit the Marine Management Organisation to increase its fees for post-consent marine licensing monitoring, variations and transfers.
Our amendments focus on making the planning system, and the systems that interact with it, work better, innovating and improving for the benefit of all our constituents.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not arriving for the beginning of my right hon. and learned Friend’s remarks. On the third group of amendments, on nutrient neutrality, may I applaud the Government for the work they are doing in trying to ensure that water companies take full responsibility for their discharges into our waterways? This is an extremely important and powerful set of amendments, and I applaud her for that. In that context, and in the context of both community land auctions and the infrastructure levy, is it the case that water companies can be in receipt of both those sources of funding in the event that local authorities deem it an appropriate use either of the infrastructure levy or funds arising out of community land auctions? At present, they do not appear to be. Can they become statutory consultees on significant developments, which at present they are not?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, because I know he has done significant work on this issue. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced future funding from fines handed out to polluting water companies being invested in schemes for the benefit of our natural environment. I know he did a lot of work on that issue.
On the infrastructure levy, water and waste water networks are covered by the broad definition of infrastructure, so the answer to my right hon. Friend’s question on that issue is yes. On statutory consultees, the Secretary of State can make changes to the list of statutory consultees through secondary legislation, and we will consult on whether to make water companies statutory consultees, and if so, how best to do that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Before the last intervention the Minister mentioned improving communities. I am grateful for the time she has spent with me in the last few weeks discussing this Bill, but will she give some clarity on amendment 2, on including childcare provision within the infrastructure definitions? Conversations with her outside this place indicate that she feels it would be included, but can she give me and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), in whose name the amendment stands, the reassurance that childcare provision would be included?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his area; I have dealt with him in a number of Departments, and he stands up for his community on every issue. I am grateful for the work he has done to make sure the Bill overall comes out in a good place, and I know he has also spoken to my colleagues on a number of issues.
On the amendment on childcare, I should emphasise that there is a list of what constitutes infrastructure for the infrastructure levy, and it is a non-exhaustive list, so it will be possible for other items to be included. It is drafted purposefully to give local authorities wide powers to apply the levy to infrastructure that is important and needed in their local area. It contains illustrative examples of what might be included as infrastructure, but in any event the levy will be able to be spent on childcare facilities such as nurseries and pre-schools, as these fall under the definition of
“schools and other educational facilities”
already included in the list.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know the Minister has tried to take account of these concerns, but from what she has just said, it is not the case that childcare would, unless it is connected to a school, be considered part of this. So what amendment 2 does is set out that, whether it is a nursery, a toy library or a childminding setting, if local councils felt that was something that needed to be done, they could work with developers to deliver it. Will she make that commitment, and most importantly will she write it down? It is one thing to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box, but those of us who have dealt with local government know that it needs to be in the guidance and regulations for us to truly declare that childcare is infrastructure.
Lucy Frazer
I totally understand the hon. Lady’s points, and it is crucial that children get the support, care and education they deserve. It must be the case that nurseries and pre-schools fall within the definition of
“schools and other educational facilities”,
which is in the list at proposed new section 204N(3)(c). There is also a question about the provision of the care within that: that would not fall within the definition of infrastructure per se, but proposed new section 204N(5) allows regulations to make provision about when local authorities could apply levy money to non-infrastructure items, which could include subsidising the cost of childcare places for parents and carers if this was considered a priority by the local area.
I want to give Members across the House an opportunity to speak in this debate. We believe that our amendments focus on making the planning system, and the systems that interact with it, work better, innovating and improving for the benefit of all our constituents, and I commend them to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I think it may be useful to colleagues if I explain how we intend to conduct the debate. Many Members wish to speak, and there have been and will be quite lengthy Front-Bench speeches. The debate has to finish at 6 o’clock. I want to give priority to those who have amendments tabled in their names—by and large, not everybody. I will have to put on a time limit of six minutes or five minutes. If we do not do that, we will not have a chance of getting anywhere near everyone in, or even everyone who has tabled amendments. That is just a warning—the time limit will come in after the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is two weeks and two significant concessions to large groups of disgruntled Government Back Benchers later, but it is a pleasure to finally be back in the Chamber to conclude the Report stage of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) made clear on day one of Report, in 27 sittings over a four-month period, the Bill was subject to exhaustive line-by-line consideration. Such was the appetite to participate in the Committee’s proceedings that not only was it formally adjourned to allow new members to take part, but we enjoyed appearances from seven different Ministers, some of whom even had more than a passing familiarity with the contents of the legislation.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for so ably scrutinising in Committee the many technical and complex provisions that the Bill contains. The new clauses and amendments that we have tabled for consideration today are almost identical to a number of those we discussed at length in Committee. That deliberate choice reflects not only the importance we place on the matters that they relate to, but the lack of anything resembling robust and convincing reassurances from Ministers in Committee in respect of the concerns that they seek to address. Indeed, if anything, the debates that took place and the responses provided by successive Ministers served only to harden our view that a number of the measures in the Bill relating to planning and the environment would almost certainly have adverse impacts.
Our hope, perhaps a forlorn one, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the new ministerial team may have used the almost 50 days since their appointment to further interrogate the potential risks posed by those measures in the Bill that are controversial and to reflect on the wisdom of proceeding with them.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with a wide range of issues relating to both national planning policy and local and neighbourhood planning. Many of the clauses that this eclectic part contains are unproblematic, but others are contentious, and we raised detailed concerns in Committee about several of them. Amendments 78 and 79 seek to address arguably the most disquieting, namely clauses 83 and 84, concerning the future relationship between local development plans and national planning policy given statutory weight in the form of national development management policies. We welcome the fact that new section 38(5B) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in clause 83 provides communities with greater confidence that finalised local plans will be adhered to and any safeguards they contain respected. However, we believe that new subsection 5C in clause 83, in providing that anything covered by an NDMP will not only have legal status but will take precedence over local development plans in any instance where there is found to be a conflict between the two, represents a radical centralisation of planning decision-making that will fundamentally alter the status and remit of local planning in a way that could have a number of potentially damaging consequences.
I must make it clear that our concern in relation to the effect of this subsection would exist even if the Government had published the national planning policy framework prospectus and provided hon. Members with an overview about what NDMPs are likely to cover. The fact that they have not and that we therefore still have no idea precisely what these new statutory national policies will eventually contain—coupled with the fact that clause 84 of the Bill makes it clear that NDMPs can cover any policy area relating to development or use of land in England and can be modified or revoked without any form of consultation if that is the wish of the Secretary of State of the day—merely heightens our concerns.
We know that there is significant anxiety across the House about the future implications of NDMPs, and rightly so, because legislating to ensure that they overrule local plans in the event of any conflict does represent a radical departure from the status quo. As we argued in Committee, what is proposed is a wholly different proposition from the current application of the NPPF, and our fear is that it will lead to the erosion of local control in a way that threatens to transform what is currently a local plan-led system into a national policy-led system.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the local plan process has been distorted by the imposition of housing targets driven from the centre. Indeed, individual planning applications have often been skewed because local authorities, even where they do not want to accept the application, feel they cannot reject it because they would lose on appeal if they are not meeting the national housing targets. Surely he would welcome the Government’s sharp turn in that direction.
Matthew Pennycook
That is slightly separate from my point about NDMPs, but the right hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to respond to the Government’s announcement on housing targets. The problem he identifies ultimately resides in the Government’s lack of strategic planning and effective subregional frameworks for housing growth. There is a case for reviewing how local housing targets operate, but to render them effectively unenforceable without a viable alternative, in the middle of a housing crisis, is the height of irresponsibility. We do not know the extent, but it will cause damage by reducing housing supply, with the economic growth impact that implies. We regret that the Government have backed down in the face of their Back Benchers on this point.
Sir John Hayes
I have not heard the hon. Gentleman perform at the Dispatch Box before, but he clearly knows his subject well and delivers his case effectively. There has long been a misunderstanding that housing is entirely about supply, as it is also about the fluidity of the housing market. He might want to add to his considerable stock of knowledge an understanding that, according to the Empty Homes Agency, there are 750,000 empty homes. That number is persistent, and no Government of any colour have managed to adopt policies to bring those homes into use.
Matthew Pennycook
There is a point to what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is partly about the distribution of who can buy the houses that come online, but it is also partly about supply. The Minister has confirmed that the 300,000 annual target remains Government policy. It remains an aspiration, yet the Government, by removing the enforceability of local housing targets, have made their job of boosting supply far harder, and they are not meeting the target as it stands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way one final time, and then I will make some progress.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman represents a seat in outer London, so he will understand that there are constraints on the ability of some areas to absorb development. The Government are simply saying that a local authority should use best endeavours but that there will be circumstances in which it simply cannot meet an arbitrary numeric target. As an MP for an urban area, surely that is something he should welcome.
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We do not know precisely what the Government have in mind for local housing targets, but my reading of their announcement is not that local authorities will simply use best endeavours. Although local house building targets will remain as an aspiration, they will not be enforced and we will therefore see a hit to housing supply, with a resulting hit to economic growth.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to make some progress, so I will not give way.
We take issue with the Government making local housing targets unenforceable in the absence of a viable alternative to try to maintain supply.
We believe it is essential not only that the process by which the Secretary of State must designate and review an NDMP involves minimum public consultation requirements and an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, but that the scope of an NDMP to override local plans is suitably constrained. On that basis, I commend amendments 78 and 79 to the House.
Part 4 addresses the new infrastructure levy, which is the Government’s proposed replacement for the present arrangement by which local planning authorities secure developer contributions. We believe the new levy is one of the most consequential aspects of the Bill and has potentially far-reaching implications not only for the provision of core infrastructure but for the supply of affordable housing. Although we fully appreciate that schedule 11 merely provides the basic framework for the levy, with a detailed design to follow, and that the levy’s implementation will take a test-and-learn approach, we are convinced that, as a proposition, it is fundamentally flawed.
As we argued in great detail in Committee, the deficiencies inherent in a rigid fixed-rate mechanism for securing both infrastructure and affordable housing, based on the metric of gross development value, almost certainly means the levy will prove onerously complicated to operate in practice and that, overall, it will deliver less infrastructure and less affordable housing in the future, while putting the development of less viable sites at risk.
For that reason, we remain of the view that if the infrastructure levy is taken forward, it should be optional rather than mandatory, with local authorities that believe that the needs of their areas are best served by the existing developer contributions system able to continue to utilise it. Taken together, amendments 81 to 83 and 91 would ensure that local authorities retain that discretion, and I hope the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, will consider them carefully, along with amendment 86, which seeks to address a specific concern about how viability testing will inform the levy rate-setting process.
Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that if the Government insist it is made mandatory, the new infrastructure levy must deliver sufficient levels of affordable housing. Since the publication of the Bill, Ministers have repeated ad nauseam that the new levy will secure at least as much affordable housing as developer contributions do now, yet the Government have so far been unable to provide any evidence or analysis to substantiate why they believe it can fulfil that objective. More importantly, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the commitment made by successive Ministers with regard to affordable housing will be honoured. At present, proposed new section 204G(2) of the Planning Act 2008—in schedule 11, on page 291 of the Bill—only requires charging authorities to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that levels of affordable housing are
“maintained at a level which, over a specified period, is equal to or exceeds the level of such housing and funding provided over an earlier specified period of the same length.”
Put simply, the Bill as drafted would enable—one might even say encourage—inadequate levels of affordable housing supply to remain the norm by making them the minimum requirement.
If we want to ensure that the new levy secures at least as much affordable housing as is being delivered through the existing developer contributions system—and ideally more—we believe the Bill needs to be revised. That is not a view confined only to this side of the House. In the foreword to a report published only yesterday by the Centre for Social Justice, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes)—himself a former Minister in the Department—argues in relation to the levy that
“it would be good to see stronger safeguards in primary legislation, rather than in regulations, for protecting and increasing the existing levels of affordable housing supply funded in this way”.
Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
Bob Seely
One of the specific things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and I requested in our agreement with Ministers was to make it easier for councils to increase the percentage of affordable housing. Clearly there is the economics of how that can happen, but we absolutely encouraged them to allow us to have that wording, so that in a place such as the Isle of Wight we could dramatically increase affordable housing as a percentage of housing. We actually put this at the centre of our plans.
Matthew Pennycook
Increasing the supply of affordable housing, which is at pitifully low levels, is a laudable aim. I agree with the hon. Member on that, and I therefore hope he can support our amendment 84, because it would achieve the objective in relation to the infrastructure levy by requiring charging authorities to ensure that levels of affordable housing are maintained at a level that, over a specified period, enables any given authority to meet the housing need identified in its local development plan, and I commend it to the House.
Turning to part 5 of the Bill, this concerns the Government’s proposed new approach to assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major projects—namely, environmental outcomes reports. Chief among several concerns we have about the proposed EOR system are the deficiencies of clause 122 in relation to non-regression safeguards. While we welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill as a means of constraining the use of the wider regulation-making powers in part 5, we are concerned that the clause as drafted contains a series of loopholes. First, use of the relevant non-regression provisions is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Secondly, the Bill stipulates that the principle of non-regression will only apply to the
“overall level of environmental protection”,
rather than specific aspects of it. Thirdly, the definition of environmental law used in the relevant subsection will limit the extent to which it can provide protection against potential future regression.
The Minister who responded to the debate on this issue in Committee provided some measure of reassurance as to why the clause is drafted in the way it is, but our concerns have not been entirely assuaged. We have tabled amendment 88 to ensure that the new system of environmental assessment would not reduce existing environmental protections in any way, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds to it in due course.
We want to see many other changes to the Bill. Among other things, we have tabled amendments and new clauses to ensure that the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the extension of permitted development rights since 2013; to allow local authorities to hold planning meetings virtually or in hybrid form; and to place a duty on local planning authorities to appoint suitably qualified chief planning officers.
Of particular importance to us is the need to ensure that the Bill fully aligns the planning system with the UK’s climate mitigation and adaptation goals. In Committee, Ministers argued repeatedly that existing local and national duties, requirements and powers are sufficient to ensure that the planning system responds as required to the climate emergency, yet that is demonstrably not the case, given that the system regularly throws up decisions that are seemingly incompatible with the need to make rapid progress towards net zero emissions by mid-century and to prepare the country for the changes that are already under way. That is likely to remain the case until the Government produce clear and unambiguous national policy guidance, in the form of a revised NPPF, and legislate for a purposeful statutory framework to ensure genuine coherence between our country’s planning system and its climate commitments. New clause 98 would deliver the latter, and I urge Members to support it.
Before I turn to a number of the substantial Government amendments that have been tabled since the Bill left Committee, I will speak briefly to new clause 114. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite a notional majority of more than 80, the Government are developing an alarming habit of allowing national policy to be dictated by the demands of amorphous groups of their own Back Benchers. In the case of onshore wind deployment, the Government’s weakness in the face of such demands is all ostensibly to the good, because Ministers are now seemingly committed to amending the NPPF to finally end the harmful effective moratorium imposed on onshore wind since 2015.
However, the written ministerial statement published last Tuesday provoked more questions than it answered. For example, what criteria will Ministers specify to determine what qualifies as a demonstration of local support for onshore wind projects, given that there is certainly no clear indication that the Government are minded to bring consenting for onshore wind in line with other forms of infrastructure, as it should be?
To take another, there is the assertion in that statement that we need
“to move away from the overly rigid requirement for onshore wind sites to be designated in a local plan.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 9WS.]
What is meant by that? The Minister will know that sites do not have to be identified in local plans to receive consent for onshore wind deployment, but there is a strong presumption that they should be, and rightly so. If we are to strengthen our energy security, cut bills and reduce emissions, we need local authorities to proactively consider the opportunities within their boundaries for the deployment of all forms of renewable energy, including onshore wind generation.
Given the degree of ambiguity that now surrounds the Government’s position, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Secretary of State has simply sought to buy himself the time he needs to get this legislation passed by alighting on a form of words nebulous enough to temporarily appease the warring factions within his party.
New clause 114, in contrast, is clear and unambiguous. It would require the Government to remove the onerous restrictions that the NPPF places on the development of onshore wind projects, and it would ensure that local communities have their say via the planning process, without imposing a uniquely restrictive consenting regime upon only this form of renewable energy generation. It would ensure that local authorities must at least explore the desirability of renewable energy deployment, including onshore wind, as part of the local plan preparation process, and I commend the new clause to the House.
Turning finally to a number of the Government amendments that have been tabled in recent weeks, Government new clauses 49 to 59 insert an entirely new part into the Bill, as the Minister said, that enables community land auction pilots to take place. As many Members will be aware, such auctions are not a novel concept, having been first proposed as far back as 2005. On paper, the premise appears entirely sensible. Landowners would have the freedom to voluntarily come together to grant options over land in the area of a participating local planning authority, with a view to it being allocated for development in the local plan. On the assumption that the option value would be significantly less than the market value for housing development, and that landlords will release said land at the lower price to realise the guaranteed short-term return, the authority in question will be able to exercise or sell the option, capturing some of the increased value uplift and using it to support local development.
In practice, the idea is riven with flaws. First, the circumstances for which this theoretical arrangement is designed—namely, a collection of small and completely substitutable land parcels with multiple landowners—bears little relation to the characteristics of the actual land market across the country.
Secondly, the idea that auctions will drive down land prices in the absence of any element of compulsion is frankly for the birds. One need only look at Transport for London’s disappointing experience with the development rights auction model to see how the proposed arrangement will fall short in that regard.
Rachael Maskell
Every day, we see an increase of 29 new short-term holiday lets. Therefore, the Government’s step-by-step process will not be sufficient in holiday hotspots, which are targeted by a very aggressive investor market for short-term holiday lets. I thank my hon. Friend, but does he agree that we need to get pace behind this to ensure we protect our communities from the extraction of housing by investors?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she is not the only hon. Member for whom this is an acute problem: I have heard Members say in several debates over the past year that this is a huge problem in their local areas. She will remember that there was a real difference of opinion in Committee about how bold the Government need to be in response to this problem and how quickly they need to act. I urge the Minister to think again about what additional provisions can be put into the Bill to go beyond the registration system.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
In Westminster alone, we have 13,000 short-term let properties, so we are fully aware of the issues. I often advocate licensing schemes, but I think that a registration scheme under new clause 119, which I support, is a good first step. It is important to remember that no two local authorities are the same, and we have to respond to them. Does the shadow Minister agree that this is a good first step? A licensing scheme may be appropriate eventually, but let us go with a registration scheme first.
Matthew Pennycook
I agree and disagree with the hon. Lady. I agree that it is a good first step, and I disagree in the sense that the Government cannot consult for a number of years on what additional measures might be required. We are ultimately talking about local discretion to apply, whether it is use classes or a licensing scheme, but we think that, such is the acute nature of the problem in particular parts of the country, a registration scheme is not enough. We cannot wait until 2024 for additional measures.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend, like me, share the sense of mysticism that I suspect parents around the country will feel about the fact that the Government consider childcare to be a “non-infrastructure item”? The Minister just said that—I hope she misspoke. Parents recognise that, just as we fund roads so they can drive to work, funding childcare helps them get to work. That is why many local authorities do not do deals to invest in childcare and make sure it and childminders are part of our local economies. That is why we need things such as amendment 2.
Matthew Pennycook
We believe it is essential that the infrastructure levy is designed and implemented in a way that, first and foremost, ensures local authorities deliver the necessary amount of affordable housing and core infrastructure to support the development of their area. For that reason, we raised concerns in Committee about the possibility that the levy could be spent on non-infrastructure items such as services that are wholly unconnected to the impact of development on communities, without those needs having been met. However, as my hon. Friend knows—as any parent knows—childcare is infrastructure. Given the acute pressure on childcare places in many parts of the country, we agree that there is a case for explicitly making reference to childcare facilities in the list of infrastructure in proposed new section 204N so that local authorities are aware that they can use levy proceeds to fund it as part of developing their areas.
There are a number of useful provisions in the Bill that we support, but we fear that any benefits that might flow from them will ultimately be undermined by others that risk causing serious harm, whether it be to already low levels of affordable housing supply, the status and remit of local planning or important environmental protections. If the legislation before us were only an idiosyncratic mix of the good, the half-baked and the bad—a typically Govian curate’s egg, one might say—that would be disappointing enough. What adds to the frustration we feel is the fact that, in a larger sense, it represents a real missed opportunity to enact the kind of planning reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges that we face as a country: to tackle the housing crisis, to respond to the climate emergency, to address our rapidly degrading natural environment, and to better promote health and wellbeing.
We have a chance today to overhaul the Bill in a number of important respects. We have a chance to rectify the aspects of it that are problematic and enable it to address the vital issues on which it is currently silent, and I urge the House to come together to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will have to start with a five-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches, I am afraid. I call Simon Clarke.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I pay tribute to all who were involved in the creation of this Bill, which I had the pleasure of overseeing briefly as Secretary of State. Let me also express my appreciation for the Government’s work in relation to last week’s commitment to a new approach to the permitting of onshore wind, enshrining community consent as the key guiding principle when it comes to whether new developments, or indeed existing ones, can be set up. That is a hugely welcome change, and one that I believe can and should unite the House. As a result, I have withdrawn what was new clause 90 today, although I thank all those who supported it, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma).
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) mentioned the consultation which we look forward to seeing in due course. I am confident that it will be a robust, credible mechanism which will establish how we can measure community consent and how we can unlock developments when communities wish to support them, while, obviously, protecting places that do not wish to host onshore wind.
There is much that I commend in the Government’s new clauses, new schedule and amendments, just as there was on the first day’s debate on devolution. I particularly welcome new clause 69, on street votes, and clause 50, on community land auctions. Both are classic supply-side reforms of the kind that we badly need if we are to liberalise house building. That has clearly been a central issue of contention in recent debates on the Bill, but there are some welcome new proposals that we should also consider. I especially commend the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), which I think would successfully complement the wider liberalisation set out in the Bill.
We should recap some of the fundamental points that we need to recognise when it comes to not just today’s debate, but all debates in the House about intergenerational fairness and opportunities. Since the 1950s and 1960s the rate at which we expand our housing supply has halved, even as the population has risen. In London it would take the average worker more than 15 years to afford a deposit. To put it simply, we need more homes—as many as we can possibly build—and we should enable the free market through every possible mechanism at our disposal.
It is to the Government’s credit that we have been building at the fastest rate for some 30 years, but for too many people under 50, the dream of an opportunity society is receding rather than coming closer. As recently as 1991, 78% of those aged between 25 and 44 were owner-occupiers; the figure today is 56%. For those aged between 25 and 34, it has fallen from 67% to 41%. So many of the long-term concerns that we confront in this Chamber—inequality, productivity, even fertility—are linked with our fundamental problem of not being able to build enough homes for it to be affordable for too many young people to rent, let alone buy.
I happen to believe that enabling home ownership is an existential priority for my party, but Members on both sides of the House should welcome innovative new measures in the Bill, such as street votes and community land auctions, which can progress that agenda. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said with regard to street votes—and, as so often, I cannot phrase this better than him—
“Arithmetic is important but so is beauty, so is belonging, so is democracy, and so is making sure that we are building communities.”
I think that these measures will help us to realise that.
However, there are issues on which I believe we ought to go further. I am conscious of the limited time that we have today, but I will touch on the issue of nutrient neutrality. I believe that, although the Bill makes welcome progress to try to unlock this thorny problem—which is blocking 100,000 new planning permissions from being realised—we can and should go further. That potentially includes derogating from the habitat regulations, while imposing tighter restrictions on the root causes of pollution: bad farming practices, and poor management of waste water by our waterworks.
Most fundamentally, I want to go back to that point in regard to the need for us to build the homes that this country requires, and that takes us back to the underlying issue of targets and the new clauses tabled in this regard by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). It is critical that, as the national planning policy framework is redrawn, we keep making the case for good, high-quality developments with the right infrastructure and rational incentives for communities to welcome new homes. If we do not, it will be a social and economic disaster for this country and a terrible problem for my party as we seek to make the case for a property-owning democracy and popular capitalism.
Mr Betts
I will try to draw on the work that the Select Committee has done in a number of reports over the years. First, I want to come back to the point I raised with the Minister about planning authorities having the right to take into account whether developers have fulfilled planning conditions in the past. That is a reasonable request and I am pleased that the Minister is going to consider it. I would be grateful if she could keep me updated on that. From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has mentioned the issue of ensuring that the change from 106 to an infrastructure levy does not reduce the number of affordable homes being built. Changing the present wording in the Bill, in which charging authorities must have regard to this, to make them ensure that it happens is a really important change that the Government need to think carefully about.
On the new clauses that I have tabled on skills and resources, one of the biggest challenges for planning authorities is the reduction in their spend and the reduction in the number of their planning officers. When the pressure is on to turn around individual planning applications, it means local plans get put on the back burner and do not get delivered on time. Also, as the Minister has said, too many local plans are out of date, and that needs to change. New clause 122 simply asks the Government to do a review and produce a plan for local authority planning staff and resources. We need a plan for staff and workforce in the health service and social care, and it is just as important in the long term that we have a similar approach to how we deliver our planning system. Currently that is not being done, and local authorities are struggling for those resources and that manpower.
I move on to the tricky issue of housing targets. In the end the Government cannot deliver their national target if they do not have a view about local targets. Their local targets have to add up to the national target if they are going to work. My new clause 123 says that the Government should produce a properly assessed housing need figure for each local area, that they should have discussions with local authorities about that in a transparent and open way and that, if the local authority agrees with that target, that should be the target set in the local plan. If the local council agrees with central Government, then put it in the local plan. If there is no agreement, the local authority should come forward with its own target, and that can be debated as part of the inquiry and the inspector will decide which is the appropriate way forward. One of the problems with local plans at present is that they often get bogged down, not with discussions about where housing should go—
John Redwood
Does the hon. Member not understand that the whole point about more local determination is that the local community ultimately has to say, “This is all we can manage and we cannot be overridden”?
Mr Betts
Yes, I understand that, and that should be taken into account, as it can be at the local plan stage. The problem is that, if every local community decides that it does not want house building, we end up with not enough houses being built nationally. That is the simple reality of life. What I am saying is, yes, have the argument at the local plan stage, but all too often now, local plans get bogged down not with where the houses should be built or with the quality of the housing and the infrastructure, but with arguments over housing numbers, with developers and councils employing lawyers and consultants to argue with each other. That is what happens. If we can get agreement between the council and the Government and that is then accepted as the target for the way forward, that is a suitable way to do it, rather than the current endless debate and argument about numbers and calculations.
I want to mention one other amendment, on environmental outcomes. One of the biggest arguments at local level is often on the environmental impact of development. There is great concern among local communities about the environmental impact and the fact that, when developers commission an environmental report, it is commissioned by the developer and paid for by the developer. Communities are often suspicious that the report produces what the developer wants to hear, rather than what the actual environmental impact is for those communities. My amendment 105 is simple: in future, the developer should pay, but the local authority should commission. In that way, we make it absolutely clear that environmental outcome reports on individual developments are completely independent, and that local communities can trust them. That seems to be a sensible suggestion. I hope that the Minister will accept it and move it forward.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 8 to 11 in my name and the names of other hon. Members.
As chair of the national parks all-party parliamentary group, and with a delightful corner of Dartmoor in my constituency, I am pleased to propose these new clauses. As we all know, national parks provide many benefits to nature, climate, heritage and culture. However, they are underpinned by an outdated legislative framework, which prevents them from realising their full potential for people, nature’s recovery, the 30x30 initiative and the Government’s net zero goals.
The Glover review of protected landscapes in 2019 highlighted these issues and put forward a package of recommendations to address them, the majority of which, to be fair, were accepted by the Government in their response to the review. But it is time that we implemented them to make best use of the rich natural heritage that we have been blessed with in our country. The new clauses that I have tabled could act as a vehicle to take forward the Glover review’s recommendations.
National parks play a key role in furthering the Government’s levelling-up mission, particularly in having a positive impact on our health, wellbeing and pride of place. Given this Bill’s focus on environmental matters and the planning system, it provides the perfect opportunity to implement the Glover recommendations to strengthen national parks as planning authorities. We must take this opportunity as these next few years are vital for meeting the commitment to protect 30% of England for nature by 2030, for halting the decline in species abundance and for making progress towards net zero.
New clause 8 delivers on proposal 1 in the Glover review to give national parks a renewed mission to recover biodiversity and nature. Natural England has found that only 26% of the protected habitat area inside national parks is in favourable condition, compared with 39% for England as a whole. The new clause seeks to address this disparity by recognising that we have a role not just in protecting national parks, but in actively strengthening and recovering them. It also delivers on proposal 7 of the Glover review, which proposed a stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes.
National parks have invaluable potential to improve people’s connection with nature and our levelling-up goals require that we should all enjoy equal access to nature across the country. During the lockdown, we learnt that, if we did not already know it. Natural England has shown that, if everyone has access to a green space, we could save the NHS more than £2 billion a year.
New clause 9 implements two recommendations from the Glover review to give national park authorities a new duty to address climate change and to strengthen the existing duty on public bodies to further national park purposes. The Government have already said that national park management plans should contain
“ambitious goals to increase carbon sequestration”
and
“set out their local response to climate adaptation”.
New clause 10 helps in setting out realistic goals for national park improvement. That would deliver other key elements of proposal 3 in the Glover review, that strengthened management plans should set clear priorities and actions for nature’s recovery and climate in national parks, and that legislation should give public bodies a responsibility to help prepare and implement management plans.
New clause 11 seeks to address Glover’s ambition to increase skills and diversity on national park authority boards. The Government’s response to Glover committed to measures to ensure that boards
“have more flexibility to balance diversity and expertise”
and proposes
“a more merit-based approach”.
So let us get on with it. The new clause would deliver this flexibility, removing the restrictive legislation referred to in the Government’s response, and ensure that boards are better equipped to deliver national park purposes. I am supported in these new clauses by the Better Planning Coalition, representing 27 organisations across the key sectors of the environment, housing, planning, and heritage.
I had a positive meeting last week with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who is responsible for national park policy. She is committed to working with national parks to bring about the bright new future that Glover anticipates and I hope that those on the Front Bench today will assist her in that vital mission.
Stella Creasy
The “Levelling Up” White Paper set out a mission that by 2030 the number of primary school children who were achieving the expected standards in reading, writing and maths would be increased. That cannot be done without investing in early years. We already see the impact of the failure to do that, with children from disadvantaged backgrounds being 11 months behind their peers in terms of development by the time they get to primary school. Investing in early years is what bridges the gap.
We know that our early years sector is in crisis. Since 2019, 500 non-domestic early years childcare settings have closed, 300 in the last year alone. Some 65% of those closures took place this summer. In total, there are 5,500 fewer providers of early years services than there were just a few years ago, and 95% of those providers say that it is the current levels of funding and investment that are driving them out. Crucially, that is happening most in the areas that need that provision most: 15% of closures are happening in deprived areas.
I really hope that the Minister will listen to the case I make today, because it should be a no-brainer. It is not just about seeing children as part of our future and it being worth investing in them as infrastructure. Some 64,000 more women of working age are out of work today than were last year, and 35,000 of them say that caring commitments stop them going to work. I tabled amendment 2, because our economy cannot afford not to realise that childcare is infrastructure. We must realise that making sure people have the right roads and resources to get to work must include ensuring that their children can be cared for.
A report by the Centre for Progressive Policy shows that if women had access to adequate childcare they could increase their earnings from £7.6 billion to £10.9 billion. What would that mean for the Exchequer, which should be here supporting this amendment? The Women’s Budget Group estimates that 1.7 million women are prevented from taking on work for childcare reasons. That costs the economy £28 billion a year. Amendment 2 and unlocking resources for childcare would be a win-win for our economy and for our communities. It would be an investment that would save us money. It is also right that developers should play their part.
Comparing Ofsted and Office for National Statistics data shows that since 2014 the rate of population growth outstrips the growth of the childcare sector in 116 out of 149 local authorities, including 15 of the 20 areas with the highest population growth. The National Childbirth Trust now tells parents to put their not yet born children on the list for childcare providers, because there are not any and getting one is almost impossible.
I see the problem first hand in my local community. The brilliant Walthamstow Toy Library is about to be yet again kicked out of its building because developers want to turn it into flats. Those developers looked completely blank at the idea that they would invest in providing a space for that service because it has such an impact on our local community. That is happening across the country: vital resources that help parents get to work and to develop our children are not getting the funding that they need. The Minister could change that if she would just make it explicit that the provision is not about educational settings. The list that she has now covers nurseries that are attached to schools, but what we are talking about is any form of childcare and revolutionising the funding that is available.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The hon. Lady has done an excellent job in highlighting this issue in the context of the debate, but I have some sympathy with the Government’s position on this. Does she recognise that the Department for Education guidance on this matter in November 2019—and it is a DFE matter, not a DLUHC matter—explicitly states that early years and childcare is something that local authorities can use in seeking a section 106 contribution from a developer? It is already in the regulations, which I was not aware of when I put my name to her amendment. Does she also acknowledge that, while we are all sympathetic to her point about maintaining affordable childcare, developer contributions are as a rule capital only for the provision of buildings and facilities, and may not be used for the ongoing support of day-to-day services?
Stella Creasy
The hon. Member heard the words of the Minister, who called childcare a non-infrastructure item. He will know of examples, as we all do, of councils building in payments for police community support officers or ongoing maintenance as part of a development. If he is right that developers could do this, why oppose writing it into the Bill to put it beyond doubt and make sure that developers and councils know they can do it?
Passing amendment 2 is about saying the words that my party’s Front-Bench spokesperson said and, frankly, the hon. Member’s did not: “Childcare is infrastructure. The mums listening right now who feel invisible do matter. The services that would help them get back to work do matter. Parents are as important to us as potholes.”
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The hon. Member, the Minister and everyone in the House knows that I have campaigned for and championed changes to childcare policy. The Minister absolutely did not dismiss or dilute the Government’s commitment to changing and supporting childcare. Amendment 2 covers two separate things: childcare facilities, and whether community infrastructure levy funds can be paid for ongoing amounts. It is important to be clear about that.
Stella Creasy
I quote back the words of the Minister, who talked explicitly about how non-infrastructure items could include subsidising the cost of childcare. If we subsidise police offices or anti-fly-tipping activities, why would we not subsidise parents to get to work? We have an opportunity—
Stella Creasy
I am sorry, but I cannot give way, because of the time. The hon. Member will have her say too.
Amendment 2 would put childcare on an equal footing. Why are we making this form of infrastructure second best? Why are we debating the matter when it seems that there is common agreement? We all recognise, if we have dealt with local government, the need to clarify things and put them in legislation. The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) talked similarly about waste and water infrastructure, and the Minister was happy to confirm that that was covered. We need to give councils a clear line, and that is what I am looking for from the Minister today, because I think she has actually muddied the water somewhat. We must ensure that we write things into legislation so that we put these debates beyond doubt.
Let us do this for the sake of our children and our economy, and for all the women sitting at home right now watching the debate because they cannot get the childcare they want to be able to get back to work and pay taxes. This is a cross-party issue, but it will divide the House, and it will send a clear message about whose side we are on when it comes to those parents. The amendment would mean the world to all those parents who are struggling to find affordable childcare places right now. I pay tribute to Pregnant Then Screwed for setting out so clearly the impact that it could have, because investment in childcare pays for itself.
I ask the Minister to rethink her words, to say clearly that childcare is infrastructure, and to write it down in the legislation in the way that she has for water and waste, so that parents and potholes get equal attention from us in this place.
Chris Grayling
I rise to talk specifically about new clauses 3 and 5, but first I should make a point on the broader housing issue. My constituency is the smallest borough in my county, and it is the most densely populated part of my county. It was never realistic for the centrally designed targets to apply to an area where we were being asked to increase the housing stock by about 25% to 30%. I praise Ministers for reaching what I believe to be a sensible compromise.
I am very much in favour of new homes in my constituency—I have argued for a number of new developments, and I continue to do so—but house building cannot be simply unrestricted. It cannot be at the level that a formula requires; we must apply common sense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), in negotiation with the Secretary of State, have come up with a sensible way forward that will deliver extra housing—I passionately believe that we have to have extra homes in my constituency—but in a sustainable way. We must remember that the national planning policy framework requires us to strike the right balance between three things: building new houses, looking after the local economy and looking after the local environment. I believe that what we have on the table now will deliver that.
I turn to the new clauses. On solar power, I have a simple message for Ministers. I cannot understand why we have not reached a point where it is mandatory to put solar panels on the roof of every new building in this country. Although I do not think new clause 3 will take us through the Division Lobbies tonight, I strongly urge Ministers to work across Government to deliver that. When I was Secretary of State for Transport, I argued that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should insert a requirement for a charging point in every house with off-street parking. I still believe that, but there is really no reason at all not to have solar panels on the roof of every property, whether or not it has parking space. It should be a central part of our future strategy, and I strongly urge Ministers to adopt it.
New clause 5, which I have personally pushed forward, is what I describe as “the hedgehog amendment”—I speak as the parliamentary species champion for the hedgehog—but it is much broader than that. It is about saying that it is simply wrong for a developer to be able to acquire a site and clear it without doing a proper holistic survey of the ecology on that site. It is absolutely vital that, as we are a Government who believe in strengthening biodiversity safeguards in this country, there should be tight rules for developers. They are obliged to do surveys for the presence of bats and newts, but there are a whole range of other vulnerable species that do not fall under that requirement. I want to see very clear legal rules that say, “You buy a site, you survey what is there. If you identify vulnerable species on the site, you have a duty of care to those vulnerable species to relocate them and provide alternative habitats.”
The Government have done good things on biodiversity net gain, but I want to see a situation where a vulnerable species on a site is not likely to be cleared away by a bulldozer. That does happen—there was an horrendous case in the west country recently. About 20 hedgehogs were killed by the reckless clearance of a site. We have all seen it in our constituencies. Developers do it to create the sense of, “Well, it’s a wasted site anyway. We cannot use it again, so you should give us consent to build houses on it.” My new clause provides a way to ensure that does not happen.
I want to pay tribute to the Minister. We have had some very constructive dialogue on this issue and I know she is pretty sympathetic to the aims I have put forward. What I ask of her today—I think she may have a clear sense of how we can go forward—is, in her closing remarks, to set a direction for the Government that will provide the actual protections I am seeking, which will reinforce the work we have already done to protect biodiversity and ensure the particular ability of developers to come in and clear a site is absolutely precluded in law. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says in winding up. I praise her for what she has done so far on housing and on many other aspects to the Bill. I hope she will also be able to deal with this aspect, the biodiversity issue, in her remarks and as we go forward.
Tim Farron
There are a number of amendments in my name, but given the time we have I will focus on housing, including existing stock and new stock. Let me start by talking about new stock.
New clause 44 and amendment 22, in my name, would give local authorities, particularly in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty such as my own in Cumbria, the power to enforce 100% affordability in new developments. I am fed up of developments in my community where we have to build, say, 100 houses to get 30 affordables. That is 70 homes that are fundamentally a waste of bricks. We are building homes for demand, but not for need. We have thousands of people on the council house waiting list. Homes will, of course, fly off the shelves for handsome prices in a place like Cumbria, but they are houses we do not need. They do not add to our infrastructure and in many ways they undermine it by becoming more holiday lets or second homes. Give us that power, as local communities.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to be absolutely clear that home ownership does all kinds of things for building personal pride and communal satisfaction. I imagine he owns his own home. Does he want more people to own their own home, or does he want more people to rent?
Tim Farron
I want more people to be able to have a home in the first place. In defending people’s right to have a second home, which we will come on to in a moment, we must remember that people’s right to a first home is even more important. The millions of people who have no home at all to call their own, and are desperately waiting on long waiting lists, are up against many people who have more than one home. That is an injustice that needs to be addressed. This particular set of amendments would give local authorities in communities such as Cumbria the ability to say to developers, “You may build here, but what you build must be sustainable, affordable and available for local people so there is a workforce and a local community.”
I want to move on to existing stock, and in particular to the comments made by the Minister earlier. My new clause 121 would make sure there is a separate planning category for short-term lets. That matters: because of the Government’s failure to scrap section 21 evictions, as they promised to do, over the past two years the long-term rented sector has collapsed. That has led to the expulsion of thousands of people from my community. There has been a 32% rise in holiday lets in just one year, and that is in the Lake district where there were already a huge number of them. Those houses are coming from local people evicted so their landlord can go to a short-term let, normally Airbnb, and therefore cash in, and there are no other places for those people to go and live so their kids are uprooted from the local school, and they have to give up their jobs and move many miles away, robbing our communities of life and of a workforce.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman and I share similar constituency issues: in North Norfolk I have huge numbers of second homes and holiday properties, too. I know he has tabled his own amendments, but the Government have a very sensible amendment as well; does he not agree that we should back their amendment to start addressing the issue of people being turfed out of their homes because a landlord can earn five, six or seven times more by changing from a monthly let to a weekly holiday rental with not as much security? The right thing to do is to back the Government and try and help on this matter.
Tim Farron
I recently had a conversation with the Minister and am absolutely of the view that while Government amendment 119 does not go as far as mine, it is a step in the right direction. There is a sense of locking the stable door while the horses are well over the horizon—that is my great fear—but I will not seek to press my amendment to a Division, because I am going to trust the Government to do what they say they are going to do: to make sure there is a consultation and that they look at having new separate categories of planning use for short-term lets.
That matters in our communities where the workforce has been decimated because of the collapse of the long-term private rented sector into Airbnb. As a result, 63% of hospitality and tourism businesses in Cumbria are working below capacity; they are not meeting the demand that is there because there simply is not a workforce. We have over 30% of the beds in our hospitals in Cumbria blocked because there are not enough social care workers as there is nowhere for them to live, resulting in a gluing-up impact on our health service. There is an urgent need to take action, therefore. It should have been taken two years ago: the Government should have abolished section 21 evictions, as they promised, but it is better to do something now than not do it at all, so I am happy to accept Government amendment 119 and will not press mine. We will wait and see, and hold the Government to account to make sure they keep the promise they made.
We in the lakes and dales are proud to be a place that welcomes visitors and are proud of the fact that people choose to have holidays with us, and indeed have second homes. We must be very careful not to demonise people who we are delighted to welcome to come and visit us, but, as I alluded to earlier, if it is sometimes a battle between defending someone’s right to have a second home and defending families’ right to have a first, we must be on the side of the latter. We must be on the side of people in local communities who are squeezed out because of this. Some 20 million people visit the lakes every year, and we are proud that the tourism industry generates £3.5 billion in revenue for our local economy. We do not want to push people away, but we do want to secure the communities that underpin that economy.
That is why I will seek, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to move new clause 120 in my name, because the Government are not choosing to do anything adequate about second home ownership in this Bill. Over the last two years, 80% of all house sales in my communities have been into the second home market—people who buy a home and do not live in it. For instance, 50% of properties in Coniston are empty as second homes, as are 83% of properties in Elterwater. The impact on those communities and dozens of others around Cumbria is that we get lost communities. Without a full-time permanent population of sufficient size, communities lose their school, their pub, their bus service, their GP service, their post office, and the life of those communities. It is astonishing that despite being offered many opportunities in the Bill Committee and today the Government have not tackled this blight on our rural communities.
I plead with Conservative MPs, and particularly those in rural communities, to do the right thing by those communities and stand up for them by giving Cumbria and other parts of the country that are affected by second home ownership the right to control their housing stock. Give us that control and allow us to preserve the communities of the lakes, the dales and the rest of rural Britain. Please back new clause 120.
Richard Fuller
I thank the Minister for reaching out and having conversations with colleagues. The pace of housing development and the consequential pressure on access to public services is one of the most important, and certainly one of the most frequent, issues raised with me by constituents. Context is important. The people of Bedfordshire are not against new housing—indeed, in my constituency we are doing our fair share and a lot more besides, with three to five times the national average of growth—but what local people most want from the Bill is greater local control over the siting and type of new developments, an avoidance of growth that is too rapid and, most of all, improvements to public services such as GPs and school places before there are additional large-scale housing developments. I seek changes to the Bill to achieve those ends, although I recognise from what the Minister said that the Bill is making some progress on all of those fronts.
Amendment 75 seeks to close the loophole that developers use to get around delays in local plans to secure unwanted developments. Amendment 74 seeks to include specific goals regarding net zero, biodiversity, the circular economy and recycling in neighbourhood plans. New clause 87 seeks to provide specific assistance via regulation for listed buildings where there is a wish to insulate or make other changes to the properties consistent with net zero goals. Finally, amendment 76 seeks to implement the manifesto commitment of infrastructure first to improve access to local services.
On amendment 75, good people play by not just the letter but the spirit of the rules. Right after becoming the Member of Parliament for North East Bedfordshire, I was made aware of a loophole in planning law that was being exploited by developers to obtain permission for developments not wanted by local people while a local plan confirmation is in abeyance. The amendment seeks to close that loophole.
I tabled amendment 74 because I am very concerned that Parliament has set a legal requirement to achieve net zero without properly assessing the methodologies or potential costs to taxpayers and consumers for achieving it. I am concerned that the technologies that we need are still evolving and that lowering the overall cost may take action on a community level rather than an individual level through, for example, charging points for electric vehicles or decarbonising home heat. The amendment would require neighbourhood plans to include considerations of three issues important to our natural environment: achieving net zero, promoting and increasing local biodiversity and improving levels of recycling.
New clause 87 is on listed properties. At my local surgery sessions, I have met a number of residents who live in listed buildings and are really concerned that restrictions stop them from insulating their homes or making other changes that might be needed to comply with future legislation. The new clause would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations making it easier for owners of residential listed buildings to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings and, importantly, place requirements on Historic England to be supportive of such measures and efforts taken by residents.
Finally, amendment 76 is on the Conservative manifesto commitment. I was pleased to see our manifesto commitment to infrastructure first and to listen to what the Minister has said today and in earlier stages of the Bill about the progress that we are making. However, I want to be sure that there is sufficient progress, particularly with regard to the pressure on GP services and school places. I am hopeful that, in summing up, the Minister will talk further and in more detail about how measures in the Bill will deliver on the Conservative manifesto commitment for infrastructure first.
Through a combination of ensuring that we have local control over how housing is developed, a further, deeper commitment at a community level to understanding the practical changes that need to be made to achieve our net zero goals—things like equitable insulation for homes—and to achieve local transportation methods that are green and clean, there are great opportunities in the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mike Amesbury will be the last speaker on a five-minute limit. I will indicate whether the new limit is to be four or three minutes as soon as he has finished.
Mike Amesbury
I rise to speak to my amendments 97 and 98, to my new clause 111 and to other amendments that I support.
After 12 years of pursuing policies that have wrecked and hollowed out communities and deepened inequalities, this Tory Government now say that they are the ones to repair the damage and that the so-called levelling-up agenda is the way to do it. The Bill exposes levelling up as the empty promise that it is. It will not ensure that our planning system delivers for us, it will not provide the genuinely affordable housing we need, and it will not put investment and power back into communities and people’s pockets. In fact, the current Government are doing exactly the opposite.
I support several Labour Front-Bench amendments, including amendments 78 and 84 and new clause 98. This Parliament declared a climate emergency in 2019, so it is somewhat bizarre that, years later, mitigation and adaptation are not hardwired into our planning system. New clause 98, which would do just that, is welcome. As it stands, the Bill will create a power grab by the centre and by the Secretary of State, undermining the local plans and neighbourhood plans that Members across the House have spoken for so strongly in this debate, so I strongly support amendment 78. If we are to build communities with the right houses in the right places that are genuinely affordable, with essential infrastructure and beautiful green spaces, they must be sufficiently funded. That is not the case now, has not been the case for 12 years and will not be the case under the Bill, which is why I am backing amendment 84.
I turn to the amendments that I have tabled. Amendment 97, which is supported by the Local Government Association, would provide local authorities with the certainty that they need about how to administer the levy in relation to retrospective planning applications; the Bill does not currently make provision for that. Amendment 98 would ensure that all forms of provision delivered through section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including affordable housing, are not lost but continue to be delivered by the levy. Otherwise, important schemes that do not come under the definition of infrastructure, but are currently delivered through section 106—including apprenticeships, skills development, supporting the local workforce and supporting young people into employment—may be omitted. New clause 111 would have the same effect as new clause 94: by removing the clauses of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that relate to the sale of vacant higher-value local authority housing, it would hold the Government to a commitment that they made in the social housing Green Paper.
I also support amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Rightly, it would add childcare, either subsidised or free, to the definition of infrastructure. It is common sense, it is the right thing to do and I wholly support it.
My amendments and many others tabled by Members across the House seek to add some substance to a discredited and vacuous slogan: namely, “levelling up”. Over the past 12 years, communities such as mine have been hollowed out, with facilities from leisure centres to libraries closed down and our high streets boarded up. We need something radically different. In fact, what we need is a Labour Government who will empower our communities, genuinely power up our communities, and fill people’s pockets with the money and opportunities they deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There will be a four-minute time limit. I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
Alongside purpose, a sense of pride nourishes personal and communal togetherness; it builds social solidarity. Where we begin, live life and end it roots our days and shapes our dreams. Homes matter because having a place of one’s own to build a family’s future makes those dreams come true. Those who advocate housing targets clinically miss the point. Making homes of which people can feel proud is what public policy must make possible.
The Government’s decision to drop mandatory housing targets, under which local communities have been obliged to endure seemingly endless and unsustainable development, is therefore wise and welcome, if overdue. I have been pleased to play my part, alongside other sensible colleagues, in encouraging that sharp turn in thinking. I am delighted that local communities and the councils they elect will no longer have housing imposed upon them. They will be in sole charge of what is built and where. Never again will the imposition of top-down targets be a justification for developments that are out of scale or character with the prevailing built environment or the local landscape. We have bolted on to villages and towns throughout this kingdom unsuitable and unsustainable housing estates of catalogue-build, identikit houses that bear no relation to the local vernacular and are, frankly, a very poor legacy to pass on to generations to come.
All that we build should make us proud. Our inheritance is what our forefathers built for us, and our responsibility is just as great as theirs. Development should, wherever possible, be regenerative, and it should be incremental. Every hamlet could take a few extra houses; every village could take more; towns many more than that; and cities, of course, many thousands. When we understand that development can be incremental, people will cease to object to it in the way they do currently.
There are those who dismiss beauty—they are crass to do so, because people deserve the chance to live in lovely places, including less well-off people. Unfortunately, that is too often not the case. I welcome the Government’s decision to put beauty at the heart of the housing agenda by raising design standards and making sure that developers and local planners adhere to those standards. It is also important that communities have their say. When they are faced with a choice between the ubiquitous kind of bland, identikit housing that peppers too much of our country or well-designed homes, they will usually choose the latter.
There is, however, concern about the industrialisation of the countryside resulting from the Government’s relaxation of the moratorium on onshore wind. It is critical that topography, visual impact, the connection to sites of special historical interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest, and the connection of turbines to the grid, are all taken into account. Not only is this a dangerous energy policy—I do not have time to explore that—but it also risks spoiling much of the English landscape and ruining vistas that are cherished by local people. If we really believe in local consent for housing, we must follow through and believe in local consent for that kind of infrastructure development, too.
As I have said, all that we build should add to what is there. We will be judged as a Parliament, and indeed as a generation, by what we pass on to generations to come.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I will speak briefly to amendment 73 and new clause 83, which stand in my name.
As we all know, planning can be one of the most contentious issues in any community. Whether or not local communities are happy, there is nothing worse when permission has been granted than developers doing nothing at all with the site, only half completing it, or leaving it derelict for a number of years. The Government’s proposal in the Bill for completion notices is welcome, but it is still weighted in favour of faceless developers, not local communities, and gives developers too long to act. My amendment would ensure that planning permission can be withdrawn and building works removed, with the site being restored to its previous condition in a timely manner, shifting legislation in favour of local communities.
Despite levelling up being one of the Government’s flagship policies, they continue to struggle to define it and, consequently, how its success can be measured. The technical annex to the White Paper, which addresses how levelling up will be measured, says:
“Further work will be undertaken…to…refine these metrics.”
New clause 83 would help to do just that.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to new clause 3 on the compulsory installation of solar panels on all new residential properties. I have long held an interest in this topic, having questioned Ministers, written articles and held a Westminster Hall debate a number of years ago. Needless to say all were to no avail.
I wonder how much better many people’s energy bills would be had compulsory installation been introduced when I first proposed the idea. However, it is to the future we must look. House building and construction will clearly be significant in achieving the goal of a net-zero environment.
We must also be aware of the potential cost of trying to achieve net zero, and any policies therefore need to be innovative, practical and realistic so they do not damage our economy and individual finances. It is for this reason that I tabled my amendment. Quite simply, making solar panels compulsory in all new builds will create an immediate market. Whether 100,000 or 300,000 housing units are built each year, it will create a sizeable market that is, to some extent, guaranteed. With the knowledge of that certainty, businesses will undoubtedly rise to the challenge, set themselves up and invest. We would then see many businesses, up and down the country, installing solar panels. Repair and maintenance businesses would thrive, too.
With such a large market, and with competition, I anticipate that the cost of solar panels would continue its downward trajectory, ensuring that the cost of new houses does not rise disproportionately. There would also be a benefit to those seeking to install solar panels on their existing homes, as costs would drop and many more businesses would offer that opportunity. Most importantly, innovation would kick in and solar panels would become far more efficient and, I anticipate, more aesthetically pleasing. Why not have solar-panel tiles on every new build?
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I was recently told that there is a five-year waiting list in Norfolk to have a thatched roof replaced—waiting lists may be shorter elsewhere. Of course, there are thatched new builds. Does new clause 3 cover thatched new builds? Would anyone who wanted to commission such a new build have to cover its thatched roof in solar panels?
John Stevenson
That is an interesting one, to say the least. I would certainly leave businesses to be innovative in their approach to dealing with that.
I am aware that there is a lot of support for my proposal and I genuinely believe it is sensible and practical. However, I understand the Government’s perspective on a number of issues. I give them credit for their principled policy of moving housing towards zero-carbon-ready homes. As our energy provision changes, homes must be adaptable and ready for the introduction of new technologies and new supplies of energy.
I appreciate, although I do not wholly agree with, the Government’s view that they should remain technology neutral. I am not entirely convinced by that argument, as any housebuilder can do what they want in ensuring a property is zero-carbon-ready, as well as having to include solar panels. However, I acknowledge that the Government have increased the uplift in the energy efficiency standard, which should lead to 30% less CO2 emissions—something that must be welcomed as a further step forward.
I support the Government in their decision to look at solar permitted development rights, particularly with regard to commercial buildings; that decision has much to commend it and is a sensible development. I am still, of course, disappointed that the Government have still not accepted my amendment. Although I have had a Westminster Hall debate, written articles and asked questions on the topic, I genuinely feel there has not been enough debate and consideration of my amendment and its implications in this House.
I am grateful for the support from Conservative Back Benchers and indeed the support of Ministers, albeit privately. I am a little surprised that there has not been greater support from the Opposition, but that may be because the issues have not been as well publicised and debated as they should. There will, however, be an opportunity for further such debate in the other place when they consider this Bill. I would like to think that their lordships will look clearly and closely at the amendments tabled in this House but not divided on, which will include this amendment—I know there is genuine interest in it in the other place.
I will not push this amendment to a vote today, but should the other place, after further debate, conclude it is worth pursuing, I would certainly want this House to have an opportunity to express its views on the amendment, in whatever form it comes back to the House. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and observations and, very importantly, the debate that will be held by their lordships.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. First, new clause 13 would recognise that everyone has the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and place a duty on public authorities to have regard to that right in decision making. Although simple in its drafting, I would argue that it could have a transformative effect in providing the legislative impetus for a significant expansion in accessible, nature-rich spaces, putting green space provision on the policy priority list. Such strong legislative underpinning would unlock support from central Government and investment from the private sector and wider civil society to meet green space creation and maintenance costs.
There is no real levelling up without levelling up access to nature. There is overwhelming evidence demonstrating the impact of access to nature on health and wellbeing—people living happier, healthier and longer lives—but sadly, this life-enhancing tonic is not distributed equally across the country. One in three people in England cannot access nature within a 15-minute walk of their home. That is a particular issue for disadvantaged communities, with some having little or no green space at all. People on low incomes are nearly twice as likely to live in a neighbourhood without nature-rich spaces as those on or above the average income.
During lockdown, when inequalities were laid bare, Natural England demonstrated that 73% of children from households with annual income below £17,000 spent less time outdoors, due to a lack of access to gardens and nearby public parks. New clause 13 would address those inequalities and spread the benefits of access to nature-rich spaces across all communities.
New clause 110 would require planning policy prepared by the Secretary of State to inform local plan making and planning decisions—as well as planning decisions themselves—to be consistent with the UK’s climate targets. This amendment gets to the heart of the UK’s broken planning system, which enables climate-wrecking developments such as the Cumbria coalmine or the Horse Hill oilfield to be approved without robust scrutiny against our binding carbon budget commitments. As Lord Deben told the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member:
“We have a planning system that does not take adaptation or net zero into account.”
My new clause 110 would address that failing, and it would help to deliver the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation that the Government embed
“Net Zero alignment as a core requirement within the planning reforms”.
It is essential that the Bill provides consistent alignment of planning policy and development management with the UK’s climate targets. Without that, there is a real risk that we continue to see plans, policies and application decisions that are either weak on tackling climate change or even contradictory, allowing high-carbon development to continue. Indeed, recent research has found that, despite a climate duty having existed in relation to local plan making since 2008, there is little evidence of recently adopted plans including meaningful action to tackle climate change. Planning, legal and policy frameworks are too limited to give councils the confidence to put bolder policies in place. Yet more concerning are the rejections of strong climate policies by the Planning Inspectorate. Given the lifespan of buildings and infrastructure being constructed today, it is essential that this Bill not only ensures that planning supports the transition to net zero, but takes account of increasing climate impacts. Adaptation simply cannot continue to be the Cinderella of climate change. This new clause would ensure that our planning system is fit for the future, and I urge the Government to accept it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Excessively high housing targets have been making it harder and harder for elected local councillors to turn down bad development proposals, even where these might be wholly inappropriate for the area and there is insufficient infrastructure to support the new homes proposed. This is leading to loss of greenfield land in rural areas and increasing pressure to urbanise the suburbs through the construction of high-rise blocks. That is a matter of acute concern to my constituents in Chipping Barnet—for example, in relation to the North London Business Park scheme, against which I will be speaking when it is considered by the planning committee in Barnet on Thursday.
This erosion of local control over planning is compounded by the obligation to produce what is known as a five-year land supply to show that an area has sufficient sites to meet the target. If this obligation is not met, the so-called tilted balance comes into force—in effect, a developer free-for-all, where there is not a blade a grass or a square foot of land that is not in danger of being concreted over. We cannot go on as we are. Of course, we need new homes, and prior to the pandemic home building had risen to levels as high as anything seen in the last 30 years, but they have to be the right homes in the right places, spread fairly between different areas and delivered in a sustainable way.
That was why I tabled new clause 21, which attracted the signatures of 60 Members of the House, but the Government have listened, and I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for bringing forward significant concessions in response to that new clause. These confirm that centrally determined targets will be advisory, not mandatory. They will be a starting point and a guide, not an inevitable final answer. Where councils can show genuine constraints on the housing they can deliver, they will be permitted to set a lower target in their local plan—for example, if delivering the top-down number would require building at densities that would involve a significant change in the character of an area. It is most welcome that the Planning Inspectorate will have its wings clipped and will no longer be able to reject reasonable plans brought forward by councils. The five-year land supply obligation and the dreaded tilted balance will go for councils with up-to-date plans. The 20% buffer of the five-year land supply will also go, and new design codes will give councils more control over the type of development permitted in their area. This should rebalance the planning system to give local communities a stronger say in what is built in their neighbourhoods. It should also give councils greater capacity to protect the rural or suburban character of their areas.
This outcome is a reasonable compromise that will strengthen local input into the planning system and help prevent environmentally damaging overdevelopment from going ahead, but which will also support the continued delivery of new homes as part of wider efforts to get more people on to the housing ladder. I see what has happened as an illustration of good co-operation between the Front Bench and the Back Benches, and it is a victory for all of us who have been trying to do everything we can to safeguard our green and pleasant land and to protect the quality of life of the constituents we are privileged to represent.
Rachael Maskell
I rise to speak to new clauses 104 to 109 and amendments 93, 95 and 96, which were tabled in my name. New clause 107 was tabled in my name and that of Members across the House, including my new hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I thank the Government for listening in Committee and introducing new clause 119, but it is simply not enough and time is not on our side. New clause 107 would address the very challenges that communities such as mine face. I feel very emotional about this because I deal with cases day after day in which I see people turfed out of their home and turfed out of our city because people come in, extract that housing and extract wealth for their own profit and gain when people simply do not have anywhere to live. The Government’s new clause 119 will not resolve that issue.
My new clause 107 would enable local authorities to take the path that is right for them. If we are talking about levelling up and devolution, I struggle to understand why the Government need another consultation on this issue. They have already had a consultation, to which 4,000 people responded. It is clear to me that another consultation would delay action. In fact, the Secretary of State has said that the consultation would last until the summer. If that is the case, we will see another 6,409 homes flipped over into short-term holiday lets. A community such as mine cannot take any more. We already have 2,118 short-term holiday lets. We know where they are because they are advertised on websites, and we know the problems that they cause.
My new clause would enable local authorities to make the determinations that are necessary to license a scheme and control what is happening in housing development. I cannot see why any hon. Members would not support more powers for their local authority to take control of a local situation that no national solution will be able to resolve. Through that à la carte approach, local authorities could advance the means that they need to address the specifics of what is happening across rural, coastal and urban communities. Short-term lets have clearly taken hold in places across the world, especially in Europe, and particular measures have been put in to bring control to that market.
My new clause would enable local authorities to create control zones to determine that there should be no further growth in short-term holiday lets, to ensure that a licence was in place or to limit the number of such lets in an area. It would not restrain any local authority. An authority might want to grow its short-term holiday let environment, who knows? The new clause would certainly enable those people who are overridden by short-term holiday lets to get back control and make sure that housing went to the very people who needed it. Unfortunately, the Government have not supported that approach and want to talk further about it.
I am going to try another tack. I have tried a private Member’s Bill, spent six months in Committee, talked to seven different Ministers and sat through 27 Committee sittings. It feels like I have given six months of my life solidly to this. Would the Minister consider York to be a pilot for a licensing scheme so that we can put in the measures that will make a difference to my community and my constituents can at last have a house to live in?
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I served on the Bill Committee too. While many Members will think of politics in 2022 for other reasons, for me it will forever be the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill year. Given the size of the amendment paper in front of us, and the scale of issues that Members have, it is vital to get this Bill right to shape all our communities. Fundamentally, the Bill—or certainly its planning clauses—is about competing demands on land use. Until yesterday, I had my own amendment on the amendment paper on food security, but when I look through some of the amendments —new clause 73, new clause 101, new clause 123—many still speak to the importance of ensuring that we get the balance right when it comes to the competing demands for land.
I represent a rural and farming community of 335 square miles of rural north Buckinghamshire, where 90% of the landmass of the constituency is agricultural land. We are seeing solar farm applications coming about time and again and massive growth in house building and commercial property, but we have to think about food security, because if all this land is taken away for energy, housing and industrial units, there will not be any land left on which to grow food.
I am grateful to the Minister and all her predecessors over the past six months for engaging on this matter and for coming up with a proposal. It is why I was happy to withdraw my own amendments to ensure that the new NPPF for the first time ever explicitly referenced food security as a material concern within the planning process. I fear that is where the new clauses I mentioned a moment ago do not go far enough, because they just talk about the green belt, as opposed to open countryside and land used for food production.
For the last few moments of my speech, I will speak to amendment 2 and urge the Minister, when she replies to the debate, to perhaps clear up some of the earlier confusion, because I see no reason whatever why the infrastructure levy cannot be used to fund childcare and childcare facilities. If we are building housing estates and family homes—two, three, four, five-bed properties—funnily enough, not every child from the families who occupy those homes will be of school age. There will be a crying need for childcare and early years provision. Clearly the buildings that are not attached to schools will be an important part of that. I am not saying that the state should take over all childcare, but some ability—
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we reference the 2019 Department for Education guidance that covers his point, it is completely explicit that early years is within the remit of section 106? Perhaps it would helpful if the Minister could be clear, as he asked, that the legislation owned by other Departments remains in place under this Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree entirely that those regulations make it clear. It is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), is not in her place, because she was a councillor with me in 2006 in Hammersmith and Fulham, where I, then charged with the community safety brief, used section 106 money in part to fund additional police officers in the town centres of that borough. There is precedent out there that we can use funds such as the predecessor to the infrastructure levy, to fund some level of revenue services. That is why I urge the Minister, when she sums up, to acknowledge that we can do that and be true localists, so that communities that determine that childcare provision is important are enabled to make those deals as part of their infrastructure levies.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Margaret Greenwood is the last Member with four minutes, and then we will move to a three-minute limit.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Bill introduces national development management policies, or NDMPs, which will have primacy over local development plans, meaning that those plans could be easily and rapidly rendered out of date by changes to national policies. My constituents who are campaigning to protect the green belt will be concerned about that, and I pay tribute to them and support their campaign.
The Bill states:
“If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy”,
so local democratic processes for determining planning decisions could be seriously undermined. New clause 73 in my name would ensure that the Government cannot use NDMPs to allow housing to be built on green-belt land. It is remarkable that, despite the Bill introducing NDMPs, the Government have not set out what will be in their scope. Surely the Government would want to be clear about that before legislating for their introduction.
It is clear that, under the Conservatives, there has not been sufficient protection for the green belt. According to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, more than 42% of planning applications submitted for green-belt land in the 10 years to 2020 were granted, and importantly, the report also points out that there is sufficient brownfield land for more than 1 million homes.
Part 5 of the Bill replaces the current system of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments with a new environmental outcomes report regime. New clause 72 would require EOR regulations made under part 5 to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure to ensure a high level of scrutiny. EIAs and SEAs have been vital to the protection of sites of local, national and international environmental importance for decades. They set out and assess the impacts that developments may have on the environment, and help local authorities to decide on planning applications. It is a matter of extreme concern that a huge amount of detail—including information on which plans and projects EORs will apply to—is deferred to secondary legislation. In effect, the Bill gives a blank cheque to Ministers to change environmental protections in the planning system. The super-affirmative procedure should be used to provide much-needed greater parliamentary oversight.
The Bill currently states that, before making any EOR regulations that contain provision for what the specified environmental outcomes are to be, the Secretary of State must have regard to the current environmental improvement plan. This omits crucial considerations such as the preservation of the green belt, the protection of heritage and climate obligations, which should be central to any environmental assessment process. Amendment 63 addresses that omission. It is vital for the Secretary of State, as well as having regard to considerations such as protecting the green belt and meeting our climate obligations, to have regard to the protection of heritage when setting EOR regulations, because heritage and the historical character of the places where we live are immensely important.
The green belt is not safe in the hands of the Conservatives, and the Bill should be strengthened to provide much greater protections for it. People will not forgive politicians who concrete over the rural landscapes that they value so much. Nor can we trust this Government to protect the environment and address the climate emergency: that was made abundantly clear last week by the Secretary of State’s decision to grant permission for a new coal mine in Cumbria, a shocking decision which has attracted the attention, and the concern, of John Kerry, the United States climate envoy.
In 2019, the UK Parliament declared a climate and environment emergency. I call on the Government to accept new clauses 72 and 73 and amendment 63, which I believe would strengthen the Bill.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 12, which is tabled in my name and which would introduce new requirements to encourage the development of small brownfield sites. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House who have supported it. I do not propose to put it to a vote, because the Housing and Planning Minister—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—has indicated her interest in it and given assurances that it will be part of the Government’s future thinking.
We should all know the scale of the crisis that we are facing. In 2003, 59% of households led by someone aged between 25 and 34 owned their homes; by 2020, the figure had fallen to 47%. At this rate, we are destined to see the majority of people under 50 doomed to a life of permanent renting.
Because of increasing wage-to-house-price ratios, we are witnessing a steady fall in home ownership. In 2019, 65% of households in England owned their homes, a fall from 71% in 2003. The decline in home ownership has been especially pronounced in younger age groups: the number of homeowners aged between 25 and 34 has fallen from 59% to 41%. That puts more and more pressure on the private rented sector. Rental demand is up 142% when compared with the five-year average, while supply is down by 46%. Rents are soaring as a result.
We are having this debate later than was intended, largely owing to the issue of housing targets. They are not the preserve of the left or liberals; Sir Keith Joseph was attacking Labour for not having them in the early 1960s. And I take issue with the phrase “housing target”. This is not a target, but a minimum need. It is a gaping, strategic deficit, and a clear and present danger to economic growth.
There is a need to make tough decisions. It is time to lead and not to follow. Abolishing housing targets is an example of failing by following, and opening ourselves up to the accusation of acting for perceived short- term political gain. The best time to build a house was 20 years ago; the second best time is now. As a Conservative, I believe that one of the Government’s best attributes is their ability to indicate and signal to the markets, and in this case we must do all we can to let the markets know that it is time to build—and yes, to build beautifully too.
The national Government of this country nationalised land use via the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which is still in force. Since 2001, the population of this country has increased by 8 million. That is on the national Government as well. The national Government cannot have nationalised land use and restrictions, and be responsible for such a massive population increase, and then turn round and say, “It’s localism, isn’t it?” It is not localism, and the dropping of targets is a very unfortunate step.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister referred to environmental concerns relating to the planning process. It is remarkable, then, that there is no requirement to do an ecological survey of local wildlife—flora and fauna—before planning consent is considered, so I have proposed some amendments to new clause 5 to achieve that.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of Government new clause 119. The lack of the housing that people need to live, work and play a full part in our local community is not a new problem for Cornwall and Scilly, but it has certainly become acute during and following the covid pandemic. The demand for staycations, fuelled by stringent rules and tax changes, has caused massive numbers of long-let properties to switch to short lets to meet the demand for short breaks at the expense of those who need the security of a permanent home. We have more homes approved for building than families on our waiting list.
This Bill has a job of work to do, and I believe that, with this sensible new clause, which I and many others support, it can offer a framework that will see a shift for the better in how we deliver the homes our community needs. I am grateful for the way the Minister has engaged with us and listened to the concerns that I and colleagues have shared, including those who share the task of representing the Duchy of Cornwall.
Very early on, my Cornish colleagues and I pressed for consideration to be given to how we ensure that houses built to meet local need can enjoy protection so they stay that way. The Bill establishes a registration scheme for holiday rentals and a consultation on whether planning permission is required for new holiday rentals, especially in tourist hotspots. I very much hope that is progressed as quickly as possible to reassure my constituents that the Government and the Bill work for them. That will address a difficulty that many families face by curtailing the opportunity for a landlord to switch the home to a holiday let. I ask the Minister to consider including second homes in the consultation. With that measure in place, Cornwall Council and other local authorities can assess the housing need and choose to decline a change of use application, protecting the home for permanent residents.
I am glad that the Government have made the central plank of this legislation enabling the building of the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure. Communities will heave a huge sigh of relief, as they have felt forced to accept housing that spoils the natural environment but that does little to meet the need in the area. It confirms the fact that when we empower a local community to fashion and design its own destiny, people step forward and give their time to meet the challenge and win the arguments. This will always be a more constructive method of addressing housing supply than the top-down, target-driven approach that we are subject to now. That approach has not worked, otherwise there would be no housing crisis in Cornwall and no need for much of this legislation.
The top-down housing targets undermine confidence, sap the energy of local volunteers and do nothing to deliver the homes that local people need. With this Bill, brownfield sites will take precedence over greenfield sites and local communities’ needs over top-down diktats, and there will be confidence that priority will be given to those who live, work and are enabled to play a part in their community.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clauses 20 and 40 and amendment 5, in my name. We all recognise that the UK has a housing crisis, with shortages of social, private rented and affordable housing, leaving many people in an insecure position. One problem is that that need often conflicts with concerns that local residents have about their own stretched public services. Amendment 5 would help to address local concerns by ensuring that the infrastructure levy is paid upfront before the point of occupation. Councils would be able to ensure that a local community could cope with the additional people moving in before they were there taking up school places and nursery places, rather than trying to solve the problem of service provision once it is too late.
The amendment would also enable councils to require financial bonds from developers to complete the basic infrastructure—roads, street lights and drainage—that is meant to be adopted, but often seems to be left undone. North Shropshire is plagued with unfinished road developments, and the amendment would allow those financial bonds to be put in place, which would avoid such situations.
I fear that the Bill misses the opportunity to ensure that, when we build new homes, we protect the environment. The Conservatives have allowed around 1 million new homes to be built since 2015, which are not as efficient as they would have been had the standards put in place under the coalition Government been retained. This is a missed environmental opportunity, and it means that homeowners are paying far more to heat their homes than they might otherwise have done. New clause 20 would bring forward the date of the future homes standard to January, which may be unrealistic in the circumstances, but I hope that the Minister will consider bringing it forward to save homebuyers money and to work towards our climate objectives.
New clause 40 would create a requirement to hold local referendums on fracking applications—to be paid for by the applicant—to protect communities from unwanted fossil fuel extraction. My constituents are unconvinced by the current moratorium given the flip-flopping this summer and the disastrous decision to give the go-ahead to a new coalmine last week.
Finally, I wish to mention the critical importance of the affordability of housing. We know, as many Members have discussed, that it is worse in some parts of the country than in others. The building of executive homes in the countryside will not help us deal with the problem of affordable housing. New clause 20 also enables local authorities to require new housing to be affordable and to define affordability in their area. It would also allow them to provide additional bus services so that people did not become reliant on cars.
In summary, I am worried about the things that are missing in the Bill, which we have discussed today, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. In my final few seconds, I apologise to the House for coughing and spluttering all the way through the debate.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the cougher and splutterer from North Shropshire. She did it very well; I did not notice her coughing and spluttering.
It is my pleasure to speak to amendment 3, which is in my name. The Bill is a landmark piece of legislation, which will go a long way to pushing the Government’s ambition to level up our country.
One area of particular significance to Milton Keynes North is affordable housing. I have long campaigned and advocated for the need to build more affordable homes, as that is the best way to bring down house prices and to help families get on the housing ladder. As of now, developers are incentivised to build the highest-value properties they can when they get the chance, and this only serves to exacerbate the problem, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) illustrated in her speech just now. It is an issue in my constituency. Sprawling estates of executive homes have been built with no intention to meet the needs of my constituents. The housing crisis that we face in this country is unprecedented and requires vital intervention from the Government to address. Too few homes are being built, and the homes that are being built are becoming increasingly unaffordable. As a result, people never get on to the housing ladder. Affordable housing developers can provide beautiful homes for those who want to remain in their communities, and we need to work with them to ensure that they are supported in doing so.
On affordable housing, we could be doing much more right now to ensure that as many new homes are brought forward as possible. If we want to address the housing crisis directly, we must tackle the issue at source. That is why I tabled amendment 3, which would provide an exemption from the infrastructure levy for affordable housing as defined in annex 2 of the NPPF. We want to see more affordable housing built throughout the country, and I see the amendment as a simple, straightforward way of achieving that. It is a massive bit of legislation with a massive amendment paper, yet my amendment is just one and a half lines long, so I implore colleagues to add it to the Bill.
The Bill currently has no automatic exemption for housing from the infrastructure levy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated that such an exemption will apply in the regulations, but I think that it really should be in the Bill. This small tweak to the levy would make a great difference in the short term and pay real dividends in the long term.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clause 6, in my name, which seeks to ensure that publicly owned assets can be more easily retained for the public good when sold off. I thank the Minister for her time meeting me before today to discuss this. The new clause has been born out of a local campaign in my constituency but is of relevance to the whole country. Thousands of residents are calling for the former Teddington police station site to be sold to a local housing association and a GP surgery, which have put in a joint bid backed by the local council, The bid, if successful, would prioritise the needs of the local community by providing a much-needed new state-of-the-art facility for Park Road GP surgery and a number of social and affordable homes above it. Sadly, in this highly desirable location they cannot outbid private developers who will deliver yet more unneeded luxury flats with the bare minimum number of affordable units that they can get away with.
Having lobbied the Mayor of London and his deputy for policing and crime, I was told that their hands are tied by statute whereby they have to secure best value, which is defined as the best price available on the open market. The new clause has a simple aim to make the law clear and unequivocal, with a single schedule covering all relevant public bodies, from the NHS to police and fire services on the same terms, granting them permission to sell publicly owned land and buildings for below market value, up to a certain level, to bids that put the environmental, economic or social infrastructure needs of the community first.
Rachael Maskell
Does the hon. Member recognise that Network Rail is trying to dispose of much of its estate and that the Department for Transport is saying that it must also get the highest level of capital receipt? That, too, could benefit from her proposal.
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. I thank the hon. Lady for supporting my proposal today as well as in the Bill Committee.
The new clause would also update existing provisions in line with recent and rising land values. In boroughs such as Richmond upon Thames, where we have more than 5,000 people on the social housing waiting list, sites to build new homes are vanishingly scarce. My constituency casework is dominated by families in desperately overcrowded and unsuitable housing. I therefore believe that whenever a suitable site becomes available, particularly if it is publicly owned, it should be considered for social or affordable housing.
I am proud that Lib Dem-run Richmond Council is leading by example by ensuring that many of its own asset sales are prioritised for social housing, where appropriate. That comes at a cost for a cash-strapped council. Indeed, a concern has been raised with me, not least by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, about the impact that the new clause would have on its finances if it sold below market value. We could have a debate about whether it should be better funded in the first place so that it does not have to sell off sites at top dollar, because that is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Crucially, the amendment would allow, and not force, public bodies to put local communities at the heart of their estates strategy. Whether it is the Metropolitan police selling off sites in Notting Hill, Barnet or Teddington, or Surrey police, which has sold off 20 properties in the last five years, all those sites could potentially be used for better public infrastructure and affordable housing that would benefit key workers, such as police officers and nurses, and young people in our constituencies.
Given that the Secretary of State said to me on Second Reading that we could have consensus on that policy point, I implore the Minister to work with me to take the amendment forward and get it on to the statute book, for the sake of communities across the country, such as Teddington, that desperately need new homes, GP surgeries and other community infrastructure.
Wendy Morton
I welcome the way in which Ministers have listened to the concerns of many of us on this side of the House and sought to improve the Bill, recognising in particular that planning is always local and it is vital that we have a locally led planning system, with local communities at its heart. I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for the huge amount of work that they have done on what was new clause 21.
On housing targets, I am pleased that local housing need is now acknowledged as the starting point, and that centrally determined housing targets are advisory and not mandatory. That, coupled with ending the obligation of the five-year land supply—which is actually six years when the 20% buffer zone is factored in—is a step in the right direction. I would just press the Minister on how much councils may be able to challenge and reduce their targets, because that will be important to many local areas, including mine. I really hope that the changes secured will start to help local communities feel that they have a meaningful part to play in the planning process. In Aldridge-Brownhills, our experience of being listened to or even engaged with during the consultation on the Black Country plan was woefully inadequate, but the plan is now, thankfully, defunct.
The measures in the Bill will see our communities start to be able to shape their towns and villages. I am also pleased that the Government will incentivise and enable development on brownfield sites first, not least because of the real difference that could make if we are serious about delivering. Fundamentally, we all know that we cannot justify building on the green belt, greenfield and green spaces when brownfield sites on high streets and in town centres are ready to be regenerated. Continuing to tilt the playing field in favour of brownfield first is a win-win.
I welcome the response on seeing what more can be done to unlock development on small sites, especially with respect to affordable housing, and the prioritising of brownfield land again. I well remember getting the keys to my first home, and I want the next generation of homeowners to be able to get on the property ladder like I did. We can be the regeneration generation. The Bill is now in a much better place to start moving us in that direction.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As ever, I will contribute to the debate from a highlands perspective. I hope that all hon. Members will one day visit my constituency and see Caithness and Sutherland. If visitors drive across Caithness in a north-westerly direction on a road called the Causewaymire, they will see abandoned houses to left and right. That is because for far too long depopulation was the curse of the highlands, and that is why we have so many people with highland surnames in Canada, in the Carolinas and in Virginia.
The advent of the nuclear facility in Dounreay halted and reversed that depopulation in the 1950s. The Labour Government in the 1960s established the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which in turn led to the fabrication of oil facilities at several yards in the highlands. That, too, helped to halt and reverse depopulation in the highlands, and it is why I got married and had children myself—I worked in one of those yards at the time.
My point is a fundamental one: we talk about the definition of infrastructure and, in my mind, it is about quality employment. If we do not have quality employment for the young generation for the future, the finest housing plan, however we put it together, will be undermined. It is no accident that, after Dounreay came to be, we saw house building on a very large scale in Caithness, around Wick and Thurso. When the yards at Nigg and Kishorn in Ross and Cromarty opened, we saw large-scale housing developments—private housing and social housing—in my home town of Tain, in Alness and in the village of Balintore. Without that part of infrastructure called employment, it ain’t going to work, folks, I am afraid.
That is why I go on quite a lot in this place about space launch in Caithness and, in particular, Sutherland—because it is about jobs. This is an unashamed sales pitch, Mr Deputy Speaker; I hope you will forgive me. I hope that His Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government will look favourably on the bid to establish a green freeport on the Cromarty Firth. I must register my disappointment that there are no Members of the party that is running the Scottish Government here with us today, because I would have liked them to hear that message loud and clear.
David Simmonds
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid vice-president of the Local Government Association. I place on the record my thanks to the Conservative Environment Network and the Royal Town Planning Institute for their assistance in formulating a number of the amendments that I tabled or signed.
I also thank the Government for the interest that they have shown in the issues highlighted in my amendments on wildbelt. There is a strong sense across parties that, in the way we approach regeneration, we must take account of the needs of wildlife as well as the need to provide green space around our towns and cities. Especially in areas where large-scale housing development may take place, it is incredibly important for local authorities and developers to identify sites that contribute to biodiversity.
I welcome the progress that we have made in respect of the greater degree of rigour around the planning process. It is clear that many local authorities face challenges in recruiting sufficient professional staff and in ensuring that, from both the developer perspective and a governmental perspective, we have the necessary strategy and oversight in place to ensure that our objectives are delivered.
I will focus on three areas that are especially important. We have heard a great deal about childcare, and I have made a number of interventions on the issue. Let me clarify that the reason I signed amendment 2 is that I am pretty clear that the guidance from the Department for Education—that is one of a number of a number of Departments that own guidance that is used in the planning process, another being the Home Office, which permits PCSOs and police services to be funded through section 106 agreements; those are owned by DLUHC as the Department responsible for local government but bring in other legislation—already allows for childcare to be considered. However, I would welcome confirmation from the Dispatch Box. I think the Minister noted that in her opening speech, but it would be helpful to have clarity.
Let me add my appreciation of the Government’s move on housing targets. The local authorities that serve my constituency have consistently delivered more housing than the targets that have come from any part of central Government or, indeed, the Mayor of London. It is clear that effective local leadership and a sense of ambition, particularly around regeneration, can deliver the homes that we need in this country.
Finally, let me place in the Government’s mind an issue that is very much on those of my constituents: the impact of ultra low emission zones. As we consider the impact of increased traffic on areas, I hope that, in due course, the Government will be minded to accept amendments that require the consent of the local authorities affected before such policies are introduced.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
There is much to like and admire in this Bill. Mention has already been made of street votes, and I want to put on the record my thanks to the Government for including them, as that has been a personal crusade of mine and many others outside the House. I am delighted that street votes are firmly and squarely in the Bill.
I am also delighted to see design codes. We have heard about the importance of beauty and of local democracy, local input and local vernacular styles; design codes are an essential way of delivering that and it is very welcome to see them in the Bill.
I also echo the comments of a number of colleagues about what had been new clause 21, which I also signed, and which the Government have responded to positively in dealing with the tyranny of housing targets. The result is to everybody’s credit and very welcome.
However, there is a “but” at the end of that sentence, and it is to do with the concern that a number of Members, including the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), mentioned about supply: our ability to build enough homes in future. Successive Governments of all political stripes have failed to deliver nearly enough homes over decades in this country, and I worry that this Bill fails to fix that fundamental underlying issue of inadequate supply. Street votes will help, but they will not be enough on their own, which is why I tabled new clause 88, and my thanks to the colleagues who have signed it already or spoken in support of it in this debate.
New clause 88 seeks to deal with the problem of under-supply by saying that anybody who owns a home in a town, city or urban area can redevelop it as of right, provided they follow the local design code, which the local council will by then have passed. That will lead to a dramatic increase in the amount of supply. On average, our towns and cities are about two storeys tall, so if the local design code effectively allows a townhouse revolution, which is what most of them will be, that will double the amount of home space available in our towns and cities in one go.
Mr Richard Bacon
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that some of the most beautiful places in the world—Edinburgh, Cornish fishing villages, Paris or Berlin, where I lived—the normal height is four, five or perhaps six storeys without in any way over-dominating the scene?
John Penrose
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that means we end up with gentle densification and beauty in the local style, creating spaces where people really want to live.
We will end up with a huge increase of supply from this townhouse revolution that I have described, and we will also end up with a bump-up in the value of existing homes, because we are creating brownfield sites and every existing home ends up with a small increase in value because of the hope value created. It is greener, because we are allowing people to live nearer where they work, protecting green fields and, as we heard earlier, using brownfield sites. It creates the beauty we have all been looking for. Most importantly, it retains local decision-making sovereignty. I therefore hope the Government will pick this up, take it forward and examine it carefully. It is in the spirit of street votes, but it is street votes on steroids, and I therefore commend it to the Minister and Government.
Mr Richard Bacon
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker, even though you have restricted everyone to three minutes —I understand, of course, that you had no choice in the matter. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). When I was discussing with him what to do about this problem, obviously I had crafted an immense amount of prose, but he said, “We will remove every alternate page and then deal with what is left,” which is sort of what I have done. I am also grateful to him for drawing new clause 88 to my attention, because I have seen much of the gentle densification he refers to in different cities on the continent. I have visited the Netherlands many times in my campaign for more custom and self-build, and he is right that it does work.
John Penrose
Does my hon. Friend agree that his proposals for a greater amount of custom and self-build will be another way of increasing supply, contributing to solving the problem I mentioned in my remarks just now?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Happy wedding anniversary, Nickie Aiken!
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want to speak in favour of Government new clause 119, to which I am delighted to add my name. The campaign for a register for short-term Airbnb-style properties has been long in the making. Before I came to this place, when I was a member of Philippa Roe’s cabinet on Westminster Council, we successfully lobbied the Government of the time—the coalition Government—to secure a 90-day limit for lettings in London under the Deregulation Act 2015. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to Philippa Roe, Baroness Couttie, who lost her battle against cancer yesterday. I pay tribute to the brilliant work she did as a councillor.
It should therefore come as no surprise that I welcome the substance of the Government’s new clause 119, which would require the Secretary of State to make provision for a registration scheme for short-term rental properties. Legislating for such a scheme, let alone understanding the scale of the problem across the country, has been hampered over the past decade by a distinct lack of evidence and data. With this in mind, I would like to stress the importance of subsection 3 of new clause 119, which will mean that the Secretary of State
“must consult the public before making the first regulations under this section.”
This is absolutely the right approach, in my opinion. Consultation will be fundamental, and we need time to review the data and make sure that we are doing this right.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). There are strong commonalities between the Government’s new clause 119 and new clause 107, and I know, having run a local authority, that we must allow councils the freedom to do what is best for their own area. Believe me, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. To avoid over-legislating, it will be essential that we get this right before applying the standardised registration scheme to the to-do list of local authorities, primarily because not all local authorities need a registration scheme; for those where a scheme is necessary, it must differ according to regional trends in short-term letting. Westminster will be different from York, and requirements in York will be different from those in Cumbria and coastal communities.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who has really listened and got this argument. I do ask, though, that we look at announcing a timescale for the first regulations to be brought forward, to allow local authorities to start planning now for the registration if it is coming later this year. I am delighted that the Department has accepted our arguments and has brought in new clause 119.
Kelly Tolhurst
I rise to talk about targets but also, because of the shortness of time, to highlight the plight of my constituency, where targets have been on the tongues of all my constituents since I was elected to this House in 2015, predominantly because of the high level of housing needs being proposed across the unitary authority. Unfortunately, rather than being spread across the unitary authority, the majority of that proposed housing is within my constituency, particularly the Hoo peninsula, where there are many villages sandwiched between the Thames and the River Medway, surrounded by Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest and, of course, home to the nightingale.
As I said before, we also have Chatham docks—a thriving working port with business delivering major infrastructure for the UK. However, because of the council’s need to meet the high housing target, the docks are at risk of closure for the building of high-rise flats. We have done our part in my Rochester and Strood constituency on delivering homes; we have been delivering homes for the last decade and I am blessed with many new housing estates. My constituents want to understand how we can make sure we deliver the infrastructure to meet those high targets.
I have been pleased to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who has worked hard with Ministers. I am pleased with the engagement we have had with Ministers, but I would like the Minister to clarify some of the detail she mentioned in opening the debate around the NPPF consultation and, working with some of the information that has been put in that document around genuine constraints, how that would really affect constituencies such as mine that face very high targets and constituents who are incredibly concerned about infrastructure delivery and how it will affect their way of life.
In her summing-up speech, I wonder whether the Minister can give us more information about that and see how we can protect our villages going forward, while bringing on the new houses that we have been building and desperately want more of, ensuring that it is properly led and the community are happy with the development.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
When I became the Member of Parliament for Meriden, three years ago to this day, I did so on the promise to do my utmost to protect our precious green belt. That is a promise I take seriously, and it is ever more important with the integrity of the green belt constantly coming under threat from development. In my constituency I have the Meriden Gap, the green lung of the west midlands, sandwiched between Birmingham and Coventry. It is a vital migratory throughway for wildlife in the United Kingdom—so much so that losing it would be catastrophic for wildlife across the country.
I stand by my constituents, who understand that, while we need more housing, we must do what we can to alleviate pressure on the green belt. Too often, I hear from constituents their dismay at the planning process. I am in no doubt that if we do not reform our planning system, we will disenfranchise whole communities and chip away at the very trust that people place in our democracy.
I am pleased that we are where we are today. Colleagues such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) have campaigned for common-sense reforms, and the Government have listened, with the result that we can now see light at the end of the tunnel. I am pleased that the Government are focused on brownfield first, a policy that I have championed for many years. In the west midlands, we have enough brownfield to meet our housing needs. The reforms around land banking are similarly important: too often, my constituents are flabbergasted that more green belt is being eaten up by development, when we know that developers have land banked for future developments.
I particularly want to address the Planning Inspectorate. I welcome the NPPF consultation announced today. My borough council has put forward a local plan: it has been a really difficult process and my constituents have been asked to make significant sacrifices to meet the duty to co-operate. The local plan was reviewed by the inspectorate. One site in it would have had 2,000 homes, but the inspector said, “You can’t do it—you need to do something with about 500 houses.” One site would have had an existing school moved to a new building and rebuilt, but the inspectorate effectively said, “You can have the housing, but you don’t need the new school.” That is clearly not okay. If we are building homes, communities deserve the infrastructure to go with it. The interim findings were against the mood and desires of the community that I serve. The planning inspectorate is clearly not in touch with the people it is meant to serve.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether removing the duty to co-operate will enable Solihull Council to review the local plan again? If it says it can build 2,000 homes on one site, will it be allowed to do so? When it says it needs a new school, will it be allowed one?
This is about more than planning. It is about the faith that our communities place in democracy. It is about their voice. It is about their knowing that when they express their will, it will be so.
Dame Maria Miller
I rise to support the Bill. I thank the Minister and her colleagues for engaging with Back-Bench colleagues on our concerns, particularly with regard to the way in which housing numbers are calculated.
New homes in my constituency really matter. We have built 150,000 in the past 50 years, at double the rate of the rest of the country, but because we have done the right thing, the formulaic approach ratcheting house building numbers up year on year and the complication of the five-year land supply have left Basingstoke—my constituency and my borough—building 1,400 houses a year, which is probably three times more than the need in our community. That is not sustainable. Councils must be allowed to vary the figure that comes out of the formula to take into account the local needs of the community. I have been making that case ever since I was elected; I am thankful that my council now has a leadership who are on the same page.
I am pleased to support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). They have led the Government to agree that over-building can be just as much of a restriction on future house building as anything else. I am grateful for that recognition, as are my constituents.
New clause 123, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has echoes of the past. What got us into this situation in the first place was centrally led house building numbers. We cannot go back to that. I hope that he will decline to press his new clause, for fear that we will regress in that way.
The Government have agreed to make changes, but I urge the Minister to clarify one further thing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) has just mentioned: the role of the planning inspector. Planning inspectors are too often overriding local decision making and undermining local democracy. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reassure us that that will change. What guidance will be given to planning inspectors on the changes that have been announced to the calculations with regard to new homes?
Mr Richard Bacon
My right hon. Friend mentions planning inspectors and how annoying they can be. Is she minded to suggest that perhaps we could do without planning inspectors? After all, we have local councils, local democracy and a call-in process through the Secretary of State. Why do we actually need an intermediate process?
Dame Maria Miller
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but there needs to be a way of having arbitration when there are points of concern. I can understand that, but it has to be done with the starting point that local people know what is best for their community. I am shocked to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has been experiencing with regard to schools.
Siobhan Baillie
I rise to address amendment 2. With 1.2 million vacancies, recruitment issues for businesses, some of the highest childcare costs in the world and a lack of choice for parents, it is right that we try to look at all forms of legislation to see if we can make improvements to childcare policies. I listened to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I do not accept her criticism of the Minister and of what the Minister said. There are two separate issues. The first is whether infrastructure facilities for childcare are already included in the list that can be used for CIL and section 106 infrastructure spending. We heard from a number of Members that that is already available under DFE guidelines, and that councils can already build and spend in that way—it is a capital spend. The second issue is whether we can make changes to the regulations to include spending on revenue, effectively, so subsidising free childcare, or supporting childcare places. That needs a bit more work, but I note that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who is not in her place, took straight to Twitter to suggest that the Government are not supportive of childcare or recognising that infrastructure matters. That is simply not the case, so I welcome the Minister providing some clarity on those issues.
More generally, the issue of housing targets, five-year land supply and the 20% buffer are constantly thrown back at my communities when we challenge building matters. Often, the Government are blamed even when it is a district council matter that is being challenged. We have an emerging local plan in Stroud. I welcome what the Minister said earlier to a colleague about the fact that we can look at a pause on a local plan. Certainly, the local council will need to do that.
I welcome the work being done in particular on compulsory purchase and derelict properties. We have a property in my patch called Tricorn House. It has been there for 20-odd years and it is a complete blight on the landscape. It was the site, sadly, of the tragic loss of a young life. The family are completely devastated and they have to look at the building every day. Nothing happens. Owners change and we are waiting. I will back any legislation that can help me to sort out Tricorn House.
It is the job of hon. Members to change and amend legislation to improve it. That does not mean we are rebels trying to take down the Government. Equally, my constituents are not nimbys because they care so deeply about their communities. They are the ones who spot when there is a great big gas pipe running through a site on which a council suddenly decides it wants to build. So let us stop the labelling, let us stop the nonsense and let us make the changes. I welcome what the Minister and her team are doing, and I thank them for it.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 119. I thank the Minister immensely for her engagement on this issue. Although she is the sixth Housing Minister I have spoken to about short-term holiday lets and second homes in my constituency, she is the first to deliver real change.
The issue in North Devon, like in many coastal communities, is acute. When I was elected to this place, Croyde was 64% second homes and short-term holiday lets. In North Devon, since the pandemic, we have lost 67% of our long-term rentals, and seen a 30% increase in property prices and a tripling of section 21 notices as people flip their long-term rentals into short-term holiday lets.
In Devon, we have worked hard to better understand what is driving some of these changes. Whereas before the pandemic we might have highlighted second homes as a particularly big issue, short-term holiday lets are now a major factor. I welcome the Minister’s changes and the caution with which they are being approached, because the unintended consequences of tinkering in this market and getting it wrong are often great.
It is not only in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that we need changes to legislation, as the changes to landlord tax relief introduced in 2016, which came into effect in 2020, have had a monumental impact on this market. Although my work here may be nearly done, I am now lobbying other Ministers for changes to make sure we properly tackle this issue, which is multifaceted and spans many different Departments.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing a fantastic job on this issue. She has made a massive difference across the south-west. The important point is that we have to encourage long-term rental properties across the United Kingdom. We have done that by changing business rates, council tax and, now, registration.
Selaine Saxby
My hon. Friend and I share many similar issues.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) for tabling the predecessor to new clauses 22 and 23. I am also one of the rebels who signed up to new clause 21. I take the opportunity to explain that I have no issue with building houses, but we have built ahead of target in my constituency, and what is the point when they are all empty and my local residents cannot move in? We need to build homes for local people so that they can live and work in the place they were born and brought up and where we have jobs for them. We have to end coastal ghost towns.
I thank the Minister again for her time. This is a big step forward.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 12, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), on small-site affordable housing.
The need for affordable housing, and indeed housing, across the country is very great. There is nothing like a cold snap and the crispness of fresh snow to bring front of mind people who are homeless on our streets, who have inadequate, cold housing or who need a home of their own. We also need to talk about the delivery of responsible and sustainable housing that is right for local areas, rather than simply stopping it. There is a group of people who do not have the voice of a property to object to a plan, and who do not have the voice of a community to call their home. We need to make sure they also have the homes they need.
On the delivery of affordable and other housing, I completely agree with the sentiment of moving away from nationally imposed housing targets and towards restoring stronger local accountability. Indeed, that is something for which I have long called, as set out in the 2015 Elphicke-House report. The standard method, otherwise known as the mutant algorithm introduced in 2018, has created an unhelpful backlash against house builders and developers without improving affordability in a meaningful statistical sense.
However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I will look carefully at the consultation on the NPPF. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Housing Minister to consider what further steps may be taken to make sure our councils have greater responsibility for being housing enablers by bringing forward the housing needed in their areas.
As well as the financial, social and wellbeing costs for those who need homes, insufficient building has a very high economic cost to GDP. It is estimated that the house building industry generates over £40 billion of economic activity, including the delivery of £6.6 billion in affordable housing, while 100,000 fewer homes—that is not impossible in a sharp contraction or loss of confidence in the house building sector—could be a loss of £17 billion of economic activity and put 800,000 jobs at risk. So I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider accepting the sentiment behind new clause 12, and to ensure, as the Bill progresses and as the new NPPF is put forward for consultation, that the proper delivery of housing is at the forefront of her mind.
Dame Maria Miller
I want to build on my hon. Friend’s point about affordable housing. In my local authority area, more than 1,700 affordable homes have been built in the last four years, which is significantly higher than almost any other council in my county. It seems to me that the Government need to learn from those local authorities that are successfully delivering affordable housing, so that they can share that understanding more widely.
Mrs Elphicke
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments, and she is absolutely right. Some local councils are over-delivering and overperforming, and some are underperforming. If we look at, for example, some areas of London, the Mayor’s plan for London is not delivering the homes that London needs, is not providing the densification and is not providing homes for people who live in London. Instead, that is getting exported to the home counties, to places such as Kent and Basingstoke. I completely agree that we need to look at making sure that the local plans and local delivery are appropriate, and that it is locally-led planning, but we also need to ensure that councils are responsible about meeting their housing needs. That balance must be there in the new NPPF because house building is not just a very important industry in terms of GDP. It is also the means by which we live better financial, better social and better connected lives in our community. It has a really important part to play.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to be called in this debate, especially with you in the Chair, because a lot of what I am going to say now is about when I was a councillor in your beautiful constituency of Epping Forest.
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who have done a substantial amount of work over close to two years now. I also thank those on the Front Bench for their proactive engagement to ensure that this legislation is in a fit state. I hope we will all be voting to support it in due course.
Prior to getting into this place, as I have said, I spent many years in local government. I ended up sitting on a planning committee for close to 17 years, during most of which I was chairing at both district and county council level, and I was holding the pen when the Essex design guide was adopted by Essex County Council. The point I want to make is that, while the public normally focus on housing, the local plan model is actually one that works. I have the scars of the regional development agencies, prior to local plans being introduced—actually by a Liberal Democrat Cabinet member at the time—back in 2011. The importance of this is that planning is one of those emotive issues that, if we get wrong, are a blight on our community for many years. I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we need to make sure we get this right.
I am fortunate enough to represent the beautiful constituency of South West Hertfordshire, which is approximately 80% green belt. While there is absolutely a demand for new homes, they do need to be the right type of homes. We have spoken about housing numbers before, but I want to focus on housing type. While we are blessed with a lot of medium to large-sized homes in my constituency, it is the first-time homeowners who inevitably will have to move out of my constituency to get on to the property ladder. As someone who bought their first home two years ago, the biggest and most frustrating issue I had in my constituency was trying to afford a home of a reasonable size. That was a challenge, even at my age and with what is the very well-paid job I do now.
I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that further engagement will happen, because I think this will be an evolution of the planning reform that we so desperately need in this place. I am conscious that I am before the Minister and the votes, so I am going to sit down now.
Lucy Frazer
I know that colleagues across the House have dedicated a huge amount of time to getting the Bill to this point, and I thank them for their thoughtful contributions in Committee, in their engagement with me since I took office, and throughout today’s session, which I think has illustrated how important this piece of legislation is to the future of this country. It is further evidence of the commitment of Members across the House to finding solutions enabling us to build more homes in the right areas.
Lucy Frazer
I am not going to give way; I will make substantial progress, because a lot of people have asked me questions. I want to give them commitments, and I will then be very happy to take interventions. I took all the interventions in opening the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) made an important point about exempting affordable housing from the infrastructure levy. I assure him that we intend for the full value of on-site affordable homes delivered by the levy to be offset by the total levy liability. That means that the affordable housing element of a development is not itself chargeable for the levy but that the scheme as a whole still contributes towards the infrastructure that may be needed to support it.
On infrastructure, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about paying money up front. The Bill already provides powers for levy regulations to make provision for payment on account and payment by instalment. It will also be possible for local authorities to borrow against future levy receipts. On top of all that, the infrastructure levy is a test-and-learn approach, so as we roll out it out going forward, we will improve it.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), raised points about the national development management policies. Those policies will cover the common issues already dealt with in national planning policy, such as green belt and areas at risk of flooding. That will reduce the burdens on local authorities by removing the need for those issues to be repeated in local plans.
I turn now from the infrastructure levy to issues relating to the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) mentioned the Glover review. He will know that DEFRA is implementing several recommendations from that landscapes review and is also continuing to consider how best to implement others.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned hedgehogs and vulnerable species. We have discussed that issue, and as he knows, we are already taking steps to protect vulnerable species and prevent the destruction of habitats prior to any survey taking place. The legislative framework for biodiversity net gain already includes provisions to address that. I am very grateful for the conversations we have had, because as a result of the points he has brought to my attention we intend to look further at how we can strengthen that, and we will consider it further in the Lords.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) made a number of valid points, and he was right to highlight the importance of wild belts. Our local nature recovery strategies are at the centre of the Government’s approach to driving nature’s recovery. The Environment Act 2021 already obliges responsible authorities to map sites that could be of particular importance for nature’s recovery. Local authorities must have regard to the sites identified and the reasons behind their identification. That duty applies to all their planning functions. We will continue to look at that issue as we enable the preparation of local nature recovery strategies, which will begin across England soon.
Local support underpins our approach to changing planning policy on onshore wind development in England. I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for their thoughtful contributions on this matter. We will consult on onshore wind using a more localist approach, which will give local authorities more flexibility to respond to the views of their local communities.
We recognise that although some communities will want onshore wind, some may not. That is why important safeguards will be in place. Authorities will be able to identify appropriate locations for onshore wind that do not have a significant impact on precious visible amenity. Special consideration will have to be given to preserving the landscapes of, for example, the Somerset l evels, Romney Marsh and the magnificent fens of Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk.
Our valued landscapes—particularly national parks and areas of outstanding beauty—and important habitats such as sites of special scientific interest will continue to be protected. Councils will be in full control of what is developed within the local authority boundaries. A combination of robust national and local planning policies will ensure that communities are able to rebuff unwanted speculative development by appeal.
Lucy Frazer
I will take interventions at the end if I have time.
As with any other developments, Members of Parliament and members of the public will be able to request that a DLUHC Minister call in a specific scheme if they wish, and their views will be given appropriate weight.
I turn to the important matter of short-term lets. I particularly praise, as I did at the outset, the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas). My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made an excellent point, because this is not the first time that we have taken action on these issues. We are already taking action: we introduced higher rates of stamp duty land tax for those purchasing additional properties in 2016, and a new SDLT surcharge for UK non-residents in 2021. Through this Bill, we are giving councils the power to introduce a discretionary council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes, and we will allow them to introduce an empty homes council tax premium of up to 100% after 12 months. We need to build more homes, increase supply and increase affordable housing in various areas. I am very pleased to have worked with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and we are taking welcome steps.
Lucy Frazer
I am going to press on, because so many Members have raised points for me to respond to, and I would like to ensure that I cover them all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned the work that we need to do on solar panels. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said that his campaigning had been to no avail. I want to reassure him that that is absolutely not the case. The work that he has done—whether in the Westminster Hall debate, or by writing extensively—has meant that the Government have taken significant steps in this area. From 2025, the future homes standard will ensure that new homes produce at least 75% less CO2 emissions than those built to the 2013 standards. This represents a considerable improvement in energy efficiency standards for new homes. We have introduced an uplift in standards, which came into force in June, and the uplift already requires new homes to be built in such a way that they produce 30% less CO2 emissions than those built to the previous standards.
The performance standards in the uplift have been set in such a way as to ensure that the vast majority of developers will either need to put solar panels on new homes or use other low-carbon technology such as heat pumps. So my hon. Friend’s work has not been in vain, and I am happy to continue to engage with him on this important area.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives raised with me helicopters in his constituency, and has tabled an amendment on the issue. I am pleased to have discussed this matter with him. As the amendment would apply nationally, requiring notification and approval for all applicants and local planning authorities, we consider that this would be onerous and disproportionate. There is the possibility of making an article 4 direction. I appreciate that his local authority has not taken that course, but I am happy to arrange a meeting between my officials and the local planning authority to discuss the matter further.
I have already mentioned the considerable work that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has done on custom build and self-build. The Government strongly believe that self-build and custom-build housing can play a crucial role as part of a wider package of measures to boost home ownership and diversify the housing market, as well as helping to deliver the homes that people want. We will look to see whether we can further tighten up any legislation, taking on board his thoughts and comments.
An amendment was tabled in relation to childcare. I disagree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who said that the Government were not on the side of those who support childcare. The Government introduced tax-free childcare of up to 30 hours because we believe that it is right that those who have children can go to work and support their children. I would like to clarify what has been said—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) understood what I was saying from the Dispatch Box. The position is that childcare facilities—that is buildings—including those that are not attached to schools, are included within the meaning of “infrastructure” and can therefore be funded through the levy. In addition, the Bill already includes a power to regulate to allow for the funding of services such as childcare. It is in proposed new section 204N(5), in paragraph 1 of schedule 11.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) asked about section 103 contributions and where they continue to apply, of course nothing has changed. The Government are keen to ensure that we support childcare services, and this Bill does that.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I recognise the importance of addressing this issue and welcome the clarification that she has offered. The Education Committee is about to launch an inquiry into childcare. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if recommendations come out of that relating to the Bill, our colleagues in the other place might be able to return to the matter later in the passage of the Bill?
Lucy Frazer
I am always happy to hear recommendations from the Education Committee and work with the Department for Education. As I said, the Bill includes the ability for regulations to allow for what I think is being asked for. That is already in the Bill, and that might be the place to consider it.
Lucy Frazer
No, I would like to deal with the point that was made by my friend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). She raised a completely different point about the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and whether it was covered by section 123. As I have mentioned to her, we are exploring with the Home Office whether to extend section 123 to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
Since becoming housing and planning Minister, my No. 1 priority has been bringing this Bill back to Parliament as soon as possible. The sooner we pass it, the sooner we can build the homes that we need to level up the country and grow our economy. I would like to continue working with Members across this House to ensure that this Bill completes its passage in the best place. I would like to continue working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who have done so much to improve the Bill so far. Today, I believe we have passed another milestone on that journey, and I commend this Bill to the House.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
What a great Bill this is—put together by a great ministerial team, passed by great majorities and improved by the great contribution of many great Back Benchers. I hope that the other place has a great time when it reviews it.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
We started by saying that this was a levelling-up Bill with no levelling up in it—it was just a housing Bill. Then the Government stripped out the housing, and now we are left with just a Bill. Nevertheless, we will make good on our promises and see the Bill through.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Immigration
That the draft Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 1 November, be approved.
Parliament
That the draft Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 22 November, be approved.
Rating and Valuation
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.
Environmental Protection
That the draft Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Exemptions) (Fees) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.
Public Procurement
That the draft Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.
Proceeds of Crime
That the draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.
Consumer Protection
That the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 21 November, be approved.
Police
That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
Investigatory Powers
That the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Committees
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 13 to 16 together.
Ordered,
Finance
That Dame Eleanor Laing be discharged from the Finance Committee and Mr Nigel Evans be added.
Health and Social Care
That Paul Blomfield be added to the Health and Social Care Committee.
High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill
That Wayne David, Antony Higginbotham, Grahame Morris, Holly Mumby-Croft, Gavin Newlands, Andrew Percy and Martin Vickers be members of the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill Select Committee.
Transport
That Christian Wakeford be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mike Amesbury be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Petitions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I present a petition that, in just over a fortnight, has gathered more than 1,900 signatures and counting. People are fed up and angry at Serco for abusing our great city of Stoke-on-Trent by adding to the 800 migrants already in the city by booking out hotels, which makes us feel like a dumping ground for illegal economic migrants. The response to my petition is clear, and this abuse must now end. We want those guarantees now.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke,
Declares that Serco and the Home Office end the use of hotels in Stoke-on-Trent for asylum seekers and illegal economic migrants, notes that Stoke-on-Trent has already taken over 800 people as part of the Asylum Dispersal Scheme and further that Stoke-on-Trent has therefore done its bit in housing asylum seekers and illegal economic migrants.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that no more hotels in Stoke-on-Trent are used as part of the UK asylum and immigration system, and that those currently in use are phased out over the next six months.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002788]
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,082 Erewash residents, calling on the Government to work with the bus operator Trentbarton to reinstate the No. 21 service, which was scrapped at short notice in October 2022. This decision has significantly inconvenienced many of my constituents, particularly those living in Kirk Hallam and Hallam Fields, with some now having to catch three buses to reach vital services such as the Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham and Ilkeston Community Hospital.
The petition states:
The Petition of the residents of Erewash,
Declares that the number 21 bus route operated by Trent Motor Traction Company Ltd and Barton Buses Ltd (known as Trentbarton) which currently serves the communities of Kirk Hallam, Illkeston, Shipley View and Hallam Fields acts as a vital lifeline to many local residents as their only means of easily accessing Queen’s Medical Centre and Ilkeston Community Hospital; further notes that the residents will have to take numerous buses to complete the journey, adding to the cost of travel; and comes shortly after the loss of the number 23 bus also affecting these communities.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the Chief Executive of Trentbarton to reconsider the changes and reinstate the original number 21 bus route.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002789]
Vaccines: Potential Harms
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Three months ago, one of the most eminent and trusted cardiologists, a man with an international reputation, Dr Aseem Malhotra, published peer-reviewed research that concluded that there should be a complete cessation of the administration of the covid mRNA vaccines for everyone because of clear and robust data of significant harms and little ongoing benefit. He described the roll-out of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine as
“perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science, attack on democracy, damage to population health, and erosion of trust in medicine that we will witness in our lifetime.”
Interestingly, there has so far not been a single rebuttal of Dr Malhotra’s findings in the scientific literature, despite their widespread circulation and the fact that they made international news.
Before I state the key evidence-based facts that make a clear case for complete suspension of these emergency use authorisation vaccines, it is important to appreciate the key psychological barrier that has prevented these facts from being acknowledged by policymakers and taken up by the UK mainstream media. That psychological phenomenon is wilful blindness. It is when human beings—including, in this case, institutions—turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, reduce anxiety, avoid conflict and protect their prestige and reputations. There are numerous examples of that in recent history, such as the BBC and Jimmy Savile, the Department of Health and Mid Staffs, Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, and the medical establishment and the OxyContin scandal, which was portrayed in the mini-series “Dopesick”. It is crucial to understand that the longer wilful blindless to the truth continues, the more unnecessary harm it creates.
Here are the cold, hard facts about the mRNA vaccines and an explanation of the structural drivers that continue to be barriers to doctors and the public receiving independent information to make informed decisions about them. Since the roll-out in the UK of the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine, we have had almost half a million yellow card reports of adverse effects from the public. That is unprecedented. It is more than all the yellow card reports of the past 40 years combined. An extraordinary rate of side effects that are beyond mild have been reported in many countries across the world that have used the Pfizer vaccine, including, of course, the United States.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand and he knows my feelings about the vaccines. I am a supporter of the vaccines, as are many of my family, but I understand where he is coming from. In fact, I have had some constituents come to me about this. Does he agree that, in this House, we must acknowledge risks and not simply relegate them to fine print?
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those who feel that they have been damaged by the vaccine should of course have the full support of their elected Members of Parliament and the NHS. Only a couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed by a journalist from a major news outlet who said that he was being bombarded by calls from people who said that they were vaccine-harmed but unable to get the support they wanted from the NHS. He also said that he thought this would be the biggest scandal in medical history in this country. Disturbingly, he also said that he feared that if he were to mention that in the newsroom in which he worked, he would lose his job. We need to break this conspiracy of silence.
It is instructive to note that, according to pharmaco-vigilance analysis, the serious adverse effects reported by the public are thought to represent only 10% of the true rate of serious adverse events occurring within the population. The gold standard of understanding the benefit and harm of any drug is the randomised controlled trial. It was the randomised controlled trial conducted by Pfizer that led to UK and international regulators approving the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine for administration in the first place.
Contrary to popular belief, that original trial of approximately 40,000 participants did not show any statistically significant reduction in death as a result of vaccination, but it did show a 95% relative risk reduction in the development of infection against the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. However, the absolute risk reduction for an individual was only 0.84%. In other words, from its own data, Pfizer revealed that we needed to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. The World Health Organisation and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have previously stated and made it clear that it is an ethical responsibility that medical information is communicated to patients in absolute benefit and absolute risk terms, which is to protect the public from unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.
Very quickly, through mutations of the original strain—indeed, within a few months—covid fortunately became far less lethal. It quickly became apparent that there was no protection against infection at all from the vaccine, and we were left with the hope that perhaps these vaccines would protect us from serious illness and death. So what does the most reliable data tell us about the best-case scenario of individual benefit from the vaccine against dying from covid-19? Real-world data from the UK during the three-month wave of omicron at the beginning of this year reveals that we would need to vaccinate 7,300 people over the age of 80 to prevent one death. The number needed to be vaccinated to prevent a death in any younger age group was absolutely enormous.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House. It is a very important debate that we should be having. He is talking about the relative risks for different cohorts of the population. He will remember that, when the vaccine was first announced, the intention was that it would be used only for those who were vulnerable and the elderly because, as he says, the expectation was that the benefit to younger people was minor. Does he agree that it would be helpful for the Minister to explain to us why the original advice that the vaccines would be rolled out only for the older population, and would not be used for children in particular, was laid aside and we ended up with the roll-out for the entire population, including children?
Andrew Bridgen
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and his support on this very important issue. Of course, it is important that the Government justify why they are rolling out a vaccine to any cohort of people, particularly our children. He will recall that, in the Westminster Hall debate, we questioned the validity of vaccinating children who have minimal risk, if a risk at all, from the virus when there is a clear risk from the vaccine. I will again report on evidence from America later in my speech about those risks, particularly to young children.
In other words, the benefits of the vaccine are close to non-existent. Beyond the alarming yellow card reports, the strongest evidence of harm comes from the gold standard, highest possible quality level of data. A re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s own randomised controlled trials using the mRNA technology, published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccine, revealed a rate of serious adverse events of one in 800 individuals vaccinated. These are events that result in hospitalisation or disability, or that are life changing. Most disturbing of all, however, is that those original trials suggested someone was far more likely to suffer a serious side effect from the vaccine than to be hospitalised with the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. These findings are a smoking gun suggesting the vaccine should likely never have been approved in the first place.
In the past, vaccines have been completely withdrawn from use for a much lower incidence of serious harm. For example, the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn in 1976 for causing Guillain-Barré syndrome in only one in 100,000 adults, and in 1999 the rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn for causing a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting one in 10,000. With the covid mRNA vaccine, we are talking of a serious adverse event rate of at least one in 800, because that was the rate determined in the two months when Pfizer actually followed the patients following their vaccination. Unfortunately, some of those serious events, such as heart attack, stroke and pulmonary embolism will result in death, which is devastating for individuals and the families they leave behind. Many of these events may take longer than eight weeks post vaccination to show themselves.
An Israeli paper published in Nature’s scientific reports showed a 25% increase in heart attack and cardiac arrest in 16 to 39-year-olds in Israel. Another report from Israel looked at levels of myocarditis and pericarditis in people who had had covid and those who had not. It was a study of, I think, 1.2 million who had not had covid and 740,000 who had had it. The incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis was identical in both groups. This would tell the House that whatever is causing the increase in heart problems now, it is not due to having been infected with covid-19.
It was accepted by a peer-reviewed medical journal that one of the country’s most respected and decorated general practitioners, the honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association and the Labour party’s doctor of the year, Dr Kailash Chand, likely suffered a cardiac arrest and was tragically killed by the Pfizer vaccine six months after his second dose, through a mechanism that rapidly accelerates heart disease. In fact, in the UK we have had an extra 14,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in 2021, compared with 2020, following the vaccine roll-out. Many of these will undoubtedly be because of the vaccine, and the consequences of this mRNA jab are clearly serious and common.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an interesting and important speech. In particular, he is giving a lot of detail about the Pfizer vaccine. Does he have similar concerns about other vaccines, and if so, will he be talking about those later in his speech?
Andrew Bridgen
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly this is related to all mRNA vaccinations. He will be well aware that many of us have had the AstraZeneca vaccine, which has effectively been withdrawn because of health concerns. Indeed, I will declare to the House that I am double-vaccinated with AstraZeneca, which has now been withdrawn.
Ministers may understandably wish to defer the responsibility for a decision such as withdrawing vaccines from the population to regulators such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or in America the Food and Drug Administration. Historically, when undertaking the approval of any drug, the regulators ultimately end up relying on the summary results from the drug companies in their sponsored trials, where the raw data is kept commercially confidential. Furthermore, the MHRA has a huge financial conflict of interest, receiving 86% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate. In effect, we have the poacher paying the gamekeeper.
In a recent investigation by The BMJ into the financial conflicts of interest of the drug regulators, the sociologist Donald Light said:
“It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organisation independently and rigorously assessing medicines. They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data.”
He went on to say that doctors and patients
“must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding.”
Similarly, another investigation revealed that members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had huge financial links to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation running into billions of pounds. Ministers, the media and the public know that the foundation is heavily invested in pharmaceutical industry stocks.
Unfortunately, the catastrophic mistake over the approval, and the coercion associated with this emergency-use authorisation medical intervention, are not an anomaly, and in many ways this could have been predicted by the structural failures that allowed it to occur in the first place. Those shortcomings are rooted in the increasingly unchecked visible and invisible power of multinational corporations—in this case, big pharma. We can start by acknowledging that the drug industry has a fiduciary obligation to produce profit for its shareholders, but it has no fiduciary obligation to provide the right medicines for patients.
The real scandal is that those with a responsibility to patients and with scientific integrity—namely, doctors, academic institutions and medical journals—collude with the industry for financial gain. Big pharma exerts its power by capturing the political environment through lobbying and the knowledge environment through funding university research and influencing medical education, preference shaping through capture of the media, financing think-tanks and so on. In other words, the public relations machinery of big pharma excels in subterfuge and engages in smearing and de-platforming those who call out its manipulations. No doubt it will be very busy this evening.
It is no surprise, when there is so much control by an entity that has been described as “psychopathic” for its profit-making conduct, that one analysis suggests that third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer is the side effects of prescribed medications, which were mostly avoidable. Because of those systemic failures, doctors often receive biased information, deliberately manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry, which exaggerates the benefits and the safety of their drugs. Furthermore, the former editor of The BMJ, Richard Smith, claims that research misconduct is rife and is not effectively being tackled in the UK institutions, stating:
“Something is rotten in…British medicine and has been for a long time”.
It has also been brought to my attention by a whistleblower from a very reliable source that one of these institutions is covering up clear data that reveals that the mRNA vaccine increases inflammation of the heart arteries. It is covering this up for fear that it may lose funding from the pharmaceutical industry. The lead of that cardiology research department has a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation, and I am disappointed to say that he has sent out non-disclosure agreements to his research team to ensure that this important data never sees the light of day. That is an absolute disgrace. Systemic failure in an over-medicated population also contributes to huge waste of British taxpayers’ money and increasing strain on the NHS.
Danny Kruger
My hon. Friend is being very good with his time. I just want to call his attention to some research, since I chair the all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence. He refers to the waste of money; there is £500 million being spent every year by the NHS on prescribed drugs for people who should not be on those habit-forming pills, causing enormous human misery as well as waste for the taxpayer.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank my hon. Friend for making a point that only reinforces the items in my speech that the public need to know. I thank him again for his support.
We need an inquiry into the influence of big pharma on medications and our NHS. That is been called for many occasions and by some very influential people, including prominent physicians such as the former president of the Royal College of Physicians and personal doctor to our late Queen, Sir Richard Thompson. On separate occasions in the last few years those calls have been supported and covered in the Daily Mail, The Guardian and, most recently, The i newspaper.
We are fighting not just for principles of ethical, evidence-based medical practices, but for our democracy. The future health of the British public depends on us tackling head-on the cause of this problem and finding meaningful solutions. In 2015 a commentary by Richard Houghton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, suggested that possibly half of the published medical literature “may simply be untrue”. He wrote that
“science has taken a turn toward darkness”,
and asked who is going to take the first step to clean up the system.
That first step could start this evening with this debate. It starts here, with the vaccine Minister and the Government ensuring in the first instance an immediate and complete suspension of any more covid vaccines with their use of mRNA technology. Silence on this issue is more contagious than the virus itself, and now so should courage be. I would implore all the scientists, medics, nurses and those in the media who know the truth about the harm these vaccines are causing to our people to speak out.
We have already sacrificed far too many of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed. Last week the MHRA authorised those experimental vaccines for use in children as young as six months. In a Westminster Hall debate some weeks ago, I quoted a report by the Journal of the American Medical Association studying the effect of the covid-19 mRNA vaccination on children under five years of age. It showed that one in 200 had an adverse event that resulted in hospitalisation, and symptoms that lasted longer than 90 days.
As the data clearly shows to anyone who wants to look at it, the mRNA vaccines are not safe, not effective and not necessary. I implore the Government to halt their use immediately. As I have demonstrated and as the data clearly shows, the Government’s current policy on the mRNA vaccines is on the wrong side of medical ethics, it is on the wrong side of scientific data, and ultimately it will be on the wrong side of history.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing the debate. It is important that all Members get to discuss and debate such issues, and they are entitled to their opinion.
I have to say that I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend, not only in the content of his speech, but in the way he derided doctors, scientists and nurses. Many of us worked through the pandemic and saw at first hand the devastation that covid caused. There is no doubt in my mind that, despite the personal protective equipment, social distancing and infection control, the thing that made the biggest difference in combating covid was the introduction of the vaccine.
Safe and effective vaccines have underpinned our strategy for living with covid. Covid has not gone away, but we are living with it in a way that was not possible this time last year. Vaccines have saved thousands of lives, reduced the pressure on the NHS, and allowed the economy and society to reopen, not just in this country but in countries across the world. In countries with lower vaccination rates, their ability to open up, move on and live with covid was reduced.
Across the piece—not just for covid—vaccines remain our biggest line of defence, particularly during a challenging winter period. We see with our seasonal flu vaccine roll-out and our covid programme that getting the most vulnerable people vaccinated—
Maria Caulfield
I will not. I have just three minutes to respond to the many points that my hon. Friend made.
It is important to put on the record that all the vaccines used in the UK are safe, and we have some of the highest safety standards in the world, with the MHRA globally recognised for requiring high standards of safety. I have worked in clinical research, and I can say categorically that the data is not hidden from the public or the MHRA; it is inspected rigorously and can be reinspected at any time.
Each of our covid vaccine candidates is assessed by a team of scientists and clinicians on a case-by-case basis, and it is only once a potential vaccine has met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality that it is approved for use. That is the case for all medicines, not just covid vaccines. Extensive data shows that the vaccine is safe and highly effective in reducing the deaths that we sadly saw during the pandemic. That does not end when the vaccine is approved; surveillance of vaccines continues, as it does with any medicine, and any adverse reaction is recorded on a regular basis. That does not stop following approval.
My hon. Friend talked about the yellow card reports. Those have been in place for many years. Anyone who has a side effect from any medicine can make a yellow card report. When I was first starting out in nursing, that was a physical yellow card; it is now online. Anyone can submit any suspected adverse drug reaction. The MHRA will collate and review them, and it has in the past gone on to suspend the licence of a medicine if it has concerns. That is something that it can do for any vaccine, including any covid vaccine.
The nature of the yellow card reporting system means that some reported events are not always proven side effects. A side effect can be reported; the MHRA will then go and look to see whether it is actually related to that medicine, and there is a list of probabilities of how likely it is that the side effect is related to that medicine. There is comprehensive surveillance to alert us to any unforeseen adverse reactions to vaccines and to enable us to act swiftly when required.
We know that there are some circumstances where individuals have sadly experienced harm with a possible link to a vaccination. I recognise how difficult that is for those individuals and their families. We have put measures in place to monitor any possible side effects and to commission further research that will help us better understand how to diagnose and treat those who have suffered or continue to suffer any ill effects from a covid-19 vaccine. That is the case for any medicine—even with a simple medicine such as paracetamol, people can get side effects—and that is why every medicine that is prescribed and dispensed has a patient safety information sheet listing the most likely side effects and encouraging people to report any that may not be included.
Maria Caulfield
I will give way quickly, because I have only a couple of minutes.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful. The Minister’s predecessor had asked the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to review the evidence behind the decision to roll out the vaccine to children. Can she update the House or write to us to explain where that review has got to? Does she agree that the JCVI should be looking at the vaccination of children?
Maria Caulfield
I will write to my hon. Friend with an update on that report. It was touched on that the MHRA has licensed the vaccine for babies, but that has not yet been approved by the JCVI, so that is just a licence rather than a recommendation to roll out. However, I am happy to send him the details of that report.
I want to put on the record that the covid vaccines have saved tens of thousands of lives and prevented hundreds of thousands of people from being hospitalised. I completely disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire that there is a whole conspiracy of doctors, nurses and scientists—they have done nothing but work hard to get us through the pandemic.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Minister for giving way on that important point. The claims about the number of lives saved worldwide by the vaccination are sponsored by vested interests. The modelling is the lowest form of scientific evidence—in fact, it is more science fiction than science fact.
Maria Caulfield
I completely disagree. I worked on the covid wards with patients who were dying from that virus. We had infection control measures, antibiotics, dexamethasone—a steroid—and every known facility available, and the only thing that made a difference was when those vaccines were introduced. They do not necessary stop people from getting the virus, but they certainly reduce its intensity and the likelihood of someone dying from it.
I completely debunk the conspiracy theories about a whole group of people benefiting financially from the roll-out of the vaccine and would gently say to my hon. Friend that if he has evidence, there are mechanisms in place for raising concerns, as we have seen with other drugs. Only today, I was before the Health and Social Care Committee talking about sodium valproate—we also had an Adjournment debate on that last week—where there are genuine safety concerns. The MHRA is taking that extremely seriously. It is not worried about pharma concerns; its first priority is patients, and it is exactly the same with the covid vaccine. So if there is evidence—I am not saying that there is not—it absolutely must go through the proper channels so that it can be evaluated.
We have launched a nationwide campaign to encourage people to come forward this winter to get their booster. I recommend that people do that safe in the knowledge that the vaccine is safe for people to have.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. The regulations were laid before the House on 21 November 2022 and implement a trade agreement with Switzerland, a country with which the UK has strong economic and historical ties. Switzerland is the UK’s 10th largest trading partner and our bilateral trade in goods was worth £38 billion in 2021. Members will appreciate the importance of supporting such international trade relationships while protecting our product safety and legal metrology system, which is among the strongest in the world.
The UK signed the mutual recognition agreement with Switzerland on 17 November 2022 to reduce technical barriers to trade related to conformity assessment. The MRA promotes trade in goods between the UK and Switzerland by helping businesses to simplify their conformity assessment arrangements. Product safety legislation in the UK and Switzerland—indeed, in most countries—often requires products to be assessed against minimum essential requirements, sometimes by a conformity assessment body, or CAB, external to the business. MRAs can reduce barriers by allowing the conformity assessment to be undertaken by a body based in the UK prior to export to the relevant country, which in this case is Switzerland. Likewise, they enable procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs and appointed bodies to be recognised in respect of our domestic regulations.
The products in scope of the MRA cover many areas, from rules on noise-emitting equipment for use outdoors to measuring instruments and much in between. For example, if a small UK business that manufactures potentially noisy outdoor equipment such as lawnmowers is considering exporting that equipment to Switzerland, it might find it can get all its advice and approvals from a single UK-based CAB. If that means the business reduces its costs, it can of course pass that saving on to its customers.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister clarify whether the MRA will make any difference for the five sectors to which it applies or in effect continues the temporary arrangements we currently have for those sectors with the Swiss?
Kevin Hollinrake
It makes a difference in that it makes the arrangements permanent. We have a three-year deal; the MRA makes the temporary arrangements permanent and formalises the UK-Switzerland relationship in terms of conformity assessment bodies.
Seema Malhotra
I understand that the MRA may make temporary arrangements permanent but I am trying to understand whether anything is different under it for the five sectors to which it applies. Will anything affect businesses that are currently trading under the temporary arrangements for products that they export to Switzerland? Or does the MRA in effect continue the current temporary arrangements, even it makes them permanent?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I understand it, nothing is different, but I will check with my officials and come back to the hon. Lady before the end of the debate.
The outdoor equipment manufacturer I referred to will be able to continue to access international markets more easily when assessment is facilitated in the way I described, thereby increasing its exporting potential and customer choice. The MRA benefits that the UK experienced for years as an EU member are maintained through the provisions of the new MRA with Switzerland.
The statutory instrument we are considering implements the MRA by amending an earlier set of regulations made last year: the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Minister is explaining to us that this is putting the UK and Switzerland in the same position as now, making a temporary arrangement permanent. On a point of clarification, is there any differential between the relationship with Switzerland on those matters, as compared with that with the rest of the EU? Is there any difference or are similar arrangements being made?
Kevin Hollinrake
The rest of the EU uses the CE mark. If we want to export products to the EU, we use the CE mark. That is a European certification process. These are relationships simply between the UK and Switzerland, not with the rest of the European Union. We have a separate arrangement for that.
The 2021 regulations are amended by the instrument we are considering so that they are also included in the Swiss MRA. I will return briefly to that point when discussing the territorial scope and the specifics of the regulations.
I will now consider each of the areas in greater detail. For goods coming into the UK that are in the scope of the MRA, we have committed to recognising the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised Swiss CABs and appointed bodies against our domestic regulations. The statutory instrument makes clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in Switzerland should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved or appointed body when products are placed on the market in Great Britain.
Seema Malhotra
It is important to be clear about where there is simply continuity rather than giving the impression of something new happening. To clarify, the SI means continuity of importing into the UK, without further checks, for goods made in Switzerland and tested for conformity against UK standards by a conformity assessment body in Switzerland. It is simply a continuity of arrangements under the Swiss temporary measures for the five sectors to which it applies.
Kevin Hollinrake
As I understand it—she may want to clarify—that is a continuation of the hon. Lady’s earlier question. Everything will be the same and the only difference is that UK manufacturers should affix a new Swiss mark to their products.
The Secretary of State will add Swiss bodies recognised under the agreement to the UK’s register of CABs, known as the UK market CAB database, which is a publicly available resource used by the UK’s market surveillance bodies and regulators to verify the status of CABs that approve products sold in the UK. Having all the CABs competent to assess for the domestic market in one place creates a one-stop shop for our UK enforcement authorities and businesses, helping them quickly to find and verify the credentials of CABs. The draft regulations do not change the substance of the requirements for third-party assessment, nor do they amend any requirement related to a product’s specifications or product safety credentials.
Turning to goods in scope of the UK-Swiss MRA that are assessed by UK CABs, the SI provides for the Secretary of State to designate CABs as competent to assess that goods comply with certain regulatory requirements of Switzerland under the MRA, as set out in a schedule to the SI. To give an example, that means that where a UK-based CAB wishes to be recognised by the Swiss authorities as competent to test and assess, for example, for Switzerland’s radio equipment requirements, the body can apply to the UK Accreditation Service to be accredited as competent to test against those Swiss requirements. The Secretary of State may then designate the body under the UK’s MRA with Switzerland to assess radio equipment for export to Switzerland. Once the CAB is designated, a UK manufacturer that uses the CAB’s services to assess its products for the domestic market has the option to use that same body, rather than a Swiss one, to do its assessment. The manufacturer can continue to place products on the Swiss market efficiently and without extra costs, potentially passing savings on to consumers.
The Secretary of State, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, may also disclose information to other parties to an MRA, where required by an MRA. We may, for example, pass on information related to goods originating in Switzerland that have been suspended by UK enforcement authorities under commitments to co-operate in the MRA with Switzerland. Disclosure will be made in accordance with data protection legislation.
Let me turn to the territorial scope of the draft regulations. They extend to the whole of the UK, apart from regulation 5, on recognition of conformity assessment by Swiss CABs, which extends to Great Britain only. Northern Ireland will continue to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures done under the MRA between the European Union and Switzerland. That is in accordance with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement. Regulations 6 and 7 of the 2021 regulations, to which I referred earlier, deal respectively with the Secretary of State’s power to designate UK-based bodies under these agreements and to information sharing. The powers extend to the whole of the UK, which means that CABs across the UK can be designated under the MRA and the Secretary of State will be able to share relevant information as required under the MRA.
In conclusion, the SI will provide certainty about the UK’s approach to recognising and designating CABs for products in scope of the MRA. We introduced the draft regulations to give effect to provisions that keep barriers to trade low while preserving our robust safety rules. We do so as a Government who are committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from unsafe products as we look to deliver a product safety regime that is simple, flexible and fit for the opportunities ahead of us. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and his generosity in taking the questions put to him.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, which may or may not surprise him. Exporting businesses in the eight sectors that fall under the EU CE mark are currently also covered by the Swiss temporary measures, which are due to expire, and I am sure he will be aware that they will be concerned about what happens next.
On commercial products, the letters CE mean that the manufacturer or importer affirms the goods’ conformity with European health, safety and environmental protection standards. Eight sectors are not included in the UK MRA that we are considering today because they must use the rules of a third territory—the EU—over which neither the UK nor Switzerland has control. It is important to understand the basics of thieSI. Because it effectively continues, in part, some of the arrangements that we currently have, it has consequences for the clarity about what needs to happen for goods being exported or imported in those other sectors.
I do not oppose the draft regulations. Out of the 13 sectors covered by the Swiss temporary measures in place since Brexit, when we came out of the EU agreement that covered us and Switzerland, three sectors were covered by the EU-Swiss FTA. Thirteen sectors were covered by the Swiss temporary arrangements, which are expiring, and five are now being covered by the MRA. In a sense, for goods under those eight sectors, we will be in a more difficult trading position with Switzerland on 1 January than we will have been on 31 December.
Businesses have practical questions. I am sure the Minister has been through the detail of what he is speaking to today, but to go back to some of the basics, as the Minister said certain products require a conformity assessment to be carried out by a designated body to ensure they meet the requirements to be legally placed on a specified market. I thank the Minister for explaining how conformity assessment bodies will be designated and authorised to deliver services under the MRA. That point is absolutely critical. It means that there may be a number of companies, which, without further arrangements, will not be able to export their goods to Switzerland as of 1 January. There is talk of 300 companies for which there are issues relating to exporting and extra costs in the UK.
Mutual recognition agreements allow a country to recognise assessment results carried out in the other country against its own standards. That is why I wanted to clarify with the Minister that he was talking about goods being manufactured in Switzerland and being assessed as conforming with UK standards by equivalent assessment bodies in Switzerland. That would be the mutual way in which such work was undertaken.
The MRA allows for certain goods to be tested in the UK against Swiss regulations. The goods can then be sold in Switzerland without additional testing in Switzerland. Equally, that works the other way around. It is important to note that MRAs are about recognising conformity assessments carried out in another country. They are not about recognising the product requirements themselves, rather conformity against our safety standards.
The SI implements the UK-Switzerland mutual recognition agreement, which is designed to keep the benefits found under the current Swiss temporary arrangements, as the Minister clarified. In a sense, it is about preventing any additional barriers to trade in the relationship between the EU and Switzerland in the five areas that the Minister mentioned. Those include electrical equipment, radio equipment, noise-emitting equipment for outdoor use and so on.
The MRA sets out the conditions under which each country will accept conformity assessment results from the other. If it is not yet clear why the UK had to reach the MRA with Switzerland that we are debating today, the EU and Switzerland have an MRA, but following Brexit that no longer applies to the UK. The Government have attempted to retain as much as possible of its coverage.
The UK-Switzerland free trade agreement included mutual recognition of conformity assessment, effectively carrying forward arrangements for three sectors from the EU-Swiss agreement. Those accounted for some 70% of UK-Switzerland trade previously covered by the EU-Swiss agreement. Most of the remaining 30% of trade that the UK does with Switzerland was then covered by the Swiss temporary arrangements, covering 13 sectors. These were based on the Swiss being content that UK regulations did not diverge from Swiss regulations.
However, the Swiss Government have said that the temporary arrangements will expire at the end of 2022. Without a replacement agreement, UK exports to Switzerland that need third-party conformity assessment would need to use a Swiss conformity assessment body. To address that, I understand from the Minister’s remarks that the UK Government have had to secure an MRA with Switzerland covering five of the sectors included in the Swiss temporary measures. Those sectors also use the Swiss CH mark, which the Minister was referring to. I thank him for clarifying that the MRA is happening because the channel through which products have been confirmed is the Swiss CH mark, not the EU CE mark, which is a parallel channel. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether this means that the UK is committing to not have any divergence in standards for products under the five sectors covered by the MRA with Switzerland.
The other eight sectors covered by the Swiss temporary measures use only the EU CE mark domestically; there is no standalone Swiss marking. As I have mentioned, they are covered by the MRA we are discussing because they are not subject to Swiss standalone marking, so the assessment would be against EU standards, which neither Switzerland nor the UK has any control over. The explanatory memorandum for the MRA states that existing conformity assessment certificates
“issued in the UK before 31 December 2022 in the eight sectors currently covered by temporary measures, but which are not captured in the Agreement text, will no longer be valid for entry of products not already placed on the Swiss market.”
Paragraph 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum for the MRA gives the Government’s advice on what businesses will need to do in those circumstances. The explanatory memorandum for the draft SI states that the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 are amended
“to ensure that specific products assessed by bodies in Switzerland recognised under the MRA can be placed on the market in Great Britain; and, to enable the Secretary of State to designate and monitor UK conformity assessment bodies to assess products against Swiss requirements.”
For businesses that may be exporting into the eight remaining sectors, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether it will now be slower and more costly to export goods to those sectors in Switzerland. The explanatory memorandum suggests that there is a cost of £2,300 for the 300 businesses that the Government believe will be affected. How has that cost been calculated, and will the Minister expand on where the additional costs come from? I am keen to understand that, because the explanatory memorandum also states that the Government are keen to spread awareness of the arrangements so that businesses are aware of what could happen to them from 1 January in relation to the eight sectors, which account for less than 30% of our trade. What comprises the estimated cost of £2,300 for the 300 businesses that the Government think will be affected? How are the Government informing the 300 affected businesses of the impending cost? What position will they be in if, for example, cash flow and income are tight?
Businesses are definitely having a difficult time at the moment, because the cost of doing business is rising, with increases in material costs, energy costs and labour costs. We are seeing an increase in business deaths every quarter and businesses are incurring costs, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee any further clarity on the size of the 300 affected businesses. Are they small businesses, medium-sized businesses or large businesses? Large businesses may be more able to assume the costs. Small businesses may be doing most of their exporting to Switzerland, as some countries have more arrangements for bilateral trade. Are there small businesses trading with Switzerland that are going to be hit by this—that could see their businesses affected quite dramatically from 1 January—and what advice does the Minister have for them?
The SI is unaffected by the UK Government’s announcement on 14 November that they will continue to recognise the EU CE mark in many sectors until the end of 2024. The Minister and I debated that announcement just last week. If the SI is unaffected, could the Minister explain whether the Government approached the Swiss authorities to seek any further extension of the Swiss temporary measures, bearing in mind that the Government are now extending the recognition of the EU CE mark for another two years? If so, when did they do so, and what was the outcome of those discussions?
In relation to the eight sectors that fall outside the UK MRA, what assessment have the Government made of the UK’s competitiveness in those markets for businesses that may be developing and exporting products? I am sure the Minister has asked these questions of his officials. Does he also estimate that we might otherwise be likely to see a drop in exports to Switzerland in those sectors, if there are extra costs associated with being able to export into the Swiss market? I am sure there has been some attempt to ask that question as well, because obviously we do not want to see any further drop in exports from UK businesses to Switzerland.
Paragraph 5.2(b) of the explanatory memorandum to the MRA says:
“If a business is: exporting to Switzerland, but not the EU; and in sectors where third party conformity assessment is required”—
which I believe refers to those eight sectors—
“it will need to use a Swiss or other EU-approved CAB to place products on the Swiss market for those sectors.”
Will the Minister clarify where he would expect the Swiss conformity assessment body that would cover those eight sectors to be located? It is a genuine question: would that be in the UK, or would that have to happen when those products reach Switzerland, and be done there by CABs authorised by Switzerland or the EU? It is not clear to me what is implied by needing to use a Swiss or other EU-approved CAB to place products on the Swiss market for those sectors. Otherwise, we would effectively have a process for authorising CABs for exports and imports under the MRA, and a separate arrangement in the UK for CABs to be looking at exports and imports in the other eight sectors not covered by the MRA. I would be grateful for that clarity, because if we in this House are clear, it will be easier for the businesses that are having to make decisions—possibly very quickly, if they are not aware of these arrangements; there are probably just two weeks to go—to be clear as well.
The explanatory memorandum to the MRA suggests that the five sectors covered collectively by the MRA represent £400 million of bilateral trade. That is good news, although we want it to be more. However, will the Minister clarify—I could not find the figures—how many millions of bilateral trade are covered collectively by the eight sectors remaining outside of both the MRA and the FTA? If the Minister does not have those figures to hand, I am sure that he will be able to come back to me in writing.
Reflecting on paragraph 5.2 in the explanatory memorandum, what about goods with certificates issued before 31 December 2022 that have not yet been exported to Switzerland? There may be goods sitting in warehouses now, ready to go, but they may not go before 1 January; then they may not be able to go unless they are certified in a different way. How long could the conformity assessment process take if it needs to go through a new Swiss body?
The Government stated in paragraph 6.3 of the explanatory memorandum that this new arrangement “provides for regulatory autonomy”. I think that we all understand “regulatory autonomy” and what the Minister has described as some of the benefits for UK businesses arising from the potential for “regulatory autonomy” and divergence. I just want to be clear on something.
First, coming back to a question that I have already asked the Minister, for the five sectors covered under the MRA, is the UK committing to not diverging from current standards, and if there is divergence, will that affect their inclusion under the MRA?
Secondly, could the Minister say how many representations he has had from businesses that trade with Switzerland that have requested and sought that we diverge in our standards? There may be some very good reasons for that, and it would be helpful for us to understand what approaches are being made to the Department in relation to either conformity or divergence from standards that are recognised under some of our mutual agreements. I would be grateful if he could say how many representations he has had from businesses requesting divergence, as referenced in paragraph 6.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the MRA.
I have a couple of final points. The explanatory notes and the memorandum suggest—I think the Minister clarified this—that this process effectively only applies to Great Britain, because under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol the EU-Swiss MRA, which covers all sectors, will continue to apply. For example, a business based in, say, Thirsk and Malton producing goods for export to Switzerland would have three arrangements under which it might deal with those exports: one under the FTA; one under the UK MRA; and one under these third-party conformity assessments for the eight sectors not included, for which there need to be a separate check. If that business decided to produce its goods in Northern Ireland, they could all be exported to Switzerland under the EU-Swiss MRA. I would just be grateful if the Minister could just clarify that that is effectively what this arrangement means.
Will the Minister also clarify where businesses exporting to Switzerland in the eight sectors that are not covered by the MRA or the FTA are geographically located in the UK? Are they concentrated in any particular area, or are they broadly spread across the country? If there is an impact on trade with Switzerland from some challenges of exporting and challenges to competitiveness in those eight sectors, which would see increased process to go through, that could have a disproportionate impact if there is a cluster or an area that is more affected than others. That would be important for communication purposes, so that businesses have the best possible information in order to make commercial decisions about what they need to change in terms of processes.
I raised this point with the Minister last week, and have not yet had a clear answer—perhaps the answer will be “shortly”. Has there been any further progress on the product safety review that has been promised by Ministers since spring this year?
Kevin Hollinrake
I appreciate the shadow Minister’s points, which were extensive and exhaustive. I want to clarify: these regulations relate to only UK companies or Swiss companies who are trading with each other. They do not relate to wider exports to the European Union or European Union exports to the UK. That is the point.
Using the hon. Lady’s example, if a company in Thirsk and Malton decided to move to Northern Ireland, and only wanted to export to Switzerland, then it could use a Swiss-based conformity assessment body to have its products verified. It could use the Swiss mark. If a Swiss company wanted to export its products to Northern Ireland, it could use the CE mark. That is how it would work, because of the different arrangements in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady asks if the process will be slower or more costly. That is the absolute opposite of what the regulations are about. They are about UK companies, or Swiss companies, who want to trade with each other, who want to use a different mark, because they are only trading with Switzerland or the United Kingdom.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will not, because of the pressure of time. I have a lot to go through and she has asked a lot of questions, which I want to cover.
Seema Malhotra
That question was about whether there will be a slower or more costly process in relation to the eight sectors that are not covered by the MRA.
Kevin Hollinrake
I think the hon. Lady asked both questions. Those sectors are still covered by the CE mark. It is not possible to distinguish a separate Swiss mark from the CE mark, so those eight sectors would still be covered by the CE mark. Nothing would change for companies that are trading in those sectors, so there will be no greater cost; there will be less cost for companies who are just trading bilaterally between the UK and Switzerland. The conformity assessment will be done once, not twice. If companies in that particular sector need to trade with Switzerland, that would have had to be done twice. These provisions are only for companies that are trading only between the UK and Switzerland. That is the key part of this statutory instrument.
On divergence in standards—another point raised by the hon. Lady—the regulations are made with the principle of divergence in mind. We can diverge, but if a company is exporting to Switzerland, it must have regard to Swiss regulations. It has to make sure that the product conforms with the Swiss safety regulations and other conformity regulations. That is the point. We can diverge, certainly, but if a company is exporting to Switzerland, it has to make sure that its products conform with Swiss rules. That is the point. Divergence is possible under these provisions.
The trade level in the five sectors is very hard to quantify. I cannot give the hon. Lady a number on that. She asked about the extent of trade covered by those five sectors and it is not possible to separate that out—[Interruption.] No, the figures relate to the three sectors—the 70%. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me to explore the details further, perhaps that will be swifter than arguing about it here.
As for the number of businesses we engage with, we engage with businesses all the time. I do not have those figures to hand.
Our trade with Switzerland is significant, and technical agreements on trade and goods such as the MRA that this SI will implement will serve an important function in facilitating and encouraging that trade. I have set out how the SI will preserve such measures to keep barriers to trade with Switzerland low while maintaining our robust product safety framework. In supporting the SI, we are ensuring that our manufacturers and consumers benefit from maintaining the arrangements to minimise the duplication of conformity assessment requirements between ourselves and Switzerland. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. The order was laid in draft before Parliament on 13 October and will bring into effect a revised code of practice issued under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is PACE code A, which governs the exercise by police officers of powers to stop and search a person without first arresting them.
For England and Wales, PACE sets out the core powers of the police to prevent, detect and investigate crime. The exercise of those powers is subject to codes of practice, or PACE codes, which the Secretary of State is required to issue and which put in place important procedural safeguards.
We propose to amend PACE code A, on police powers to stop and search individuals subject to serious violence reduction orders, which I shall refer to henceforth as SVROs. Inserted into the sentencing code by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, SVROs are civil orders that give the police powers to stop and search individuals convicted of a knife offence where the court makes an SVRO. To be clear, an SVRO is handed down by a court only after someone has been convicted of a knife crime.
The Government are determined to crack down on knife crime, which is why SVROs were introduced. An SVRO allows the police to search a person who is the subject of such an order without suspicion, but I re-emphasise to the Committee that they apply only to people who have been convicted of a knife offence when the court has made an order in the interests of public safety. They are designed to deter habitual knife carriers from reoffending, as well as to protect the public, who might otherwise be the victims of knife crime and knife attacks.
It is vital that we build an understanding of how SVROs work in practice, so they will be piloted in four areas: the West Midlands, Merseyside, Sussex and Thames Valley police force areas. The pilot will be independently evaluated before a decision is made about whether to roll the powers out. I should pause to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire who, as Policing Minister, did a huge amount of work to develop this concept. I see that serendipitously he is a member of the Committee today.
We have proposed the revisions to PACE code A to ensure proper guidance and safeguards on the use of the new stop-and-search power during the pilot. We ran a statutory consultation over six weeks on the proposed revisions, which introduce a new temporary annex G that deals with searches in relation to SVROs. In particular, the new annex highlights that the power does not require officers to have prior reasonable grounds but that its use must not be based on prejudice, that searches can be conducted only on those subject to an SVRO—to emphasise the point again, that means people who have been convicted of a knife crime and in respect of whom the court has decided that an SVRO is appropriate—and that officers should seek to confirm the identity of the individual to make sure they do not search somebody as a result of mistaken identity.
The revision to the code outlines that the use of the power, like all other stop-and-search powers, is discretionary. Officers are not obliged or compelled to search the person, but they are expected to use their judgment when choosing when to search using the SVRO. The annex will apply for 24 months plus an additional six-month transition period, although if we can draw conclusions sooner, which I hope we might be able to, we might come back to the House and shorten the pilot.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Minister is touching on the point that I wanted to raise with him. Given the issues of disproportionality, such as in respect of ethnicity and gender, would he consider it useful to have a review at the six-month point? Two years is quite a long time for problems to develop; what are his thoughts on having a six-month point at which to look at the data?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Six months is quite a short time: we have to wait for the court to make the orders—this will apply only when the orders are made—and then we will have to wait to see what happens on the streets thereafter. My instinctive view is that 24 months is a long time and it would be good to draw lessons sooner, in part in case any issues such as those she mentioned arise, and in part because if this measure does work, as I hope and expect it will, we want to roll it out as quickly as possible. I do not want to commit to a six-month review, because that is a short period, but I do indicate flexibility: if we can draw conclusions faster than 24 months, we definitely should do, for the two different reasons the hon. Lady and I have mentioned.
The amendments to the code also outline the territorial extent of the use of the powers, which is across all of England and Wales. However, the intention at first is that the SVROs will be issued only in the four pilot areas that I mentioned. Of course, if someone receives an SVRO in one of the four areas but goes somewhere else, clearly the order will still apply if they leave the particular area concerned.
On the question of disproportionality, which the hon. Member for Wirral West touched on a moment ago, and its impact on particular communities, our aim is that the orders will enable police to take a more targeted approach, because by definition they will be using the powers only in relation to people who have been convicted of a knife offence and where the court has deemed it necessary to make an SVRO. That is very targeted.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I served for 12 years as a magistrate, before coming to this place, and I was involved in imposing other types of civil orders, such as antisocial behaviour orders. There are strict criteria. Will the Minister say anything—in Committee or subsequently—about the factors that a court will take into consideration when deciding whether to impose an SVRO? That might provide reassurance to any people with doubts. My experience is that courts take such matters extremely seriously before imposing an order of this type.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and pay tribute to his work over so many years as a magistrate, and as a director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, if memory serves me correctly. His experience is valuable in debates such as this. It is for the court to decide whether to give an SVRO following conviction, based on its assessment of the risk that the individual poses to the community. If the court is concerned that the risk to the community is ongoing because someone is thought to be a habitual knife-carrier or otherwise a risk to the public, it has the option of issuing an SVRO.
This is an important measure because knife crime affects many individuals, many parts of the country and many communities. Typically, a knife is used in between 200 and 300 homicides per year, significantly contributing to the homicide rate, and many serious injuries are caused by knives. Both the shadow Minister and I have tragically seen that in our own borough of Croydon, sadly on a rather too frequent basis. I hope that the SVROs, if successful and rolled out, will help to stop such tragedies.
The revised code of practice was laid before Parliament with the draft order and an explanatory memorandum. Subject to the order being approved by both Houses, the revised code will come into force on 17 January 2023. That date, I should highlight, is not a fixed date for the commencement of the SVRO pilot—it will not start on that day. We are looking to ensure that all the relevant secondary legislation is in place so that the pilot can commence relatively early in 2023.
I feel strongly that this is an extremely important set of powers that will enable the police, on a very targeted basis, to search people who have a history of carrying knives. That will protect our community, and in particular it will protect communities who may be searched disproportionately, because they are, sadly, also disproportionately victims of these offences. It is to protect that community and others that we are introducing the measures. I commend the order to the Committee.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham.
The Opposition do not oppose the order, but I want to raise a few questions and concerns. First, we must look at the history of SVROs and knife crime prevention orders, which were the starting point. We have now had three different types of this kind of civil order placed on people to try to reduce knife crime and serious violence. Knife crime prevention orders were introduced in 2019. The pilot did not start until July 2021 and I think it has only just finished, so we are three years into something that has not yet started. I question the Minister’s ability to get some of these things done in the timescale that he suggests. I am not saying for one minute that the Government should rush the pilots, though, because they should not.
The big question is about the serious violence reduction orders being limited to four areas but the measures applying nationally, which the Minister mentioned. That was an issue of concern in the Lords. It would be helpful for the Minister to explain whether he knows yet how it will work. When a serious violence reduction order is placed on somebody, through what mechanism will other police forces know that they have the order and can then be stopped? Obviously, the police will not be able to stop anyone unless they are under such an order, so how do we make sure they stop the right people? If a Met officer wants to stop someone they think is the subject of an order, how would they know? How would that work?
The second concern is about the pilot itself. We do not have time this morning—we have done it many times before—to go over the disproportionality issues, but they are vast. Every single survey ever done of any kind of police stop and search shows a level of disproportionality. The concern is that that will apply in this case as well. Will the Minister say more about how the pilot will be independently evaluated and what that means? Is a university or some kind of organisation involved? How will the pilot be repeated? There are lots of different ways of measuring a pilot, but the disproportionality that may be there will be missed if it is not evaluated properly.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend is making really important points. Does she agree that the point about disproportionality is that we want strong measures to tackle violent crime? It is a huge issue in some parts of my constituency. It is about the credibility of the programme, is it not?
Sarah Jones
I agree 100%. Knife crime peaked a couple of years ago at levels never seen before. We all want to see the numbers come down. My point about knife crime prevention orders is that they were hailed in 2019 as the answer to serious violence and they have not even started yet. We have to make sure that these things are done properly.
When SVROs were introduced and debated as part of proceedings on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Opposition raised lots of concerns about their disproportionality and about police officers completing the College of Policing training on stop and search. There is very good training and guidance from the College of Policing on stop and search and we ask that police officers who are to use the new powers be trained.
We also need to make sure that the pilot is evaluated before any decision is made to permanently roll out SVROs. It would be good if the Minister could say, “If these do not work, we are prepared to look at something else and try something else if we find that the disproportionality or the effectiveness is not what we expected.” As I said, we will not oppose the order, but it would be helpful if the Minister could answer some of those questions.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister—my constituency neighbour—for the support of the Opposition, or the lack of opposition, that she offered. She asked about knife crime prevention orders, the pilot for which is concluding shortly in a number of force areas, including that of the Metropolitan police. It was delayed somewhat because of covid, as I am sure Members will understand. When it concludes the pilot will be evaluated and, if it works, rolled out more widely.
It is worth mentioning that knife crime prevention orders are only one element of our work against knife crime, which, as recorded by the police, has dropped about 10% in recent years. Chief constables are directing many of the extra officers—so far about 15,000—towards fighting knife crime. We have a number of initiatives designed to do that, including violence reduction units, the grip policing programme, which targets knife crime hotspots, and other initiatives. Collectively, they are receiving £130 million of funding this year. There is, then, a lot of work going on in respect of knife crime, and I again pay tribute to my predecessor but three, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, for initiating those programmes. They are beginning to work.
On the question about territorial application and what happens outside the four pilot areas, we would expect police forces in the four pilot areas to share information with other force areas in case a person turns up there. The vehicle for doing that is most likely to be the police national computer, which holds data of that kind.
The shadow Minister asked about disproportionality, which comes up a lot. We do not have time to debate it exhaustively, but I will say that young black people are 24 times more likely to be murdered using a knife than those from other communities. That community has a disproportionate number of victims and it is with their safety particularly in mind that we are trying to fight knife crime. When evaluating questions of disproportionality, it is also important to consider the geographical areas where knife crime occurs, because it is not spread evenly around the country.
We will evaluate the pilot carefully. As the shadow Minister suggested, there is an independent evaluator called Ecorys, which will be gathering the data necessary to assess the impact of the orders viewed in the round. Once we have considered that, we will lay a report before Parliament so that it can consider and debate its findings and reach a view. I hope I have addressed the shadow Minister’s questions.
This is an important initiative. It is not a silver bullet—it will not fix knife crime on its own—but it is an important part of the Government’s work to fighting this terrible type of crime that is taking so many young lives on our streets.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2022.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Protecting our national security and public safety are key priorities for this Government, and I hope every Government. One of the main ways in which we achieve that is by ensuring that our intelligence agencies, law enforcement bodies and public authorities are equipped with the powers to carry out their statutory duties.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which I will refer to as the IPA, provides extensive and robust privacy safeguards for investigatory powers. We rightly have in place world-leading standards on transparency, privacy, redress and oversight to accompany the exercise of those important powers. The regulations will make two necessary amendments to schedule 4 of the IPA.
The first will implement the findings of the High Court in the case of Liberty v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The judgment in the case was handed down in June this year, and its coming into effect was stayed until 1 January 2023 to allow for the appropriate changes to be made to the legislation and for the appropriate processes to be put in place. This amendment will remove the power for the UK intelligence community to internally authorise the acquisition of communications data for purposes that relate solely to serious crime other than in urgent circumstances. From this point, I will refer to communications data as CD and the UK intelligence community as UKIC.
In line with the Court’s judgment, it will be a requirement for UKIC to seek authorisations for acquisitions of this type from the Office for Communications Data Authorisations. The OCDA is currently responsible for considering nearly all CD applications made by public authorities in the UK, on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. OCDA operates during normal office hours only and our intelligence services need to be able to access CD at all hours in urgent situations. It is imperative that UKIC retains the ability to self-authorise the acquisition of CD for urgent applications. The regulations give it the power to self-authorise in urgent situations where those authorisations relate solely to serious crime. It is important to note that law enforcement bodies such as police forces are already able to self-authorise urgent CD requests in the same way. The statutory instrument simply puts UKIC in the same position as the police in relation to serious crime applications. If the change were not made, there would be an increase in the risk of serious crime impacting our communities because of the delays that would cause to UKIC’s operations.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The explanatory memorandum states that the High Court held that the ability to self-authorise was
“incompatible with retained European Union law.”
Will the Minister identify which part of retained European law was the cause of the problem and confirm that the regulations solve the problem in its entirety? In other words, do there need to be any other changes to retained EU law in order to deal with the difficulties identified? If he wants to write to me afterwards, I would be happy to receive a letter.
Tom Tugendhat
It will not be a Christmas card!
Additionally, the regulations will amend the schedule 4 entry for the United Kingdom National Authority for Counter-Eavesdropping, which I will refer to as UK NACE. UK NACE is a critical organisation that protects our national security, and it is essential that it is equipped with the appropriate powers to carry out that activity effectively. That is why UK NACE was added to schedule 4 in 2020.
The regulations do not change the powers afforded to UK NACE but will make its designation more consistent with the approach taken for other similar bodies in schedule 4 to the IPA. I can also provide reassurance that as per the obligations set out in section 72 of the IPA, appropriate consultation has taken place with UK NACE, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office in respect of these amendments. In summary, the regulations will enable UKIC and UK NACE to continue carrying out their statutory duties effectively in order to protect the public, while ensuring that the appropriate oversight is in place to ensure compliance with the Investigatory Powers Act and to protect the privacy of UK citizens. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. He has outlined what the statutory instrument does, and we are very aware that these changes come as a result of the High Court ruling in June this year in the case of Liberty v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The SI will now allow for the internal authorisation of the acquisition of communications data solely for serious crime purposes in urgent situations, as prescribed by section 61A of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
I understand that parts of the wider case were dismissed, however the High Court ruled in favour of Liberty on a key point, deeming it to be unlawful for the security services to obtain individuals’ communications data from telecom providers without having prior independent authorisation in certain circumstances. We welcome the weight of the ruling of the High Court and, therefore, the Government’s corrective action with this statutory instrument. In an ever-changing world, it is crucial we get the investigatory powers available to our security services right in order to deal properly with the modern threats we face, including from serious and organised crime. However, that must always be prudently balanced against civil liberties.
I see that there was a period of consultation on these changes with the agencies most affected, and while I am curious to know what their response was, I know from my work in the area that a great deal will not be able to be shared with the Committee or more widely. I welcome the fact that the consultation took place. I also welcome the letter the Minister promised to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, and I would be grateful for a copy.
Holly Lynch
I will not detain the Committee any longer, and we will not divide on the regulations.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I can be brief as well. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 had a lot of good stuff in it, but it was not without controversy. Part of that was Opposition assertions that there was not enough by way of prior independent scrutiny before intelligence agencies and others were able to help themselves to communications data and other types of information. The draft statutory instrument does some good work in fixing a little bit of that, and it contains the exceptions on urgent situations, as outlined by the Minister, which is also appropriate.
The regulations came about because of the Liberty court case. Liberty has said to me that it is content and pleased with the SI. In short, if Liberty is happy, I am happy, and we welcome that the Minister and the Government have acted to implement the judgment in good time.
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is happy now that Liberty is happy. That leaves us all happy. On that note, I will rest.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Planned closure of Lloyd’s Banking Group’s Immingham branch
ONLINE SAFETY BILL (First sitting)
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 December 2022 - (13 Dec 2022)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard would be grateful if Members would provide speaking notes as and when they finish with them. Please also ensure that all mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched off.
I had better apologise at the start for the temperature in the room. For reasons that none of us can understand, two of the windows were left wide open all night. However, the Minister’s private office has managed to sort that out, because that is what it is there for. Hopefully the room will warm up. If any hon. Member has a problem with the temperature, they will have to tell the Chair. If necessary, I will suspend, but we are made of tough stuff, so we will try to bat on if we can.
We will first consider the programme motion, which can be debated for up to half an hour. I call the Minister to move the motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 13 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 December;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 11 to 14, 18 to 21, 30, 46, 55, 56 and 65; Schedule 8; Clauses 79 and 82; Schedule 11; Clauses 87, 90, 115, 155, 169 and 183; Schedule 17; Clauses 203, 206 and 207; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 15 December. —(Paul Scully.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Paul Scully.)
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Owing to the unusual nature of today’s proceedings on recommittal, which is exceptional, I need to make a few points.
Only the recommitted clauses and schedules, and amendments and new clauses relating to them, are in scope for consideration. The selection list, which has been circulated to Members and is available in the room, outlines which clauses and schedules those are. Any clause or schedule not on the list is not in scope for discussion. Basically, that means that we cannot have another Second Reading debate. Moreover, we cannot have a further debate on any issues that have been debated already on Report on the Floor of the House. As I say, this is unusual; in fact, I think it is probably a precedent—“Erskine May” will no doubt wish to take note.
The selection list also shows the selected amendments and how they have been grouped. Colleagues will by now be aware that we group amendments by subject for debate. They are not necessarily voted on at the time of the completion of the debate on that group, but as we reach their position in the Bill. Do not panic; we have expert advice to ensure that we do not miss anything—at least, I hope we have.
Finally, only the lead amendment is decided on at the end of the debate. If a Member wishes to move any other amendment in the group, please let the Chair know. Dame Angela or I will not necessarily select it for a Division, but we need to know if Members wish to press it to one. Otherwise, there will be no Division on the non-lead amendments.
Clause 11
Safety duties protecting children
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 11, page 10, line 17, at end insert
“, and—
(c) mitigate the harm to children caused by habit-forming features of the service by consideration and analysis of how processes (including algorithmic serving of content, the display of other users’ approval of posts and notifications) contribute to development of habit-forming behaviour.”
This amendment requires services to take or use proportionate measures to mitigate the harm to children caused by habit-forming features of a service.
Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing this recommitted Bill Committee. I will not say that it is nice to be back discussing the Bill again; we had all hoped to have made more progress by now. If you will indulge me for a second, I would like to thank the Clerks, who have been massively helpful in ensuring that this quick turnaround could happen and that we could table the amendments in a sensible form.
Amendment 98 arose from comments and evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists highlighting that a number of platforms, and particularly social media platforms such as TikTok and Facebook, generally encourage habit-forming behaviour or have algorithms that encourage it. Such companies are there to make money—that is what companies do—so they want people to linger on their sites and to spend as much time there as possible.
I do not know how many hon. Members have spent time on TikTok, but if they do, and they enjoy some of the cat videos, for instance, the algorithm will know and will show them more videos of cats. They will sit there and think, “Gosh, where did the last half-hour go? I have been watching any number of 20-second videos about cats, because they constantly come up.” Social media sites work by encouraging people to linger on the site and to spend the time dawdling and looking at the advertisements, which make the company additional revenue.
That is good for capitalism and for the company’s ability to make money but the issue, particularly in relation to clause 11, is how that affects children. Children may not have the necessary filters; they may not have the ability that we have to put our phones down—not that we always manage to do so. That ability and decision-making process may not be as refined in children as in adults. Children can be sucked into the platforms by watching videos of cats or of something far more harmful.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The hon. Member makes an excellent point about TikTok, but it also applies to YouTube. The platforms’ addictive nature has to do with the content. A platform does not just show a person a video of a cat, because that will not keep them hooked for half an hour. It has to show them a cat doing something extraordinary, and then a cat doing something even more extraordinary. That is why vulnerable people, especially children, get sucked into a dark hole. They click to see not just the same video but something more exciting, and then something even more exciting. That is the addictive nature of this.
Kirsty Blackman
That is absolutely the case. We are talking about cats because I chose them to illustrate the situation, but people may look at content about healthy eating, and that moves on to content that encourages them to be sick. The way the algorithms step it up is insidious; they get more and more extreme, so that the linger time is increased and people do not get bored. It is important that platforms look specifically at their habit-forming features.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
A specific case on the platform TikTok relates to a misogynist who goes by the name of Andrew Tate, who has been banned from a number of social media platforms. However, because TikTok works by making clips shorter, which makes it more difficult for the company to identify some of this behaviour among users, young boys looking for videos of things that might interest them were very quickly shown misogynist content from Andrew Tate. Because they watched one video of him, they were then shown more and more. It is easy to see how the habit-forming behaviours built into platforms’ algorithms, which the hon. Lady identifies, can also be a means of quickly radicalising children into extreme ideologies.
The Chair
Order. I think we have the message. I have to say to all hon. Members that interventions are interventions, not speeches. If Members wish to make speeches, there is plenty of time.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Sir Roger. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Warrington North. The platform works by stitching things together, so a video could have a bit of somebody else’s video in it, and that content ends up being shared and disseminated more widely.
This is not an attack on every algorithm. I am delighted to see lots of videos of cats—it is wonderful, and it suits me down to the ground—but the amendment asks platforms to analyse how those processes contribute to the development of habit-forming behaviour and to mitigate the harm caused to children by habit-forming features in the service. It is not saying, “You can’t use algorithms” or “You can’t use anything that may encourage people to linger on your site.” The specific issue is addiction—the fact that people will get sucked in and stay on platforms for hours longer than is healthy.
There is a demographic divide here. There is a significant issue when we compare children whose parents are engaged in these issues and spend time—and have the time to spend—assisting them to use the internet. There is a divide between the experiences of those children online and the experiences of children who are generally not nearly as well off, whose parents may be working two or three jobs to try to keep their homes warm and keep food on the table, so the level of supervision those children have may be far lower. We have a parental education gap, where parents are not able to instruct or teach their children a sensible way to use these things. A lot of parents have not used things such as TikTok and do not know how it works, so they are unable to teach their children.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that this feeds into the problem we have with the lack of a digital media literacy strategy in the Bill, which we have, sadly, had to accept? However, that makes it even more important that we protect children wherever we have the opportunity to do so, and this amendment is a good example of where we can do that.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. This is not about mandating that platforms stop doing these things; it is about ensuring that they take this issue into account and that they agree—or that we as legislators agree—with the Royal College of Psychiatrists that we have a responsibility to tackle it. We have a responsibility to ask Ofcom to tackle it with platforms.
This comes back to the fact that we do not have a user advocacy panel, and groups representing children are not able to bring emerging issues forward adequately and effectively. Because of the many other inadequacies in the Bill, that is even more important than it was. I assume the Minister will not accept my amendment—that generally does not happen in Bill Committees—but if he does not, it would be helpful if he could give Ofcom some sort of direction of travel so that it knows it should take this issue into consideration when it deals with platforms. Ofcom should be talking to platforms about habit-forming features and considering the addictive nature of these things; it should be doing what it can to protect children. This threat has emerged only in recent years, and things will not get any better unless we take action.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to see you back in the Chair for round 2 of the Bill Committee, Sir Roger. It feels slightly like déjà vu to return to line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which, as you said, Sir Roger, is quite unusual and unprecedented. Seeing this Bill through Committee is the Christmas gift that keeps on giving. Sequels are rarely better than the original, but we will give it a go. I have made no secret of my plans, and my thoughts on the Minister’s plans, to bring forward significant changes to the Bill, which has already been long delayed. I am grateful that, as we progress through Committee, I will have the opportunity to put on record once again some of Labour’s long-held concerns with the direction of the Bill.
I will touch briefly on clause 11 specifically before addressing the amendments to the clause. Clause 11 covers safety duties to protect children, and it is a key part of the Bill—indeed, it is the key reason many of us have taken a keen interest in online safety more widely. Many of us, on both sides of the House, have been united in our frustrations with the business models of platform providers and search engines, which have paid little regard to the safety of children over the years in which the internet has expanded rapidly.
That is why Labour has worked with the Government. We want to see the legislation get over the line, and we recognise—as I have said in Committee previously—that the world is watching, so we need to get this right. The previous Minister characterised the social media platforms and providers as entirely driven by finance, but safety must be the No. 1 priority. Labour believes that that must apply to both adults and children, but that is an issue for debate on a subsequent clause, so I will keep my comments on this clause brief.
The clause and Government amendments 1, 2 and 3 address the thorny issue of age assurance measures. Labour has been clear that we have concerns that the Government are relying heavily on the ability of social media companies to distinguish between adults and children, but age verification processes remain fairly complex, and that clearly needs addressing. Indeed, Ofcom’s own research found that a third of children have false social media accounts aged over 18. This is an area we certainly need to get right.
I am grateful to the many stakeholders, charities and groups working in this area. There are far too many to mention, but a special shout-out should go to Iain Corby from the Age Verification Providers Association, along with colleagues at the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation and Barnardo’s, and the esteemed John Carr. They have all provided extremely useful briefings for my team and me as we have attempted to unpick this extremely complicated part of the Bill.
We accept that there are effective age checks out there, and many have substantial anti-evasion mechanisms, but it is the frustrating reality that this is the road the Government have decided to go down. As we have repeatedly placed on the record, the Government should have retained the “legal but harmful” provisions that were promised in the earlier iteration of the Bill. Despite that, we are where we are.
I will therefore put on the record some brief comments on the range of amendments on this clause. First, with your permission, Sir Roger, I will speak to amendments 98, 99—
The Chair
Order. No, you cannot. I am sorry. I am perfectly willing to allow—the hon. Lady has already done this—a stand part debate at the start of a group of selections, rather than at the end, but she cannot have it both ways. I equally understand the desire of an Opposition Front Bencher to make some opening remarks, which is perfectly in order. With respect, however, you may not then go through all the other amendments. We are dealing now with amendment 98. If the hon. Lady can confine her remarks to that at this stage, that would be helpful.
Alex Davies-Jones
Of course, Sir Roger. Without addressing the other amendments, I would like us to move away from the overly content-focused approach that the Government seem intent on taking in the Bill more widely. I will leave my comments there on the SNP amendment, but we support our SNP colleagues on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Being online can be a hugely positive experience for children and young people, but we recognise the challenge of habit-forming behaviour or designed addiction to some digital services. The Bill as drafted, however, would already deliver the intent of the amendment from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. If service providers identify in their risk assessment that habit-forming or addictive-behaviour risks cause significant harm to an appreciable number of children on a service, the Bill will require them to put in place measures to mitigate and manage that risk under clause 11(2)(a).
To meet the child safety risk assessment duties under clause 10, services must assess the risk of harm to children from the different ways in which the service is used; the impact of such use; the level of risk of harm to children; how the design and operation of the service may increase the risks identified; and the functionalities that facilitate the presence or dissemination of content of harm to children. The definition of “functionality” at clause 200 already includes an expression of a view on content, such as applying a “like” or “dislike” button, as at subsection (2)(f)(i).
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for giving way so early on. He mentioned an “appreciable number”. Will he clarify what that is? Is it one, 10, 100 or 1,000?
Paul Scully
I do not think that a single number can be put on that, because it depends on the platform and the type of viewing. It is not easy to put a single number on that. An “appreciable number” is basically as identified by Ofcom, which will be the arbiter of all this. It comes back to what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said about the direction that we, as she rightly said, want to give Ofcom. Ofcom has a range of powers already to help it assess whether companies are fulfilling their duties, including the power to require information about the operation of their algorithms. I would set the direction that the hon. Lady is looking for, to ensure that Ofcom uses those powers to the fullest and can look at the algorithms. We should bear in mind that social media platforms face criminal liability if they do not supply the information required by Ofcom to look under the bonnet.
Kirsty Blackman
If platforms do not recognise that they have an issue with habit-forming features, even though we know they have, will Ofcom say to them, “Your risk assessment is insufficient. We know that the habit-forming features are really causing a problem for children”?
Paul Scully
We do not want to wait for the Bill’s implementation to start those conversations with the platforms. We expect companies to be transparent about their design practices that encourage extended engagement and to engage with researchers to understand the impact of those practices on their users.
The child safety duties in clause 11 apply across all areas of a service, including the way it is operated and used by children and the content present on the service. Subsection (4)(b) specifically requires services to consider the
“design of functionalities, algorithms and other features”
when complying with the child safety duties. Given the direction I have suggested that Ofcom has, and the range of powers that it will already have under the Bill, I am unable to accept the hon. Member’s amendment, and I hope she will therefore withdraw it.
Kirsty Blackman
I would have preferred it had the Minister been slightly more explicit that habit-forming features are harmful. That would have been slightly more helpful.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister. Absolutely—they are not always harmful. With that clarification, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 11, page 10, line 22, leave out
“, or another means of age assurance”.
This amendment omits words which are no longer necessary in subsection (3)(a) of clause 11 because they are dealt with by the new subsection inserted by Amendment 3.
Paul Scully
The Bill’s key objective, above everything else, is the safety of young people online. That is why the strongest protections in the Bill are for children. Providers of services that are likely to be accessed by children will need to provide safety measures to protect child users from harmful content, such as pornography, and from behaviour such as bullying. We expect companies to use age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing services that pose the highest risk of harm to them, and age assurance technologies and other measures to provide children with an age-appropriate experience.
The previous version of the Bill already focused on protecting children, but the Government are clear that the Bill must do more to achieve that and to ensure that the requirements on providers are as clear as possible. That is why we are strengthening the Bill and clarifying the responsibilities of providers to provide age-appropriate protections for children online. We are making it explicit that providers may need to use age assurance to identify the age of their users in order to meet the child safety duties for user-to-user services.
The Bill already set out that age assurance may be required to protect children from harmful content and activity, as part of meeting the duty in clause 11(3), but the Bill will now clarify that it may also be needed to meet the wider duty in subsection (2) to
“mitigate and manage the risks of harm to children”
and to manage
“the impact of harm to children”
on such services. That is important so that only children who are old enough are able to use functionalities on a service that poses a risk of harm to younger children. The changes will also ensure that children are signposted to support that is appropriate to their age if they have experienced harm. For those reasons, I recommend that the Committee accepts the amendments.
Alex Davies-Jones
I have a few questions regarding amendments 1 to 3, which as I mentioned relate to the thorny issue of age verification and age assurance, and I hope the Minister can clarify some of them.
We are unclear about why, in subsection (3)(a), the Government have retained the phrase
“for example, by using age verification, or another means of age assurance”.
Can that difference in wording be taken as confirmation that the Government want harder forms of age verification for primary priority content? The Minister will be aware that many in the sector are unclear about what that harder form of age verification may look like, so some clarity would be useful for all of us in the room and for those watching.
In addition, we would like to clarify the Minister’s understanding of the distinction between age verification and age assurance. They are very different concepts in reality, so we would appreciate it if he could be clear, particularly when we consider the different types of harm that the Bill will address and protect people from, how that will be achieved and what technology will be required for different types of platform and content. I look forward to clarity from the Minister on that point.
Paul Scully
That is a good point. In essence, age verification is the hard access to a service. Age assurance ensures that the person who uses the service is the same person whose age was verified. Someone could use their parent’s debit card or something like that, so it is not necessarily the same person using the service right the way through. If we are to protect children, in particular, we have to ensure that we know there is a child at the other end whom we can protect from the harm that they may see.
On the different technologies, we are clear that our approach to age assurance or verification is not technology-specific. Why? Because otherwise the Bill would be out of date within around six months. By the time the legislation was fully implemented it would clearly be out of date. That is why it is incumbent on the companies to be clear about the technology and processes they use. That information will be kept up to date, and Ofcom can then look at it.
The Chair
The Minister leapt to his feet before I had the opportunity to call any other Members. I call Kirsty Blackman.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Sir Roger. It was helpful to hear the Minister’s clarification of age assurance and age verification, and it was useful for him to put on the record the difference between the two.
I have a couple of points. In respect of Ofcom keeping up to date with the types of age verification and the processes, new ones will come through and excellent new methods will appear in coming years. I welcome the Minister’s suggestion that Ofcom will keep up to date with that, because it is incredibly important that we do not rely on, say, the one provider that there is currently, when really good methods could come out. We need the legislation to ensure that we get the best possible service and the best possible verification to keep children away from content that is inappropriate for them.
This is one of the most important parts of the Bill for ensuring that we can continue to have adult sections of the internet—places where there is content that would be disturbing for children, as well as for some adults—and that an age-verification system is in place to ensure that that content can continue to be there. Websites that require a subscription, such as OnlyFans, need to continue to have in place the age-verification systems that they currently have. By writing into legislation the requirement for them to continue to have such systems in place, we can ensure that children cannot access such services but adults can continue to do so. This is not about what is banned online or about trying to make sure that this content does not exist anywhere; it is specifically about gatekeeping to ensure that no child, as far as we can possibly manage, can access content that is inappropriate for kids.
There was a briefing recently on children’s access to pornography, and we heard horrendous stories. It is horrendous that a significant number of children have seen inappropriate content online, and the damage that that has caused to so many young people cannot be overstated. Blocking access to adult parts of the internet is so important for the next generation, not just so that children are not disturbed by the content they see, but so that they learn that it is not okay and normal and understand that the depictions of relationships in pornography are not the way reality works, not the way reality should work and not how women should be treated. Having a situation in which Ofcom or anybody else is better able to take action to ensure that adult content is specifically accessed only by adults is really important for the protection of children and for protecting the next generation and their attitudes, particularly towards sex and relationships.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I wish to add some brief words in support of the Government’s proposals and to build on the comments from Members of all parties.
We know that access to extreme and abusive pornography is a direct factor in violence against women and girls. We see that play out in the court system every day. People claim to have watched and become addicted to this type of pornography; they are put on trial because they seek to play that out in their relationships, which has resulted in the deaths of women. The platforms already have technology that allows them to figure out the age of people on their platforms. The Bill seeks to ensure that they use that for a good end, so I thoroughly support it. I thank the Minister.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
There are two very important and distinct issues here. One is age verification. The platforms ask adults who have identification to verify their age; if they cannot verify their age, they cannot access the service. Platforms have a choice within that. They can design their service so that it does not have adult content, in which case they may not need to build in verification systems—the platform polices itself. However, a platform such as Twitter, which allows adult content on an app that is open to children, has to build in those systems. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned, people will also have to verify their identity to access a service such as OnlyFans, which is an adult-only service.
Kirsty Blackman
On that specific point, I searched on Twitter for the name—first name and surname—of a politician to see what people had been saying, because I knew that he was in the news. The pictures that I saw! That was purely by searching for the name of the politician; it is not as though people are necessarily seeking such stuff out.
Damian Collins
On these platforms, the age verification requirements are clear: they must age-gate the adult content or get rid of it. They must do one or the other. Rightly, the Bill does not specify technologies. Technologies are available. The point is that a company must demonstrate that it is using an existing and available technology or that it has some other policy in place to remedy the issue. It has a choice, but it cannot do nothing. It cannot say that it does not have a policy on it.
Age assurance is always more difficult for children, because they do not have the same sort of ID that adults have. However, technologies exist: for instance, Yoti uses facial scanning. Companies do not have to do that either; they have to demonstrate that they do something beyond self-certification at the point of signing up. That is right. Companies may also demonstrate what they do to take robust action to close the accounts of children they have identified on their platforms.
If a company’s terms of service state that people must be 13 or over to use the platform, the company is inherently stating that the platform is not safe for someone under 13. What does it do to identify people who sign up? What does it do to identify people once they are on the platform, and what action does it then take? The Bill gives Ofcom the powers to understand those things and to force a change of behaviour and action. That is why—to the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd—age assurance is a slightly broader term, but companies can still extract a lot of information to determine the likely age of a child and take the appropriate action.
Paul Scully
I think we are all in agreement, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 11, page 10, line 25, leave out
“(for example, by using age assurance)”.
This amendment omits words which are no longer necessary in subsection (3)(b) of clause 11 because they are dealt with by the new subsection inserted by Amendment 3.
Amendment 3, in clause 11, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) Age assurance to identify who is a child user or which age group a child user is in is an example of a measure which may be taken or used (among others) for the purpose of compliance with a duty set out in subsection (2) or (3).”—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment makes it clear that age assurance measures may be used to comply with duties in clause 11(2) as well as (3) (safety duties protecting children).
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 11, page 10, line 34, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) policies on user access to the service, parts of the service, or to particular content present on the service, including blocking users from accessing the service, parts of the service, or particular content,”.
This amendment is intended to make clear that if it is proportionate to do so, services should have policies that include blocking access to parts of a service, rather than just the entire service or particular content on the service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 96, in clause 11, page 10, line 41, at end insert—
“(i) reducing or removing a user’s access to private messaging features”.
This amendment is intended to explicitly include removing or reducing access to private messaging features in the list of areas where proportionate measures can be taken to protect children.
Amendment 97, in clause 11, page 10, line 41, at end insert—
“(i) reducing or removing a user’s access to livestreaming features”.
This amendment is intended to explicitly include removing or reducing access to livestreaming features in the list of areas where proportionate measures can be taken to protect children.
Kirsty Blackman
I am glad that the three amendments are grouped, because they link together nicely. I am concerned that clause 11(4)(d) does not do exactly what the Government intend it to. It refers to
“policies on user access to the service or to particular content present on the service, including blocking users from accessing the service or particular content”.
There is a difference between content and parts of the service. It would be possible to block users from accessing some of the things that we have been talking about —for example, eating disorder content—on the basis of clause 11(4)(d). A platform would be able to take that action, provided that it had the architecture in place. However, on my reading, I do not think it would be possible to block a user from accessing, for example, private messaging or livestreaming features. Clause 11(4)(d) would allow a platform to block certain content, or access to the service, but it would not explicitly allow it to block users from using part of the service.
Let us think about platforms such as Discord and Roblox. I have an awful lot of issues with Roblox, but it can be a pretty fun place for people to spend time. However, if a child, or an adult, is inappropriately using its private messaging features, or somebody on Instagram is using the livestreaming features, there are massive potential risks of harm. Massive harm is happening on such platforms. That is not to say that Instagram is necessarily inherently harmful, but if it could block a child’s access to livestreaming features, that could have a massive impact in protecting them.
Damian Collins
Does the hon. Lady accept that the amendments would give people control over the bit of the service that they do not currently have control of? A user can choose what to search for and which members to engage with, and can block people. What they cannot do is stop the recommendation feeds recommending things to them. The shields intervene there, which gives user protection, enabling them to say, “I don’t want this sort of content recommended to me. On other things, I can either not search for them, or I can block and report offensive users.” Does she accept that that is what the amendment achieves?
Kirsty Blackman
I think that that is what the clause achieves, rather than the amendments that I have tabled. I recognise that the clause achieves that, and I have no concerns about it. It is good that the clause does that; my concern is that it does not take the second step of blocking access to certain features on the platform. For example, somebody could be having a great time on Instagram looking at various people’s pictures or whatever, but they may not want to be bombarded with private messages. They have no ability to turn off the private messaging section.
Damian Collins
They can disengage with the user who is sending the messages. On a Meta platform, often those messages will be from someone they are following or engaging with. They can block them, and the platforms have the ability, in most in-app messaging services, to see whether somebody is sending priority illegal content material to other users. They can scan for that and mitigate that as well.
Kirsty Blackman
That is exactly why users should be able to block private messaging in general. Someone on Twitter can say, “I’m not going to receive a direct message from anybody I don’t follow.” Twitter users have the opportunity to do that, but there is not necessarily that opportunity on all platforms. We are asking for those things to be included, so that the provider can say, “You’re using private messaging inappropriately. Therefore, we are blocking all your access to private messaging,” or, “You are being harmed as a result of accessing private messaging. Therefore, we are blocking your access to any private messaging. You can still see pictures on Instagram, but you can no longer receive any private messages, because we are blocking your access to that part of the site.” That is very different from blocking a user’s access to certain kinds of content, for example. I agree that that should happen, but it is about the functionalities and stopping access to some of them.
We are not asking Ofcom to mandate that platforms take this measure; they could still take the slightly more nuclear option of banning somebody entirely from their service. However, if this option is included, we could say, “Your service is doing pretty well, but we know there is an issue with private messaging. Could you please take action to ensure that those people who are using private messaging to harm children no longer have access to private messaging and are no longer able to use the part of the service that enables them to do these things?” Somebody might be doing a great job of making games in Roblox, but they may be saying inappropriate things. It may be proportionate to block that person entirely, but it may be more proportionate to block their access to voice chat, so that they can no longer say those things, or direct message or contact anybody. It is about proportionality and recognising that the service is not necessarily inherently harmful but that specific parts of it could be.
Sarah Owen
The hon. Member is making fantastic, salient points. The damage with private messaging is around phishing, as well as seeing a really harmful message and not being able to unsee it. Would she agree that it is about protecting the victim, not putting the onus on the victim to disengage from such conversations?
Kirsty Blackman
I completely agree. The hon. Member put that much better than I could. I was trying to formulate that point in my head, but had not quite got there, so I appreciate her intervention. She is right: we should not put the onus on a victim to deal with a situation. Once they have seen a message from someone, they can absolutely block that person, but that person could create another account and send them messages again. People could be able to choose, and to say, “No, I don’t want anyone to be able to send me private messages,” or “I don’t want any private messages from anyone I don’t know.” We could put in those safeguards.
I am talking about adding another layer to the clause, so that companies would not necessarily have to demonstrate that it was proportionate to ban a person from using their service, as that may be too high a bar—a concern I will come to later. They could, however, demonstrate that it was proportionate to ban a person from using private messaging services, or from accessing livestreaming features. There has been a massive increase in self-generated child sexual abuse images, and huge amount has come from livestreaming. There are massive risks with livestreaming features on services.
Livestreaming is not always bad. Someone could livestream themselves showing how to make pancakes. There is no issue with that—that is grand—but livestreaming is being used by bad actors to manipulate children into sharing videos of themselves, and once they are on the internet, they are there forever. It cannot be undone. If we were able to ban vulnerable users—my preferred option would be all children—from accessing livestreaming services, they would be much safer.
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady is talking about extremely serious matters. My expectation is that Ofcom would look at all of a platform’s features when risk-assessing the platform and enforcing safety, and in-app messaging services would not be exempt. Platforms have to demonstrate what they would do to mitigate harmful and abusive behaviour, and that they would take action against the accounts responsible.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely, I agree, but the problem is with the way the Bill is written. It does not suggest that a platform could stop somebody accessing a certain part of a service. The Bill refers to content, and to the service as a whole, but it does not have that middle point that I am talking about.
Damian Collins
A platform is required to demonstrate to Ofcom what it would do to mitigate activity that would breach the safety duties. It could do that through a feature that it builds in, or it may take a more draconian stance and say, “Rather than turning off certain features, we will just suspend the account altogether.” That could be discussed in the risk assessments, and agreed in the codes of practice.
Kirsty Blackman
What I am saying is that the clause does not actually allow that middle step. It does not explicitly say that somebody could be stopped from accessing private messaging. The only options are being banned from certain content, or being banned from the entire platform.
I absolutely recognise the hard work that Ofcom has done, and I recognise that it will work very hard to ensure that risks are mitigated, but the amendment ensures what the Minister intended with this legislation. I am not convinced that he intended there to be just the two options that I outlined. I think he intended something more in line with what I am suggesting in the amendment. It would be very helpful if the Minister explicitly said something in this Committee that makes it clear that Ofcom has the power to say to platforms, “Your risk assessment says that there is a real risk from private messaging”—or from livestreaming—“so why don’t you turn that off for all users under 18?” Ofcom should be able to do that.
Could the Minister be clear that that is the direction of travel he is hoping and intending that Ofcom will take? If he could be clear on that, and will recognise that the clause could have been slightly better written to ensure Ofcom had that power, I would be quite happy to not push the amendment to a vote. Will the Minister be clear about the direction he hopes will be taken?
Alex Davies-Jones
I rise to support my SNP colleagues’ amendments 99, and 96 and 97, just as I supported amendment 98. The amendments are sensible and will ensure that service providers are empowered to take action to mitigate harms done through their services. In particular, we support amendment 99, which makes it clear that a service should be required to have the tools available to allow it to block access to parts of its service, if that is proportionate.
Amendments 96 and 97 would ensure that private messaging and livestreaming features were brought into scope, and that platforms and services could block access to them when that was proportionate, with the aim of protecting children, which is the ultimate aim of the Bill. Those are incredibly important points to raise.
In previous iterations of the Bill Committee, Labour too tabled a number of amendments to do with platforms’ responsibilities for livestreaming. I expressed concerns about how easy it is for platforms to host live content, and about how ready they were to screen that content for harm, illegal or not. I am therefore pleased to support our SNP colleagues. The amendments are sensible, will empower platforms and will keep children safe.
Charlotte Nichols
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I rise in support of amendments 99, and 96 and 97, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd did. I have an issue with the vagueness and ambiguity in the Bill. Ministerial direction is incredibly helpful, not only for Ofcom, but for the companies and providers that will use the Bill to make technologies available to do what we are asking them to do.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, if the Bill provided for that middle ground, that would be helpful for a number of purposes. Amendment 97 refers to livestreaming; in a number of cases around the world, people have livestreamed acts of terror, such as the shooting at the Christchurch mosque. Those offences were watched in real time, as they were perpetuated, by potentially hundreds of thousands of people. We have people on watch lists—people we are aware of. If we allowed them to use a social media platform but not the livestreaming parts, that could go some way to mitigating the risk of their livestreaming something like that. Their being on the site is perhaps less of a concern, as their general use of it could be monitored in real time. Under a risk analysis, we might be happy for people to be on a platform, but consider that the risk was too great to allow them to livestream. Having such a provision would be helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North mentioned the onus always being on the victim. When we discuss online abuse, I really hate it when people say, “Well, just turn off your messages”, “Block them” or “Change your notification settings”, as though that were a panacea. Turning off the capacity to use direct messages is a much more effective way of addressing abuse by direct message than banning the person who sent it altogether—they might just make a new account—or than relying on the recipient of the message to take action when the platform has the capacity to take away the option of direct messaging. The adage is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. When people post in public and the post can be seen by anyone, they can be held accountable by anyone. That is less of a concern to me than what they send privately, which can be seen only by the recipient.
This group of amendments is reasonable and proportionate. They would not only give clear ministerial direction to Ofcom and the technology providers, and allow Ofcom to take the measures that we are discussing, but would pivot us away from placing the onus on the recipients of abusive behaviour, or people who might be exposed to it. Instead, the onus would be on platforms to make those risk assessments and take the middle ground, where that is a reasonable and proportionate step.
Kirsty Blackman
If someone on a PlayStation wants to play online games, they must sign up to PlayStation Plus—that is how the model works. Once they pay that subscription, they can access online games and play Fortnite or Rocket League or whatever they want online. They then also have access to a suite of communication features; they can private message people. It would be disproportionate to ban somebody from playing any PlayStation game online in order to stop them from being able to private message inappropriate things. That would be a disproportionate step. I do not want PlayStation to be unable to act against somebody because it could not ban them, as that would be disproportionate, but was unable to switch off the direct messaging features because the clause does not allow it that flexibility. A person could continue to be in danger on the PlayStation platform as a result of private communications that they could receive. That is one example of how the provision would be key and important.
Paul Scully
Again, the Government recognise the intent behind amendment 99, which, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, would require providers to be able to block children’s access to parts of a service, rather than the entire service. I very much get that. We recognise the nature and scale of the harm that can be caused to children through livestreaming and private messaging, as has been outlined, but the Bill already delivers what is intended by these amendments. Clause 11(4) sets out examples of areas in which providers will need to take measures, if proportionate, to meet the child safety duties. It is not an exhaustive list of every measure that a provider might be required to take. It would not be feasible or practical to list every type of measure that a provider could take to protect children from harm, because such a list could become out of date quickly as new technologies emerge, as the hon. Lady outlined with her PlayStation example.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a concern. The Minister’s phrasing was “to block children’s access”. Surely some of the issues would be around blocking adults’ access, because they are the ones causing risk to the children. From my reading of the clause, it does not suggest that the action could be taken only against child users; it could be taken against any user in order to protect children.
Paul Scully
I will come to that in a second. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about putting the onus on the victim. Any element of choice is there for adults; the children will be protected anyway, as I will outline in a second. We all agree that the primary purpose of the Bill is to be a children’s protection measure.
Ofcom will set out in codes of practice the specific steps that providers can take to protect children who are using their service, and the Government expect those to include steps relating to children’s access to high-risk features, such as livestreaming or private messaging. Clause 11(4)(d) sets out that that providers may be required to take measures in the following areas:
“policies on user access to the service or to particular content present on the service, including blocking users from accessing the service or particular content”.
The other areas listed are intentionally broad categories that allow for providers to take specific measures. For example, a measure in the area of blocking user access to particular content could include specific measures that restrict children’s access to parts of a service, if that is a proportionate way to stop users accessing that type of content. It can also apply to any of the features of a service that enable children to access particular content, and could therefore include children’s access to livestreaming and private messaging features. In addition, the child safety duties make it clear that providers need to use proportionate systems and processes that prevent children from encountering primary priority content that is harmful to them, and protect children and age groups at risk of harm from other content that is harmful to them.
While Ofcom will set out in codes of practice the steps that providers can take to meet these duties, we expect those steps, as we have heard, to include the use of age verification to prevent children accessing content that poses the greatest risk of harm to them. To meet that duty, providers may use measures that restrict children from accessing parts of the service. The Bill therefore allows Ofcom to require providers to take that step where it is proportionate. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, and gives her the direction that she asked for—that is, a direction to be more specific that Ofcom does indeed have the powers that she seeks.
Charlotte Nichols
The Bill states that we can expect little impact on child protection before 2027-28 because of the enforcement road map and when Ofcom is planning to set that out. Does the Minister not think that in the meantime, that sort of ministerial direction would be helpful? It could make Ofcom’s job easier, and would mean that children could be protected online before 2027-28.
Paul Scully
The ministerial direction that the various platforms are receiving from the Dispatch Box, from our conversations with them and from the Bill’s progress as it goes through the House of Lords will be helpful to them. We do not expect providers to wait until the very last minute to implement the measures. They are starting to do so now, but we want them to go them further, quicker.
Government amendment 4 will require providers who already have a minimum age requirement for access to their service, or parts of it, to give details of the measures that they use to restrict access in their terms of service and apply them consistently. Providers will also need to provide age-appropriate protections for children using their service. That includes protecting children from harmful content and activity on their service, as well as reviewing children’s use of higher-risk features, as I have said.
To meet the child safety risk assessment duties in clause 10, providers must assess: the risk of harm to children from functionalities that facilitate the presence or dissemination of harmful content; the level of risk from different kinds of harmful content, giving separate consideration to children in different age groups; the different ways in which the service is used, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm; and how the design and operation of the service may increase the risks identified.
The child safety duties in clause 11 apply across all areas of the service, including the way it is operated and used by children, as well as the content present on the service. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendments, but I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will take on board my assurances.
Kirsty Blackman
That was quite helpful. I am slightly concerned about the Minister’s focus on reducing children’s access to the service or to parts of it. I appreciate that is part of what the clause is intended to do, but I would also expect platforms to be able to reduce the ability of adults to access parts of the service or content in order to protect children. Rather than just blocking children, blocking adults from accessing some features—whether that is certain adults or adults as a group—would indeed protect children. My reading of clause 11(4) was that users could be prevented from accessing some of this stuff, rather than just child users. Although the Minister has given me more questions, I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote.
May I ask a question of you, Sir Roger? I have not spoken about clause stand part. Are we still planning to have a clause stand part debate?
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Sir Roger; I appreciate the clarification. When I talk about Government amendment 4, I will also talk about clause stand part. I withdraw the amendment.
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 11, page 11, line 9, at end insert—
“(6A) If a provider takes or uses a measure designed to prevent access to the whole of the service or a part of the service by children under a certain age, a duty to—
(a) include provisions in the terms of service specifying details about the operation of the measure, and
(b) apply those provisions consistently.”
This amendment requires providers to give details in their terms of service about any measures they use which prevent access to a service (or part of it) by children under a certain age, and to apply those terms consistently.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 5.
Amendment 100, in clause 11, page 11, line 15, after “accessible” insert “for child users.”
This amendment makes clear that the provisions of the terms of service have to be clear and accessible for child users.
Paul Scully
Although the previous version of the Bill already focused on protecting children, as I have said, the Government are clear that it must do more to achieve that and to ensure that requirements for providers are as clear as possible. That is why we are making changes to strengthen the Bill. Amendments 4 and 5 will require providers who already have a minimum age requirement for access to their service, or parts of it, to give details in their terms of services of the measures that they use to ensure that children below the minimum age are prevented access. Those terms must be applied consistently and be clear and accessible to users. The change will mean that providers can be held to account for what they say in their terms of service, and will no longer do nothing to prevent underage access.
The Government recognise the intent behind amendment 100, which is to ensure that terms of service are clear and accessible for child users, but the Bill as drafted sets an appropriate standard for terms of service. The duty in clause 11(8) sets an objective standard for terms of service to be clear and accessible, rather than requiring them to be clear for particular users. Ofcom will produce codes of practice setting out how providers can meet that duty, which may include provisions about how to tailor the terms of service to the user base where appropriate.
The amendment would have the unintended consequence of limiting to children the current accessibility requirement for terms of service. As a result, any complicated and detailed information that would not be accessible for children—for example, how the provider uses proactive technology—would probably need to be left out of the terms of service, which would clearly conflict with the duty in clause 11(7) and other duties relating to the terms of service. It is more appropriate to have an objective standard of “clear and accessible” so that the terms of service can be tailored to provide the necessary level of information and be useful to other users such as parents and guardians, who are most likely to be able to engage with the more detailed information included in the terms of service and are involved in monitoring children’s online activities.
Ofcom will set out steps that providers can take to meet the duty and will have a tough suite of enforcement powers to take action against companies that do not meet their child safety duties, including if their terms of service are not clear and accessible. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and I hope she will withdraw it.
Kirsty Blackman
As I said, I will also talk about clause 11. I can understand why the Government are moving their amendments. It makes sense, particularly with things like complying with the provisions. I have had concerns all the way along—particularly acute now as we are back in Committee with a slightly different Bill from the one that we were first presented with—about the reliance on terms of service. There is a major issue with choosing to go down that route, given that providers of services can choose what to put in their terms of service. They can choose to have very good terms of service that mean that they will take action on anything that is potentially an issue and that will be strong enough to allow them to take the actions they need to take to apply proportionate measures to ban users that are breaking the terms of service. Providers will have the ability to write terms of service like that, but not all providers will choose to do that. Not all providers will choose to write the gold standard terms of service that the Minister expects everybody will write.
We have to remember that these companies’ and organisations’ No. 1 aim is not to protect children. If their No. 1 aim was to protect children, we would not be here. We would not need an Online Safety Bill because they would be putting protection front and centre of every decision they make. Their No. 1 aim is to increase the number of users so that they can get more money. That is the aim. They are companies that have a duty to their shareholders. They are trying to make money. That is the intention. They will not therefore necessarily draw up the best possible terms of service.
I heard an argument on Report that market forces will mean that companies that do not have strong enough terms of service, companies that have inherent risks in their platforms, will just not be used by people. If that were true, we would not be in the current situation. Instead, the platforms that are damaging people and causing harm—4chan, KiwiFarms or any of those places that cause horrendous difficulties—would not be used by people because market forces would have intervened. That approach does not work; it does not happen that the market will regulate itself and people will stay away from places that cause them or others harm. That is not how it works. I am concerned about the reliance on terms of service and requiring companies to stick to their own terms of service. They might stick to their own terms of service, but those terms of service might be utterly rubbish and might not protect people. Companies might not have in place what we need to ensure that children and adults are protected online.
Kim Leadbeater
Does the hon. Lady agree that people out there in the real world have absolutely no idea what a platform’s terms of service are, so we are being expected to make a judgment on something about which we have absolutely no knowledge?
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. The amendment I tabled regarding the accessibility of terms of service was designed to ensure that if the Government rely on terms of service, children can access those terms of service and are able to see what risks they are putting themselves at. We know that in reality children will not read these things. Adults do not read these things. I do not know what Twitter’s terms of service say, but I do know that Twitter managed to change its terms of service overnight, very easily and quickly. Companies could just say, “I’m a bit fed up with Ofcom breathing down my neck on this. I’m just going to change my terms of service, so that Ofcom will not take action on some of the egregious harm that has been done. If we just change our terms of service, we don’t need to bother. If we say that we are not going to ban transphobia on our platform—if we take that out of the terms of service—we do not need to worry about transphobia on our platform. We can just let it happen, because it is not in our terms of service.”
Damian Collins
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government are not relying solely on terms of service, but are rightly saying, “If you say in your terms of service that this is what you will do, Ofcom will make sure that you do it”? Ofcom will take on that responsibility for people, making sure that these complex terms of service are understood and enforced, but the companies still have to meet all the priority illegal harms objectives that are set out in the legislation. Offences that exist in law are still enforced on platforms, and risk-assessed by Ofcom as well, so if a company does not have a policy on race hate, we have a law on race hate, and that will apply.
Kirsty Blackman
It is absolutely the case that those companies still have to do a risk assessment, and a child risk assessment if they meet the relevant criteria. The largest platforms, for example, will still have to do a significant amount of work on risk assessments. However, every time a Minister stands up and talks about what they are requiring platforms and companies to do, they say, “Companies must stick to their terms of service. They must ensure that they enforce things in line with their terms of service.” If a company is finding it too difficult, it will just take the tough things out of their terms of service. It will take out transphobia, it will take out abuse. Twitter does not ban anyone for abuse anyway, it seems, but it will be easier for Twitter to say, “Ofcom is going to try to hold us for account for the fact that we are not getting rid of people for abusive but not illegal messages, even though we say in our terms of service, ‘You must act with respect’, or ‘You must not abuse other users’. We will just take that out of our terms of service so that we are not held to account for the fact that we are not following our terms of service.” Then, because the abuse is not illegal—because it does not meet that bar—those places will end up being even less safe than they are right now.
For example, occasionally Twitter does act in line with its terms of service, which is quite nice: it does ban people who are behaving inappropriately, but not necessarily illegally, on its platform. However, if it is required to implement that across the board for everybody, it will be far easier for Twitter to say, “We’ve sacked all our moderators—we do not have enough people to be able to do this job—so we will just take it all out of the terms of service. The terms of service will say, ‘We will ban people for sharing illegal content, full stop.’” We will end up in a worse situation than we are currently in, so the reliance on terms of service causes me a big, big problem.
Turning to amendment 100, dealing specifically with the accessibility of this feature for child users, I appreciate the ministerial clarification, and agree that my amendment could have been better worded and potentially causes some problems. However, can the Minister talk more about the level of accessibility? I would like children to be able to see a version of the terms of service that is age-appropriate, so that they understand what is expected of them and others on the platform, and understand when and how they can make a report and how that report will be acted on. The kids who are using Discord, TikTok or YouTube are over 13—well, some of them are—so they are able to read and understand, and they want to know how to make reports and for the reporting functions to be there. One of the biggest complaints we hear from kids is that they do not know how to report things they see that are disturbing.
A requirement for children to have an understanding of how reporting functions work, particularly on social media platforms where people are interacting with each other, and of the behaviour that is expected of them, does not mean that there cannot be a more in-depth and detailed version of the terms of service, laying out potential punishments using language that children may not be able to understand. The amendment would specifically ensure that children have an understanding of that.
We want children to have a great time on the internet. There are so many ace things out there and wonderful places they can access. Lego has been in touch, for example; its website is really pretty cool. We want kids to be able to access that stuff and communicate with their friends, but we also want them to have access to features that allow them to make reports that will keep them safe. If children are making reports, then platforms will say, “Actually, there is real problem with this because we are getting loads of reports about it.” They will then be able to take action. They will be able to have proper risk assessments in place because they will be able to understand what is disturbing people and what is causing the problems.
I am glad to hear the Minister’s words. If he were even more clear about the fact that he would expect children to be able to understand and access information about keeping themselves safe on the platforms, then that would be even more helpful.
Paul Scully
On terms and conditions, it is clearly best practice to have a different level of explanation that ensures children can fully understand what they are getting into. The hon. Lady talked about the fact that children do not know how to report harm. Frankly, judging by a lot of conversations we have had in our debates, we do not know how to report harm because it is not transparent. On a number of platforms, how to do that is very opaque.
A wider aim of the Bill is to make sure that platforms have better reporting patterns. I encourage platforms to do exactly what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North says to engage children, and to engage parents. Parents are well placed to engage with reporting and it is important that we do not forget parenting in the equation of how Government and platforms are acting. I hope that is clear to the hon. Lady. We are mainly relying on terms and conditions for adults, but the Bill imposes a wider set of protections for children on the platforms.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment made: 5, in clause 11, page 11, line 15, after “(5)” insert “, (6A)”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment ensures that the duty in clause 11(8) to have clear and accessible terms of service applies to the terms of service mentioned in the new subsection inserted by Amendment 4.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Adults’ risk assessment duties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 13 stand part.
Government amendments 18, 23 to 25, 32, 33 and 39.
Clause 55 stand part.
Government amendments 42 to 45, 61 to 66, 68 to 70, 74, 80, 85, 92, 51 and 52, 54, 94 and 60.
Paul Scully
To protect free speech and remove any possibility that the Bill could cause tech companies to censor legal content, I seek to remove the so-called “legal but harmful” duties from the Bill. These duties are currently set out in clauses 12 and 13 and apply to the largest in-scope services. They require services to undertake risk assessments for defined categories of harmful but legal content, before setting and enforcing clear terms of service for each category of content.
I share the concerns raised by Members of this House and more broadly that these provisions could have a detrimental effect on freedom of expression. It is not right that the Government define what legal content they consider harmful to adults and then require platforms to risk assess for that content. Doing so may encourage companies to remove legal speech, undermining this Government’s commitment to freedom of expression. That is why these provisions must be removed.
At the same time, I recognise the undue influence that the largest platforms have over our public discourse. These companies get to decide what we do and do not see online. They can arbitrarily remove a user’s content or ban them altogether without offering any real avenues of redress to users. On the flip side, even when companies have terms of service, these are often not enforced, as we have discussed. That was the case after the Euro 2020 final where footballers were subject to the most appalling abuse, despite most platforms clearly prohibiting that. That is why I am introducing duties to improve the transparency and accountability of platforms and to protect free speech through new clauses 3 and 4. Under these duties, category 1 platforms will only be allowed to remove or restrict access to content or ban or suspend users when this is in accordance with their terms of service or where they face another legal obligation. That protects against the arbitrary removal of content.
Companies must ensure that their terms of service are consistently enforced. If companies’ terms of service say that they will remove or restrict access to content, or will ban or suspend users in certain circumstances, they must put in place proper systems and processes to apply those terms. That will close the gap between what companies say they will do and what they do in practice. Services must ensure that their terms of service are easily understandable to users and that they operate effective reporting and redress mechanisms, enabling users to raise concerns about a company’s application of the terms of service. We will debate the substance of these changes later alongside clause 18.
Clause 55 currently defines
“content that is harmful to adults”,
including
“priority content that is harmful to adults”
for the purposes of this legislation. As this concept would be removed with the removal of the adult safety duties, this clause will also need to be removed.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend mentioned earlier that companies will not be able to remove content if it is not part of their safety duties or if it was not a breach of their terms of service. I want to be sure that I heard that correctly and to ask whether Ofcom will be able to risk assess that process to ensure that companies are not over-removing content.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. I will come on to Ofcom in a second and respond directly to his question.
The removal of clauses 12, 13 and 55 from the Bill, if agreed by the Committee, will require a series of further amendments to remove references to the adult safety duties elsewhere in the Bill. These amendments are required to ensure that the legislation is consistent and, importantly, that platforms, Ofcom and the Secretary of State are not held to requirements relating to the adult safety duties that we intend to remove from the Bill. The amendments remove requirements on platforms and Ofcom relating to the adult safety duties. That includes references to the adult safety duties in the duties to provide content reporting and redress mechanisms and to keep records. They also remove references to content that is harmful to adults from the process for designating category 1, 2A and 2B companies. The amendments in this group relate mainly to the process for the category 2B companies.
I also seek to amend the process for designating category 1 services to ensure that they are identified based on their influence over public discourse, rather than with regard to the risk of harm posed by content that is harmful to adults. These changes will be discussed when we debate the relevant amendments alongside clause 82 and schedule 11. The amendments will remove powers that will no longer be required, such as the Secretary of State’s ability to designate priority content that is harmful to adults. As I have already indicated, we intend to remove the adult safety duties and introduce new duties on category 1 services relating to transparency, accountability and freedom of expression. While they will mostly be discussed alongside clause 18, amendments 61 to 66, 68 to 70 and 74 will add references to the transparency, accountability and freedom of expression duties to schedule 8. That will ensure that Ofcom can require providers of category 1 services to give details in their annual transparency reports about how they comply with the new duties. Those amendments define relevant content and consumer content for the purposes of the schedule.
We will discuss the proposed transparency and accountability duties that will replace the adult safety duties in more detail later in the Committee’s deliberations. For the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that the current adult safety duties with their risks to freedom of expression should be retained. I therefore urge the Committee that clauses 12, 13 and 55 do not stand part and instead recommend that the Government amendments in this group are accepted.
The Chair
Before we proceed, I emphasise that we are debating clause 13 stand part as well as the litany of Government amendments that I read out.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 12 is extremely important because it outlines the platforms’ duties in relation to keeping adults safe online. The Government’s attempts to remove the clause through an amendment that thankfully has not been selected are absolutely shocking. In addressing Government amendments 18, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33 and 39, I must ask the Minister: exactly how will this Bill do anything to keep adults safe online?
In the original clause 12, companies had to assess the risk of harm to adults and the original clause 13 outlined the means by which providers had to report these assessments back to Ofcom. This block of Government amendments will make it impossible for any of us—whether that is users of a platform or service, researchers or civil society experts—to understand the problems that arise on these platforms. Labour has repeatedly warned the Government that this Bill does not go far enough to consider the business models and product design of platforms and service providers that contribute to harm online. By tabling this group of amendments, the Government are once again making it incredibly difficult to fully understand the role of product design in perpetuating harm online.
We are not alone in our concerns. Colleagues from Carnegie UK Trust, who are a source of expertise to hon. Members across the House when it comes to internet regulation, have raised their concerns over this grouping of amendments too. They have raised specific concerns about the removal of the transparency obligation, which Labour has heavily pushed for in previous Bill Committees.
Previously, service providers had been required to inform customers of the harms their risk assessment had detected, but the removal of this risk assessment means that users and consumers will not have the information to assess the nature or risk on the platform. The Minister may point to the Government’s approach in relation to the new content duties in platforms’ and providers’ terms of service, but we know that there are risks arising from the fact that there is no minimum content specified for the terms of service for adults, although of course all providers will have to comply with the illegal content duties.
This approach, like the entire Bill, is already overly complex—that is widely recognised by colleagues across the House and is the view of many stakeholders too. In tabling this group of amendments, the Minister is showing his ignorance. Does he really think that all vulnerabilities to harm online simply disappear at the age of 18? By pushing these amendments, which seek to remove these protections from harmful but legal content to adults, the Minister is, in effect, suggesting that adults are not susceptible to harm and therefore risk assessments are simply not required. That is an extremely narrow-minded view to take, so I must push the Minister further. Does he recognise that many young, and older, adults are still highly likely to be impacted by suicide and self-harm messaging, eating disorder content, disinformation and abuse, which will all be untouched by these amendments?
Labour has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we need to see more, not less, transparency and protection from online harm for all of us—whether adults or children. These risk assessments are absolutely critical to the success of the Online Safety Bill and I cannot think of a good reason why the Minister would not support users in being able to make an assessment about their own safety online.
We have supported the passage of the Bill, as we know that keeping people safe online is a priority for us all and we know that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. The Government have made some progress towards keeping children safe, but they clearly do not consider it their responsibility to do the same for adults. Ultimately, platforms should be required to protect everyone: it does not matter whether they are a 17-year-old who falls short of being legally deemed an adult in this country, an 18-year-old or even an 80-year-old. Ultimately, we should all have the same protections and these risk assessments are critical to the online safety regime as a whole. That is why we cannot support these amendments. The Government have got this very wrong and we have genuine concerns that this wholesale approach will undermine how far the Bill will go to truly tackling harm online.
I will also make comments on clause 55 and the other associated amendments. I will keep my comments brief, as the Minister is already aware of my significant concerns over his Department’s intention to remove adult safety duties more widely. In the previous Bill Committee, Labour made it clear that it supports, and thinks it most important, that the Bill should clarify specific content that is deemed to be harmful to adults. We have repeatedly raised concerns about missing harms, including health misinformation and disinformation, but really this group of amendments, once again, will touch on widespread concerns that the Government’s new approach will see adults online worse off. The Government’s removal of the “legal but harmful” sections of the Online Safety Bill is a major weakening—not a strengthening—of the Bill. Does the Minister recognise that the only people celebrating these decisions will be the executives of big tech firms, and online abusers? Does he agree that this delay shows that the Government have bowed to vested interests over keeping users and consumers safe?
Labour is not alone in having these concerns. We are all pleased to see that child safety duties are still present in the Bill, but the NSPCC, among others, is concerned about the knock-on implications that may introduce new risks to children. Without adult safety duties in place, children will be at greater risk of harm if platforms do not identify and protect them as children. In effect, these plans will now place a significant greater burden on platforms to protect children than adults. As the Bill currently stands, there is a significant risk of splintering user protections that can expose children to adult-only spaces and harmful content, while forming grooming pathways for offenders, too.
The reality is that these proposals to deal with harms online for adults rely on the regulator ensuring that social media companies enforce their own terms and conditions. We already know and have heard that that can have an extremely damaging impact for online safety more widely, and we have only to consider the very obvious and well-reported case study involving Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter to really get a sense of how damaging that approach is likely to be.
In late November, Twitter stopped taking action against tweets in violation of coronavirus rules. The company had suspended at least 11,000 accounts under that policy, which was designed to remove accounts posting demonstrably false or misleading content relating to covid-19 that could lead to harm. The company operated a five-strike policy, and the impact on public health around the world of removing that policy will likely be tangible. The situation also raises questions about the platform’s other misinformation policies. As of December 2022, they remain active, but for how long remains unclear.
Does the Minister recognise that as soon as they are inconvenient, platforms will simply change their terms and conditions, and terms of service? We know that simply holding platforms to account for their terms and conditions will not constitute robust enough regulation to deal with the threat that these platforms present, and I must press the Minister further on this point.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I share her deep concerns about the removal of these clauses. The Government have taken this tricky issue of the concept of “legal but harmful”—it is a tricky issue; we all acknowledge that—and have removed it from the Bill altogether. I do not think that is the answer. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about children becoming 18; the day after they become 18, they are suddenly open to lots more harmful and dangerous content. Does she also share my concern about the risks of people being drawn towards extremism, as well as disinformation and misinformation?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is not just about misinformation and disinformation; it is about leading people to really extreme, vile content on the internet. As we all know, that is a rabbit warren. That situation does not change as soon as a 17-year-old turns 18 on their 18th birthday—that they are then exempt when it comes to seeing this horrendous content. The rules need to be there to protect all of us.
As we have heard, terms and conditions can change overnight. Stakeholders have raised the concern that, if faced with a clearer focus on their terms of service, platforms and providers may choose to make their terms of service shorter, in an attempt to cut out harmful material that, if left undealt with, they may be held liable for.
In addition, the fact that there is no minimum requirement in the regime means that companies have complete freedom to set terms of service for adults, which may not reflect the risks to adults on that service. At present, service providers do not even have to include terms of service in relation to the list of harmful content proposed by the Government for the user empowerment duties—an area we will come on to in more detail shortly as we address clause 14. The Government’s approach and overreliance on terms of service, which as we know can be so susceptible to rapid change, is the wrong approach. For that reason, we cannot support these amendments.
I would just say, finally, that none of us was happy with the term “legal but harmful”. It was a phrase we all disliked, and it did not encapsulate exactly what the content is or includes. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the way to tackle that situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen is right that this is a tricky area, and it is difficult to get it right. We need to protect free speech, which is sacrosanct, but we also need to recognise that there are so many users on the internet who do not have access to free speech as a result of being piled on or shouted down. Their free speech needs to be protected too. We believe that the clauses as they stand in the Bill go some way to making the Bill a meaningful piece of legislation. I urge the Minister not to strip them out, to do the right thing and to keep them in the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
Throughout the consideration of the Bill, I have been clear that I do not want it to end up simply being the keep MPs safe on Twitter Bill. That is not what it should be about. I did not mean that we should therefore take out everything that protects adults; what I meant was that we need to have a big focus on protecting children in the Bill, which thankfully we still do. For all our concerns about the issues and inadequacies of the Bill, it will go some way to providing better protections for children online. But saying that it should not be the keep MPs safe on Twitter Bill does not mean that it should not keep MPs safe on Twitter.
I understand how we have got to this situation. What I cannot understand is the Minister’s being willing to stand up there and say, “We can’t have these clauses because they are a risk to freedom of speech.” Why are they in the Bill in the first place if they are such a big risk to freedom of speech? If the Government’s No. 1 priority is making sure that we do not have these clauses, why did they put them in it? Why did it go through pre-legislative scrutiny? Why were they in the draft Bill? Why were they in the Bill? Why did they agree with them in Committee? Why did they agree with them on Report? Why have we ended up in a situation where, suddenly, there is a massive epiphany that they are a threat to freedom of speech and therefore we cannot possibly have them?
What is it that people want to say that they will be banned from saying as a result of this Bill? What is it that freedom of speech campaigners are so desperate to want to say online? Do they want to promote self-harm on platforms? Is that what people want to do? Is that what freedom of speech campaigners are out for? They are now allowed to do that a result of the Bill.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I believe that the triple shield being put in is in place of “legal but harmful”. That will enable users to put a layer of protection in so they can actually take control. But the illegal content still has to be taken down: anything that promotes self-harm is illegal content and would still have to be removed. The problem with the way it was before is that we had a Secretary of State telling us what could be said out there and what could not. What may offend the hon. Lady may not offend me, and vice versa. We have to be very careful of that. It is so important that we protect free speech. We are now giving control to each individual who uses the internet.
Kirsty Blackman
The promotion of self-harm is not illegal content; people are now able to do that online—congratulations, great! The promotion of incel culture is not illegal content, so this Bill will now allow people to do that online. It will allow terms of service that do not require people to be banned for promoting incel culture, self-harm, not wearing masks and not getting a covid vaccine. It will allow the platforms to allow people to say these things. That is what has been achieved by campaigners.
The Bill is making people less safe online. We will continue to have the same problems that we have with people being driven to suicide and radicalised online as a result of the changes being made in this Bill. I know the Government have been leaned on heavily by the free speech lobby. I still do not know what people want to say that they cannot say as a result of the Bill as it stands. I do not know. I cannot imagine that anybody is not offended by content online that drives people to hurt themselves. I cannot imagine anybody being okay and happy with that. Certainly, I imagine that nobody in this room is okay and happy with that.
These people have won this war on the attack on free speech. They have won a situation where they are able to promote misogynistic, incel culture and health disinformation, where they are able to say that the covid vaccine is entirely about putting microchips in people. People are allowed to say that now—great! That is what has been achieved, and it is a societal issue. We have a generational issue where people online are being exposed to harmful content. That will now continue.
It is not just a generational societal thing—it is not just an issue for society as a whole that these conspiracy theories are pervading. Some of the conspiracy theories around antisemitism are unbelievably horrific, but do not step over into illegality or David Icke would not be able to stand up and suggest that the world is run by lizard people—who happen to be Jewish. He would not be allowed to say that because it would be considered harmful content. But now he is. That is fine. He is allowed to say that because this Bill is refusing to take action on that.
Damian Collins
Can the hon. Lady tell me where in the Bill, as it is currently drafted—so, unamended—it requires platforms to remove legal speech?
Kirsty Blackman
It allows the platforms to do that. It allows them, and requires legal but harmful stuff to be taken into account. It requires the platforms to act—to consider, through risk assessments, the harm done to adults by content that is legal but massively harmful.
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady is right: the Bill does not require the removal of legal speech. Platforms must take the issue into account—it can be risk assessed—but it is ultimately their decision. I think the point has been massively overstated that, somehow, previously, Ofcom had the power to strike down legal but harmful speech that was not a breach of either terms of service or the law. It never had that power.
Kirsty Blackman
Why do the Government now think that there is a risk to free speech? If Ofcom never had that power, if it was never an issue, why are the Government bothered about that risk—it clearly was not a risk—to free speech? If that was never a consideration, it obviously was not a risk to free speech, so I am now even more confused as to why the Government have decided that they will have to strip this measure out of the Bill because of the risk to free speech, because clearly it was not a risk in this situation. This is some of the most important stuff in the Bill for the protection of adults, and the Government are keen to remove it.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Member is making an excellent and very passionate speech, and I commend her for that. Would she agree with one of my concerns, which is about the message that this sends to the public? It is almost that the Government were acknowledging that there was a problem with legal but harmful content—we can all, hopefully, acknowledge that that is a problem, even though we know it is a tricky one to tackle—but, by removing these clauses from the Bill, are now sending the message that, “We were trying to clean up the wild west of the internet, but, actually, we are not that bothered anymore.”
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We have all heard from organisations and individuals who have had their lives destroyed as a result of “legal but harmful”—I don’t have a better phrase for it—content online and of being radicalised by being driven deeper and deeper into blacker and blacker Discord servers, for example, that are getting further and further right wing.
A number of the people who are radicalised—who are committing terror attacks, or being referred to the Prevent programme because they are at risk of committing terror attacks—are not so much on the far-right levels of extremism any more, or those with incredible levels of religious extremism, but are in a situation where they have got mixed up or unclear ideological drivers. It is not the same situation as it was before, because people are being radicalised by the stuff that they find online. They are being radicalised into situations where they “must do something”—they “must take some action”—because of the culture change in society.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member is making a powerful point. Just a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, at the Dispatch Box, whether the horrendous and horrific content that led a man to shoot and kill five people in Keyham—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—would be allowed to remain and perpetuate online as a result of the removal of these clauses from the Bill. I did not get a substantial answer then, but we all know that the answer is yes.
Kirsty Blackman
That is the thing: this Bill is supposed to be the Online Safety Bill. It is supposed to be about protecting people from the harm that can be done to them by others. It is also supposed to be about protecting people from that radicalisation and that harm that they can end up in. It is supposed to make a difference. It is supposed to be game changer and a world leader.
Although, absolutely, I recognise the importance of the child-safety duties in the clauses and the change that that will have, when people turn 18 they do not suddenly become different humans. They do not wake up on their 18th birthday as a different person from the one that they were before. They should not have to go from that level of protection, prior to 18, to being immediately exposed to comments and content encouraging them to self-harm, and to all of the negative things that we know are present online.
Nick Fletcher
I understand some of the arguments the hon. Lady is making, but that is a poor argument given that the day people turn 17 they can learn to drive or the day they turn 16 they can do something else. There are lots of these things, but we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Eighteen is when people become adults. If we do not like that, we can change the age, but there has to be a line in the sand. I agree with much of what the hon. Lady is saying, but that is a poor argument. I am sorry, but it is.
Kirsty Blackman
I do not disagree that overnight changes are involved, but the problem is that we are going from a certain level of protection to nothing; there will be a drastic, dramatic shift. We will end up with any vulnerable person who is over 18 being potentially subject to all this content online.
I still do not understand what people think they will have won as a result of having the provisions removed from the Bill. I do not understand how people can say, “This is now a substantially better Bill, and we are much freer and better off as a result of the changes.” That is not the case; removing the provisions will mean the internet continuing to be unsafe—much more unsafe than it would have been under the previous iteration of the Bill. It will ensure that more people are harmed as a result of online content. It will absolutely—
Kirsty Blackman
No, I will not give way again. The change will ensure that people can absolutely say what they like online, but the damage and harm that it will cause are not balanced by the freedoms that have been won.
Damian Collins
As a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, I recommended that the “legal but harmful” provisions be removed from the Bill. When I chaired the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament that scrutinised the draft Bill, it was the unanimous recommendation of the Committee that the “legal but harmful” provisions be removed. As a Minister at the Dispatch Box, I said that I thought “legal but harmful” was a problematic term and we should not use it. The term “legal but harmful” does not exist in the Bill, and has never existed in the Bill, but it has provoked a debate that has caused a huge confusion. There is a belief, which we have heard expressed in debate today, that somehow there are categories of content that Ofcom can deem categories for removal whether they are unlawful or not.
During the Bill’s journey from publication in draft to where we are today, it has become more specific. Rather than our relying on general duties of care, written into the Bill are areas of priority illegal activity that the companies must proactively look for, monitor and mitigate. In the original version of the Bill, that included only terrorist content and child sexual exploitation material, but on the recommendation of the Joint Committee, the Government moved in the direction of writing into the Bill at schedule 7 offences in law that will be the priority illegal offences.
The list of offences is quite wide, and it is more comprehensive than any other such list in the world in specifying exactly what offences are in scope. There is no ambiguity for the platforms as to what offences are in scope. Stalking, harassment and inciting violence, which are all serious offences, as well as the horrible abuse a person might receive as a consequence of their race or religious beliefs, are written into the Bill as priority illegal offences.
There has to be a risk assessment of whether such content exists on platforms and what action platforms should take. They are required to carry out such a risk assessment, although that was never part of the Bill before. The “legal but harmful” provisions in some ways predate that. Changes were made; the offences were written into the Bill, risk assessments were provided for, and Parliament was invited to create new offences and write them into the Bill, if there were categories of content that had not been captured. In some ways, that creates a democratic lock that says, “If we are going to start to regulate areas of speech, what is the legal reason for doing that? Where is the legal threshold? What are the grounds for us taking that decision, if it is something that is not already covered in platforms’ terms of service?”
We are moving in that direction. We have a schedule of offences that we are writing into the Bill, and those priority illegal offences cover most of the most serious behaviour and most of the concerns raised in today’s debate. On top of that, there is a risk assessment of platforms’ terms of service. When we look at the terms of service of the companies—the major platforms we have been discussing—we see that they set a higher bar again than the priority illegal harms. On the whole, platforms do not have policies that say, “We won’t do anything about this illegal activity, race hate, incitement to violence, or promotion or glorification of terrorism.” The problem is that although have terms of service, they do not enforce them. Therefore, we are not relying on terms of service. What we are saying, and what the Bill says, is that the minimum safety standards are based on the offences written into the Bill. In addition, we have risk assessment, and we have enforcement based on the terms of service.
There may be a situation in which there is a category of content that is not in breach of a platform’s terms of service and not included in the priority areas of illegal harm. It is very difficult to think of what that could be—something that is not already covered, and over which Ofcom would not have power. There is the inclusion of the new offences of promoting self-harm and suicide. That captures not just an individual piece of content, but the systematic effect of a teenager like Molly Russell—or an adult of any age—being targeted with such content. There are also new offences for cyber-flashing, and there is Zach’s law, which was discussed in the Chamber on Report. We are creating and writing into the Bill these new priority areas of illegal harm.
Freedom of speech groups’ concern was that the Government could have a secret list of extra things that they also wanted risk-assessed, rather enforcement being clearly based either on the law or on clear terms of service. It is difficult to think of categories of harm that are not already captured in terms of service or priority areas of illegal harm, and that would be on such a list. I think that is why the change was made. For freedom of speech campaigners, there was a concern about exactly what enforcement was based on: “Is it based on the law? Is it based on terms of service? Or is it based on something else?”
I personally believed that the “legal but harmful” provisions in the Bill, as far as they existed, were not an infringement on free speech, because there was never a requirement to remove legal speech. I do not think the removal of those clauses from the Bill suddenly creates a wild west in which no enforcement will take place at all. There will be very effective enforcement based on the terms of service, and on the schedule 7 offences, which deal with the worst kinds of illegal activity; there is a broad list. The changes make it much clearer to everybody—platforms and users alike, and Ofcom—exactly what the duties are, how they are enforced and what they are based on.
For future regulation, we have to use this framework, so that we can say that when we add new offences to the scope of the legislation, they are offences that have been approved by Parliament and have gone through a proper process, and are a necessary addition because terms of service do not cover them. That is a much clearer and better structure to follow, which is why I support the Government amendments.
Charlotte Nichols
I cannot help but see the Government’s planned removal of clauses 12 and 13 as essentially wrecking amendments to the Bill. Taking those provisions out of the Bill makes it a Bill not about online safety, but about child protection. We have not had five years or so of going backwards and forwards, and taken the Bill through Committee and then unprecedentedly recommitted it to Committee, in order to fundamentally change what the Bill set out to do. The fact that, at this late stage, the Government are trying to take out these aspects of the Bill melts my head, for want of a better way of putting it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen was absolutely right when she talked about what clauses 12 and 13 do. In effect, they are an acknowledgement that adults are also harmed online, and have different experiences online. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about this not being the protect MPs from being bullied on Twitter Bill, because obviously the provisions go much further than that, but it is worth noting, in the hope that it is illustrative to Committee members, the very different experience that the Minister and I have in using Twitter. I say that as a woman who is LGBT and Jewish—and although I would not suggest that it should be a protected characteristic, the fact that I am ginger probably plays a part as well. He and I could do the same things on Twitter on the same day and have two completely different experiences of that platform.
The risk-assessment duties set out in clause 12, particularly in subsection (5)(d) to (f), ask platforms to consider the different ways in which different adult users might experience them. Platforms have a duty to attempt to keep certain groups of people, and categories of user, safe. When we talk about free speech, the question is: freedom of speech for whom, and at what cost? Making it easier for people to perpetuate, for example, holocaust denial on the internet—a category of speech that is lawful but awful, as it is not against the law in this country to deny that the holocaust happened—makes it much less likely that I, or other Jewish people, will want to use the platform.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Member makes a powerful point about the different ways in which people experience things. That tips over into real-life abusive interactions, and goes as far as terrorist incidents in some cases. Does she agree that protecting people’s freedom of expression and safety online also protects people in their real, day-to-day life?
Charlotte Nichols
I could not agree more. I suppose that is why this aspect of the Bill is so important, not just to me but to all those categories of user. I mentioned paragraphs (d) to (f), which would require platforms to assess exactly that risk. This is not about being offended. Personally, I have the skin of a rhino. People can say most things to me and I am not particularly bothered by it. My concern is where things that are said online are transposed into real-life harms. I will use myself as an example. Online, we can see antisemitic and conspiratorial content, covid misinformation, and covid misinformation that meets with antisemitism and conspiracies. When people decide that I, as a Jewish Member of Parliament, am personally responsible for George Soros putting a 5G chip in their arm, or whatever other nonsense they have become persuaded by on the internet, that is exactly the kind of thing that has meant people coming to my office armed with a knife. The kind of content that they were radicalised by on the internet led to their perpetrating a real-life, in-person harm. Thank God—Baruch Hashem—neither I nor my staff were in the office that day, but that could have ended very differently, because of the sorts of content that the Bill is meant to protect online users from.
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady is talking about an incredibly important issue, but the Bill covers such matters as credible threats to life, incitement to violence against an individual, and harassment and stalking—those patterns of behaviour. Those are public order offences, and they are in the Bill. I would absolutely expect companies to risk-assess for that sort of activity, and to be required by Ofcom to mitigate it. On her point about holocaust denial, first, the shield will mean that people can protect themselves from seeing stuff. The further question would be whether we create new offences in law, which can then be transposed across.
Charlotte Nichols
I accept the points that the hon. Member raised, but he is fundamentally missing the point. The categories of information and content that these people had seen and been radicalised by would not fall under the scope of public order offences or harassment. The person was not sending me harassing messages before they turned up at my office. Essentially, social media companies and other online platforms have to take measures to mitigate the risk of categories of offences that are illegal, whether or not they are in the Bill. I am talking about what clauses 12 and 13 covered, whether we call it the “legal but harmful” category or “lawful but awful”. Whatever we name those provisions, by taking out of the Bill clauses relating to the “legal but harmful” category, we are opening up an area of harm that already exists, that has a real-world impact, and that the Bill was meant to go some way towards addressing.
The provisions have taken out the risk assessments that need to be done. The Bill says,
“(e) the level of risk of functionalities of the service facilitating the presence or dissemination of priority content that is harmful to adults, identifying and assessing those functionalities that present higher levels of risk;
(f) the different ways in which the service is used, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by adults;
(g) the nature, and severity, of the harm that might be suffered by adults”.
Again, the idea that we are talking about offence, and that the clauses need to be taken out to protect free speech, is fundamentally nonsense.
I have already mentioned holocaust denial, but it is also worth mentioning health-related disinformation. We have already seen real-world harms from some of the covid misinformation online. It led to people including Piers Corbyn turning up outside Parliament with a gallows, threatening to hang hon. Members for treason. Obviously, that was rightly dealt with by the police, but the kind of information and misinformation that he had been getting online and that led him to do that, which is legal but harmful, will now not be covered by the Bill.
I will also raise an issue I have heard about from a number of people dealing with cancer and conditions such as multiple sclerosis. People online try to discourage them from accessing the proper medical interventions for their illnesses, and instead encourage them to take more vitamin B or adopt a vegan diet. There are people who have died because they had cancer but were encouraged online to not access cancer treatment because they were subject to lawful but awful categories of harm.
Kirsty Blackman
I wonder if the hon. Member saw the story online about the couple in New Zealand who refused to let their child have a life-saving operation because they could not guarantee that the blood used would not be from vaccinated people? Is the hon. Member similarly concerned that this has caused real-life harm?
Charlotte Nichols
I am aware of the case that the hon. Member mentioned. I appreciate that I am probably testing the patience of everybody in the Committee Room, but I want to be clear just how abhorrent I find it that these provisions are coming out of the Bill. I am trying to be restrained, measured and reasonably concise, but that is difficult when there are so many parts of the change that I find egregious.
My final point is on self-harm and suicide content. For men under the age of 45, suicide is the biggest killer. In the Bill, we are doing as much as we can to protect young people from that sort of content. My real concern is this: many young people are being protected by the Bill’s provisions relating to children. They are perhaps waiting for support from child and adolescent mental health services, which are massively oversubscribed. The minute they tick over into 18, fall off the CAMHS waiting list and go to the bottom of the adult mental health waiting list—they may have to wait years for treatment of various conditions—there is no requirement or duty on the social media companies and platforms to do risk assessments.
ONLINE SAFETY BILL (Second sitting)
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 December 2022 - (13 Dec 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Traditionally, the Chair of a Committee gives Members permission to take off their jackets, but given the temperature in this room, please understand that you do not need my permission to keep on your blankets or coats.
Clause 12
Adults’ risk assessment duties
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Clause 13 stand part.
Government amendments 18, 23 to 25, 32, 33 and 39.
Clause 55 stand part.
Government amendments 42 to 45, 61 to 66, 68 to 70, 74, 80, 85, 92, 51 and 52, 54, 94 and 60.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I did not make a note of the specific word I was on when we adjourned, so I hope Hansard colleagues will forgive me if the flow between what I said previously and what I say now is somewhat stilted.
I will keep this brief, because I was—purposefully—testing the patience of the Minister with some of my contributions. However, I did so to hammer home the fact that the removal of clauses 12 and 13 from the Bill is a fatal error. If the recommittal of the Bill is not to fundamentally undermine what the Bill set out to do five years or so ago, their removal should urgently be reconsidered. We have spent five years debating the Bill to get it to this point.
As I said, there are forms of harm that are not illegal, but they are none the less harmful, and they should be legislated for. They should be in the Bill, as should specific protections for adults, not just children. I therefore urge the Minister to keep clauses 12 and 13 in the Bill so that we do not undermine what it set out to do and all the work that has been done up to this point. Inexplicably, the Government are trying to undo that work at this late stage before the Bill becomes law.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela—I wish it was a toastier room. Let me add to the points that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, made so powerfully about vulnerable people. There is no cliff edge when such a person becomes 18. What thought have the Minister and the Department given to vulnerable young adults with learning disabilities or spectrum disorders? Frankly, the idea that, as soon as a person turns 18, they are magically no longer vulnerable is for the birds—particularly when it comes to eating disorders, suicide and self-harm.
Adults do not live in isolation, and they do not just live online. We have a duty of care to people. The perfect example is disinformation, particularly when it comes to its harmful impact on public health. We saw that with the pandemic and vaccine misinformation. We saw it with the harm done to children by the anti-vaccine movement’s myths about vaccines, children and babies. It causes greater harm than just having a conversation online.
People do not stay in one lane. Once people start being sucked into conspiracy myths, much as we discussed earlier around the algorithms that are used to keep people online, it has to keep ramping up. Social media and tech companies do that very well. They know how to do it. That is why I might start looking for something to do with ramen recipes and all of a sudden I am on to a cat that has decided to make noodles. It always ramps up. That is the fun end of it, but on the serious end somebody will start to have doubts about certain public health messages the Government are sending out. That then tips into other conspiracy theories that have really harmful, damaging consequences.
I saw that personally. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North eloquently put forward some really powerful examples of what she has been subjected to. With covid, some of the anti-vaccinators and anti-mask-wearers who targeted me quickly slipped into Sinophobia and racism. I was sent videos of people eating live animals, and being blamed for a global pandemic.
The people who have been targeted do not stay in one lane. The idea that adults are not vulnerable, and susceptible, to such targeting and do not need protection from it is frankly for the birds. We see that particularly with extremism, misogyny and the incel culture. I take the point from our earlier discussion about who determines what crosses the legal threshold, but why do we have to wait until somebody is physically hurt before the Government act?
That is really regrettable. So, too, is the fact that this is such a huge U-turn in policy, with 15% of the Bill coming back to Committee. As we have heard, that is unprecedented, and yet, on the most pivotal point, we were unable to hear expert advice, particularly from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s and the Antisemitism Policy Trust. I was struggling to understand why we would not hear expert advice on such a drastic change to an important piece of legislation—until I heard the hon. Member for Don Valley talk about offence. This is not about offence; it is about harm.
The hon. Member’s comments highlighted perfectly the real reason we are all here in a freezing cold Bill Committee, rehashing work that has already been solved. The Bill was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it was better than what we have today. The real reason we are here is the fight within the Conservative party.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
No such fight has taken place. These are my personal views, and I genuinely believe that people have a right to say what they would like to say. That is free speech. There have been no fights whatever.
Sarah Owen
In that case, I must have been mistaken in thinking that the hon. Member—who has probably said quite a lot of things, which is why his voice is as hoarse as it is—was criticising the former Minister for measures that were agreed in previous Committee sittings.
For me, the current proposals are a really disappointing, retrograde step. They will not protect the most vulnerable people in our communities, including offline—this harm is not just online, but stretches out across all our communities. What happens online does not take place, and stay, in an isolated space; people are influenced by it and take their cues from it. They do not just take their cues from what is said in Parliament; they see misogynists online and think that they can treat people like that. They see horrific abuses of power and extreme pornography and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, take their cues from that. What happens online does not stay online.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about what happens online and its influence on the outside world. We saw that most recently with Kanye West being reinstated to Twitter and allowed to spew his bile and abhorrent views about Jews. That antisemitism had a real-world impact in terms of the rise in antisemitism on the streets, particularly in the US. The direct impact of his being allowed to talk about that online was Jews being harmed in the real world. That is exactly what is happening.
Sarah Owen
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention. She is absolutely right. We have had a discussion about terms of reference and terms of service. Not only do most people not actually fully read them or understand them, but they are subject to change. The moment Elon Musk took over Twitter, everything changed. Not only have we got Donald Trump back, but Elon Musk also gave the keys to a mainstream social media platform to Kanye West. We have seen what happened then.
That is the situation the Government will now not shut the door on. That is regrettable. For all the reasons we have heard today, it is really damaging. It is really disappointing that we are not taking the opportunity to lead in this area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela.
A lot of the discussion has replayed the debate from day two on Report about the removal of “legal but harmful” measures. Some of the discussion this morning and this afternoon has covered really important issues such as self-harm on which, as we said on the Floor of the House, we will introduce measures at a later stage. I will not talk about those measures now, but I would just say that we have already said that if we agree that the promotion of things such as self-harm is illegal, it should be illegal. Let us be very straight about how we deal with the promotion of self-harm.
The Bill will bring huge improvements for adult safety online. In addition to their duty to tackle illegal content, companies will have to provide adult users with tools to keep themselves safer. On some of the other clauses, we will talk about the triple shield that was mentioned earlier. If the content is illegal, it will still be illegal. If content does not adhere to the companies’ terms of service—that includes many of the issues that we have been debating for the last hour—it will have to be removed. We will come to user enforcement issues in further clauses.
Charlotte Nichols
The Minister mentions tools for adults to keep themselves safe. Does he not think that that puts the onus on the users—the victims—to keep themselves safe? The measures as they stand in the Bill put the onus on the companies to be more proactive about how they keep people safe.
Paul Scully
The onus on adults is very much a safety net—very much a catch-all, after we have put the onus on the social media companies and the platforms to adhere to their own terms and conditions.
We have heard a lot about Twitter and the changes to Twitter. We can see the commercial imperative for mainstream platforms, certainly the category 1 platforms, to have a wide enough catch-all in their terms of service—anything that an advertiser, for example, would see as reasonably sensible—to be able to remain a viable platform in the first place. When Elon Musk first started making changes at Twitter, a comment did the rounds: “How do you build a multimillion-dollar company? You sell it to Elon Musk for £44 billion.” He made that change. He has seen the bottom falling out of his market and has lost a lot of the cash he put into Twitter. That is the commercial impetus that underpins a lot of the changes we are making.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Is the Minister really suggesting that it is reasonable for people to say, “Right, I am going to have to walk away from Facebook because I don’t agree with their terms of service,” to hold the platform to account? How does he expect people to keep in touch with each other if they have to walk away from social media platforms in order to try to hold them to account?
Paul Scully
I do not think the hon. Lady is seriously suggesting that people can communicate only via Facebook—via one platform. The point is that there are a variety of methods of communication, of which has been a major one, although it is not one of the biggest now, with its share value having dropped 71% in the last year. That is, again, another commercial impetus in terms of changing its platform in other, usability-related ways.
Charlotte Nichols
One of the examples I alluded to, which is particularly offensive for Jewish people, LGBT people and other people who were persecuted in the Nazi holocaust, is holocaust denial. Does the Minister seriously think that it is only Jewish people, LGBT people and other people who were persecuted in the holocaust who find holocaust denial offensive and objectionable and who do not want to see it as part of their online experience? Surely having these sorts of safety nets in place and saying that we do not think that certain kinds of content—although they may not be against the law—have a place online protects everyone’s experience, whether they are Jewish or not. Surely, no one wants to see holocaust denial online.
Paul Scully
No, but there is freedom of expression to a point—when it starts to reach into illegality. We have to have the balance right: someone can say something in public—in any session offline—but what the hon. Lady is suggesting is that, as soon as they hit a keyboard or a smartphone, there are two totally different regimes. That is not getting the balance right.
Charlotte Nichols
The Minister says that we should have freedom of speech up to a point. Does that point include holocaust denial? He has just suggested that if something is acceptable to say in person, which I do not think holocaust denial should be, it should be acceptable online. Surely holocaust denial is objectionable whenever it happens, in whatever context—online or offline.
Paul Scully
I have been clear about where I set the line. [Interruption.] I have said that if something is illegal, it is illegal. The terms of service of the platforms largely cover the list that we are talking about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I have both said, the terms of service of the vast majority of platforms—the big category 1 platforms—set a higher bar than was in our original Bill. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about whether we should have more evidence. I understand that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee heard evidence and came to a unanimous conclusion that the “legal but harmful” conditions should not be in the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
A few moments ago, the Minister compared the online world to the real world. Does he agree that they are not the same? Sadly, the sort of thing that someone says in the pub on a Friday night to two or three of their friends is very different from someone saying something dangerously harmful online that can reach millions and billions of people in a very short space of time. The person who spoke in the pub might get up the following morning and regret what they said, but no harm was done. Once something is out there in the online world, very serious damage can be done very quickly.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I talked about the offline world rather than the real world, but clearly that can happen. That is where the balance has to be struck, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. It is not black and white; it is a spectrum of greys. Any sensible person can soon see when they stray into areas that we have talked about such as holocaust denial and extremism, but we do not want to penalise people who invariably are testing their freedom of expression.
It is a fine balance, but I think that we have reached the right balance between protecting freedom of expression and protecting vulnerable adults by having three layers of checks. The first is illegality. The second is enforcing the terms of service, which provide a higher bar than we had in the original Bill for the vast majority of platforms, so that we can see right at the beginning how they will be enforced by the platforms. If they change them and do not adhere them, Ofcom can step in. Ofcom can step in at any point to ensure that they are being enforced. The third is a safety net.
Kirsty Blackman
On illegal content, is the Minister proposing that the Government will introduce new legislation to make, for example, holocaust denial and eating disorder content illegal, whether it is online or offline? If he is saying that the bar in the online and offline worlds should be the same, will the Government introduce more hate crime legislation?
Paul Scully
Hate crime legislation will always be considered by the Ministry of Justice, but I am not committing to any changes. That is beyond my reach, but the two shields that we talked about are underpinned by a safety net.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the risk assessments that will be done on the priority illegal offences are very wide ranging, in addition to the risk assessments that will be done on meeting the terms of service? They will include racially and religiously motivated harassment, and putting people in fear of violence. A lot of the offences that have been discussed in the debate would already be covered by the adult safety risk assessments in the Bill.
Paul Scully
I absolutely agree. As I said in my opening remarks about the racial abuse picked up in relation to the Euro 2020 football championship, that would have been against the terms and conditions of all those platforms, but it still happened as the platforms were not enforcing those terms and conditions. Whether we put them on a list in the Bill or talk about them in the terms of the service, they need to be enforced, but the terms of service are there.
Damian Collins
On that point, does my hon. Friend also agree that the priority legal offences are important too? People were prosecuted for what they posted on Twitter and Instagram about the England footballers, so that shows that we understand what racially motivated offences are and that people are prosecuted for them. The Bill will require a minimum regulatory standard that meets that threshold and requires companies to act in cases such as that one, where we know what this content is, what people are posting and what is required. Not only will the companies have to act, but they will have to complete risk assessments to demonstrate how they will do that.
Paul Scully
Indeed. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and that is a good example of enforcement being used. People can be prosecuted if such abuse appears on social media, but a black footballer, who would otherwise have seen that racial abuse, can choose in the user enforcement to turn that off so that he does not see it. That does not mean that we cannot pursue a prosecution for racial abuse via a third-party complaint or via the platform.
The Chair
Order. Could the Minister address his remarks through the Chair so that I do not have to look at his back?
Paul Scully
I apologise, Dame Angela. I will bring my remarks to a close by saying that with those triple shields, we have the protections and the fine balance that we need.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 14, page 14, line 3, leave out “harmful content” and insert—
“content to which this subsection applies”.
This amendment, and Amendments 9 to 17, amend clause 14 (user empowerment) as the adult safety duties are removed (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41). New subsections (8B) to (8D) describe the kinds of content which are now relevant to the duty in clause 14(2) - see Amendment 15.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 9 to 14.
Government amendment 15, in clause 14, page 14, line 29, at end insert—
“(8A) Subsection (2) applies to content that—
(a) is regulated user-generated content in relation to the service in question, and
(b) is within subsection (8B), (8C) or (8D).
(8B) Content is within this subsection if it encourages, promotes or provides instructions for—
(a) suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury, or
(b) an eating disorder or behaviours associated with an eating disorder.
(8C) Content is within this subsection if it is abusive and the abuse targets any of the following characteristics—
(a) race,
(b) religion,
(c) sex,
(d) sexual orientation,
(e) disability, or
(f) gender reassignment.
(8D) Content is within this subsection if it incites hatred against people—
(a) of a particular race, religion, sex or sexual orientation,
(b) who have a disability, or
(c) who have the characteristic of gender reassignment.”
This amendment describes the content relevant to the duty in subsection (2) of clause 14. The effect is (broadly) that providers must offer users tools to reduce their exposure to these kinds of content.
Amendment (a), to Government amendment 15, at end insert—
“(8E) Content is within this subsection if it—
(a) incites hateful extremism,
(b) provides false information about climate change, or
(c) is harmful to health.”
Government amendment 16, in clause 14, page 14, line 30, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) In this section—
‘disability’ means any physical or mental impairment;
‘injury’ includes poisoning;
‘non-verified user’ means a user who has not verified their identity to the provider of a service (see section 58(1));
‘race’ includes colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins.”
This amendment inserts definitions of terms now used in clause 14.
Amendment (a), to Government amendment 16, after “mental impairment;” insert—
“‘hateful extremism’ means activity or materials directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to an in-group motivated by or intended to advance a political, religious or racial supremacist ideology—
(a) to create a climate conducive to hate crime, terrorism or other violence, or
(b) to attempt to erode or destroy the rights and freedoms protected by article 17 (Prohibition of abuse of rights) of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
Government amendment 17.
Paul Scully
The Government recognise the importance of giving adult users greater choice about what they see online and who they interact with, while upholding users’ rights to free expression online. That is why we have removed the “legal but harmful” provisions from the Bill in relation to adults and replaced it with a fairer, simpler approach: the triple shield.
As I said earlier, the first shield will require all companies in scope to take preventive measures to tackle illegal content or activity. The second shield will place new duties on category 1 services to improve transparency and accountability, and protect free speech, by requiring them to adhere to their terms of service when restricting access to content or suspending or banning users. As I said earlier, user empowerment is the key third shield, empowering adults with a greater control over their exposure to legal forms of abuse or hatred, or content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm or eating disorders. That has been done while upholding and protecting freedom of expression.
Amendments 9 and 12 will strengthen the user empowerment duty, so that the largest companies are required to ensure that those tools are effective in reducing the likelihood of encountering the listed content or alerting users to it, and are easy for users to access. That will provide adult users with greater control over their online experience.
We are also setting out the categories of content that those user empowerment tools apply to in the Bill, through amendment 15. Adult users will be given the choice of whether they want to take advantage of those tools to have greater control over content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, and content that targets abuse or incites hate against people on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or gender reassignment. This is a targeted approach, focused on areas where we know that adult users—particularly those who are vulnerable or disproportionately targeted by online hate and abuse—would benefit from having greater choice.
As I said, the Government remain committed to free speech, which is why we have made changes to the adult safety duties. By establishing high thresholds for inclusion in those content categories, we have ensured that legitimate debate online will not be affected by the user empowerment duties.
I want to emphasise that the user empowerment duties do not require companies to remove legal content from their services; they are about giving individual adult users the option to increase their control over those kinds of content. Platforms will still be required to provide users with the ability to filter out unverified users, if they so wish. That duty remains unchanged. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that Members can support Government amendments 8 to 17.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypridd to Government amendments 15 and 16. As I have set out in relation to Government amendments 8 to 17, the Government recognise the intent behind the amendments—to apply the user empowerment tools in clause 14(2) to a greater range of content categories. As I have already set out, it is crucial that a tailored approach is taken, so that the user empowerment tools stay in balance with users’ rights to free expression online. I am sympathetic to the amendments, but they propose categories of content that risk being either unworkable for companies or duplicative to the approach already set out in amendment 15.
The category of
“content that is harmful to health”
sets an extremely broad scope. That risks requiring companies to apply the tools in clause 14(2) to an unfeasibly large volume of content. It is not a proportionate approach and would place an unreasonable burden on companies. It might also have concerning implications for freedom of expression, as it may capture important health advice. That risks, ultimately, undermining the intention behind the user empowerment tools in clause 14(2) by preventing users from accessing helpful content, and disincentivising users from using the features.
In addition, the category
“provides false information about climate change”
places a requirement on private companies to be the arbiters of truth on subjective and evolving issues. Those companies would be responsible for determining what types of legal content were considered false information, which poses a risk to freedom of expression and risks silencing genuine debate.
Kirsty Blackman
Did the Minister just say that climate change is subjective?
Paul Scully
No, not about whether climate change is happening, but we are talking about a wide range. “Provides false information”—how do the companies determine what is false? I am not talking about the binary question of whether climate change is happening, but climate change is a wide-ranging debate. “Provides false information” means that someone has to determine what is false and what is not. Basically, the amendment outsources that to the social media platforms. That is not appropriate.
Sarah Owen
Would that not also apply to vaccine efficacy? If we are talking about everything being up for debate and nothing being a hard fact, we are entering slightly strange worlds where we undo a huge amount of progress, in particular on health.
Paul Scully
The amendment does not talk about vaccine efficacy; it talks about content that is harmful to health. That is a wide-ranging thing.
The Chair
Order. I am getting increasingly confused. The Minister appears to be answering a debate on an amendment that has not yet been moved. It might be helpful to the Committee, for good debate, if the Minister were to come back with his arguments against the amendment not yet moved by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, once she has actually moved it. We can then hear her reasons for it and he can reply.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. With your permission, I will take this opportunity to make some broad reflections on the Government’s approach to the new so-called triple-shield protection that we have heard so much about, before coming on to the amendment tabled in my name in the group.
Broadly, Labour is disappointed that the system-level approach to content that is harmful to adults is being stripped from the Bill and replaced with a duty that puts the onus on the user to keep themselves safe. As the Antisemitism Policy Trust among others has argued, the two should be able to work in tandem. The clause allows a user to manage what harmful material they see by requiring the largest or most risky service providers to provide tools to allow a person in effect to reduce their likelihood of encountering, or to alert them to, certain types of material. We have concerns about the overall approach of the Government, but Labour believes that important additions can be made to the list of content where user-empowerment tools must be in place, hence our amendment (a) to Government amendment 15.
In July, in a little-noticed written ministerial statement, the Government produced a prototype list of content that would be harmful to adults. The list included priority content that category 1 services need to address in their terms and conditions; online abuse and harassment—mere disagreement with another’s point of view would not reach the threshold for harmful content, and so would not be covered; circulation of real or manufactured intimate images without the subject’s consent; content promoting self-harm; content promoting eating disorders; legal suicide content; and harmful health content that is demonstrably false, such as urging people to drink bleach to cure cancer.
We have concerns about whether listing those harms in the Bill is the most effective mechanism, mostly because we feel that the list should be more flexible and able to change according to the issues of the day, but it is clear that the Government will continue to pursue this avenue despite some very worrying gaps. With that in mind, will the Minister clarify what exactly underpins that list if there have been no risk assessments? What was the basis for drawing up that specific list? Surely the Government should be implored to publish the research that determined the list, at the very least.
I recognise that the false communications offence has remained in the Bill, but the list in Government amendment 15 is not exhaustive. Without the additions outlined in our amendment (a) to amendment 15, the list will do little to tackle some of the most pressing harm of our time, some of which we have already heard about today.
I am pleased that the list from the written ministerial statement has more or less been reproduced in amendment 15, under subsection (2), but there is a key and unexplained omission that our amendment (a) to it seeks to correct: the absence of the last point, on harmful health content. Amendment (a) seeks to reinsert such important content into the Bill directly. It seems implausible that the Government failed to consider the dangerous harm that health misinformation can have online, especially given that back in July they seemed to have a grasp of its importance by including it in the original list.
We all know that health-related misinformation and disinformation can significantly undermine public health, as we have heard. We only have to cast our minds back to the height of the coronavirus pandemic to remind ourselves of how dangerous the online space was, with anti-vax scepticism being rife. Many groups were impacted, including pregnant women, who received mixed messages about the safety of covid vaccination, causing widespread confusion, fear and inaction. By tabling amendment (a) to amendment 15, we wanted to understand why the Government have dropped that from the list and on what exact grounds.
In addition to harmful health content, our amendment (a) to amendment 15 would also add to the list content that incites hateful extremism and provides false information about climate change, as we have heard. In early written evidence from Carnegie, it outlined how serious the threat of climate change disinformation is to the UK. Malicious actors spreading false information on social media could undermine collective action to combat the threats. At present, the Online Safety Bill is not designed to tackle those threats head on.
We all recognise that social media is an important source of news and information for many people, and evidence is emerging of its role in climate change disinformation. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate published a report in 2021 called “The Toxic Ten: How ten fringe publishers fuel 69% of digital climate change denial”, which explores the issue further. Further analysis of activity on Facebook around COP26 undertaken by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue demonstrates the scale of the challenge in dealing with climate change misinformation and disinformation. The research compared the levels of engagement generated by reliable, scientific organisations and climate-sceptic actors, and found that posts from the latter frequently received more traction and reach than the former, which is shocking. For example, in the fortnight in which COP26 took place, sceptic content garnered 12 times the level of engagement that authoritative sources did on the platform, and 60% of the sceptic posts analysed could be classified as actively and explicitly attacking efforts to curb climate change, which just goes to show the importance of ensuring that climate change disinformation is also included in the list in Government amendment 15.
Our two amendments—amendment (a) to amendment 15, and amendment (a) to amendment 16 —seek to ensure that the long-standing omission from the Bill of hateful extremism is put right here as a priority. There is increasing concern about extremism leading to violence and death that does not meet the definition for terrorism. The internet and user-to-user services play a central role in the radicalisation process, yet the Online Safety Bill does not cover extremism.
Colleagues may be aware that Sara Khan, the former lead commissioner for countering extremism, provided a definition of extremism for the Government in February 2021, but there has been no response. The issue has been raised repeatedly by Members across the House, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), following the tragic murders carried out by a radicalised incel in his constituency.
Amendment (a) to amendment 16 seeks to bring a formal definition of hateful extremism into the Bill and supports amendment (a) to amendment 15. The definition, as proposed by Sara Khan, who was appointed as Britain’s first countering extremism commissioner in 2018, is an important first step in addressing the gaps that social media platforms and providers have left open for harm and radicalisation.
Social media platforms have often been ineffective in removing other hateful extremist content. In November 2020, The Guardian reported that research from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate had uncovered how extremist merchandise had been sold on Facebook and Instagram to help fund neo-Nazi groups. That is just one of a huge number of instances, and it goes some way to suggest that a repeatedly inconsistent and ineffective approach to regulating extremist content is the one favoured by some social media platforms.
I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the amendments and will see the merits in expanding the list in Government amendment 15 to include these additional important harms.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you for chairing the meeting this afternoon, Dame Angela. I agree wholeheartedly with the amendments tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team. It is important that we talk about climate change denial and what we can do to ensure people are not exposed to that harmful conspiracy theory through content. It is also important that we do what we can to ensure that pregnant women, for example, are not told not to take the covid vaccine or that parents are not told not to vaccinate their children against measles, mumps and rubella. We need to do what we can to ensure measures are in place.
I appreciate the list in Government amendment 15, but I have real issues with this idea of a toggle system—of being able to switch off this stuff. Why do the Government think people should have to switch off the promotion of suicide content or content that promotes eating disorders? Why is it acceptable that people should have to make an active choice to switch that content off in order to not see it? People have to make an active choice to tick a box that says, “No, I don’t want to see content that is abusing me because of my religion,” or “No, I don’t want to see content that is abusing me because of my membership of the LGBT community.” We do not want people to have to look through the abuse they are receiving in order to press the right buttons to switch it off. As the hon. Member for Don Valley said, people should be allowed to say what they want online, but the reality is that the extremist content that we have seen published online is radicalising people and bringing them to the point that they are taking physical action against people in the real, offline world as well as taking action online.
Damian Collins
I rise briefly to say that the introduction of the shields is a significant additional safety measure in the Bill and shows that the Government have thought about how to improve certain safety features as the Bill has progressed.
In the previous version of the Bill, as we have discussed at length, there were the priority legal offences that companies had to proactively identify and mitigate, and there were the measures on transparency and accountability on the terms of service. However, if pieces of content fell below the threshold for the priority legal offences or were not covered, or if they were not addressed in the terms of service, the previous version of the Bill never required the companies to act in any particular way. Reports might be done by Ofcom raising concerns, but there was no requirement for further action to be taken if the content was not a breach of platform policies or the priority safety duties.
The additional measure before us says that there may be content where there is no legal basis for removal, but users nevertheless have the right to have that content blocked. Many platforms offer ad tools already—they are not perfect, but people can opt in to say that they do not want to see ads for particular types of content—but there was nothing for the types of content covered by the Online Safety Bill, where someone could say, “I want to make sure I protect myself from seeing this at all,” and then, for the more serious content, “I expect the platforms to take action to mitigate it.” So this measure is an important additional level of protection for adult users, which allows them to give themselves the certainty that they will not see certain types of content and puts an important, additional duty on the companies themselves.
Briefly, on the point about gambling, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is quite right to say that someone can self-exclude from gambling at the betting shop, but the advertising code already requires that companies do not target people who have self-excluded with advertising messages. As the Government complete their online advertising review, which is a separate piece of work, it is important that that is effectively enforced on big platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to ensure that they do not allow companies to advertise to vulnerable users in breach of the code. However, that can be done outside the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
My concern is not just about advertising content or stuff that is specifically considered as an advert. If someone put up a TikTok video about how to cheat an online poker system, that would not be classed as an advert and therefore would not be caught. People would still be able to see it, and could not opt out.
Damian Collins
I totally appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes, which is a different one. For gambling, the inducement to act straightaway often comes in the form of advertising. It usually comes in the form of free bets and immediate inducements to act. People who have self-excluded should not be targeted in that way. We need to ensure that that is rigorously enforced on online platforms too.
Kim Leadbeater
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. It is lovely to be back in a Public Bill Committee with many familiar faces—and a few new ones, including the Minister. However, after devoting many weeks earlier this year to the previous Committee, I must admit that it is with some frustration that we are back here with the Government intent on further weakening their Bill.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have raised a number of specific concerns, from democratic and journalistic exemptions, to age verification, recognised news publishers, advocacy bodies and media literacy. On clause 14, while I support the principles of Government amendments 15 and 16, I draw the Minister’s attention to the importance of amendment (a) to amendment 15 and amendment (a) to amendment 16. He has already said that he is sympathetic to those amendments. Let me try to convince him to turn that sympathy into action.
I will focus primarily on an issue that is extremely important to me and to many others: extremism and radicalisation. However, while I will focus on the dangers of extremism and radicalisation, be it right-wing, Islamist, incel or other, the dangers that I am about to set out—the chain of events that leads to considerable harm online—are the same for self-harm content, eating disorder content, health disinformation, climate change disinformation or any dangerous, hateful material directed at people based on their sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or other characteristics.
Such content is not just deeply offensive and often wholly inaccurate; it is dangerous and vile and serves only to spread harm, misinformation and conspiracy. To be clear, such content is not about a social media user stating how upset and angry they are about the football result, or somebody disagreeing legitimately and passionately about a political issue. It is not the normal, everyday social media content that most people see on their feeds.
This is content that is specifically, carefully and callously designed to sit just below the criminal threshold, yet that can still encourage violence, self-harm or worse. It is content used by extremists of all types that lures vulnerable people in, uses social media likes and comments to create the illusion of legitimacy and popularity, and then directly targets those most likely to be susceptible, encouraging them either to commit harm or to move on to smaller but high-harm platforms that may fall out of the scope of the Bill. This is not free speech; it is content that can act as a dangerous gateway to radicalisation and extremism. The Government know how dangerous it is because their own report from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service last year found:
“The Internet appears to be playing an increasingly prominent role in radicalisation processes of those convicted of extremist offences in England and Wales.”
Hon. Members will understand my deep and personal interest in this matter. Since the murder of my sister, a Member of this House, six and a half years ago by a far-right extremist, I have worked hard to bring communities and people together in the face of hatred. Some of that work has included meeting former extremists and discussing how they were radicalised. Those conversations were never easy, but what became very clear to me was that such people are not born extremists. Their radicalisation starts somewhere, and it is often somewhere that appears to be completely innocent, such as a Facebook group about issues or problems in their community, a Twitter discussion about current affairs or the state of the country, or even a page for supporters of their football team.
One day, a comment is posted that is not illegal and is not hate speech, but that references a conspiracy or a common trope. It is an ideological remark placed there to test the water. The conversation moves on and escalates. More disturbing or even violent comments start to be made. They might be accompanied by images or videos, leading those involved down a more sinister path. Nothing yet is illegal, but clearly—I hope we would all agree—it is unacceptable.
The number of contributors reduces, but a few remain. No warnings are presented, no flags are raised and it appears like normal social media content. However, the person reading it might be lonely or vulnerable, and now feels that they have found people to listen to them. They might be depressed or unhappy and looking to blame their situation on something or someone. They might feel that nobody understands them, but these people seem to.
The discussion is then taken to a more private place, to the smaller but more harmful platforms that may fall outside the scope of the Bill, but that will now become the go-to place for spreading extremism, misinformation and other harmful content. The radicalisation continues there—harder to track, harder to monitor and harder to stop. Let us remember, however, that all of that started with those legal but harmful comments being witnessed. They were clearly unacceptable, but mainstream social media give them legitimacy. The Online Safety Bill will do nothing to stop that.
Unfortunately, that chain of events occurs far too often. It is a story told many times, about how somebody vulnerable is lured in by those wishing to spread their hatred. It is hosted by major social media platforms. Hon. Members may remember the case of John, a teenager radicalised online and subsequently sentenced. His story was covered by The Guardian last year. John was feeling a sense of hopelessness, which left him susceptible to the messaging of the far right. Aged 15, he felt “written off”: he was in the bottom set at school, with zero exam expectations, and feeling that his life opportunities would be dismal. The far right, however, promised him a future. John became increasingly radicalised by an online barrage of far-right disinformation. He said:
“I was relying on the far right for a job. They were saying that when they got power they would be giving jobs to people like me”.
John now says:
“Now I know the posts were all fake, but the 15-year-old me didn’t bother to fact-check.”
For some people in the room, that might seem like a totally different world. Thankfully, for most of us, it is. However, if Members take the time to see some of that stuff online, it is extremely disturbing and alarming. It is a world that we do not understand, but we have to be aware that it exists. The truth, as we can see, is that such groups use popular online platforms to lure in young people and give them a sense of community. One white nationalist group actively targets younger recruits and recently started Call of Duty warcraft gaming tournaments for its supporters. Let us be clear: John was 15, but he could easily have been 18, 19 or indeed significantly older.
John was radicalised by the far right, but we know that similar methods are used by Islamist extremists. A 2020 report from New York University’s Centre for Global Affairs stated:
“The age of social media has allowed ISIS to connect with a large-scale global audience that it would not be able to reach without it...Through strategic targeting, ISIS selects those who are most vulnerable and susceptible to radicalization”.
That includes those who are
“searching for meaning or purpose in their life, feeling anger and…alienated from society”.
The ages that are most vulnerable are 15 to 25.
Social media platforms allow ISIS to present its propaganda as mainstream news at little to no cost. Preventing that harm and breaking those chains of radicalisation is, however, possible, and the Bill could go much further to put the responsibility not on the user, but on the platforms. I believe that those platforms need unique regulation, because social media interaction is fundamentally different from real-life social interaction.
Social media presents content to us as if it is the only voice and viewpoint. On social media, people are far more likely to say things that they never would in person. On social media, those views spread like wildfire in a way that they would not in real life. On social media, algorithms find such content and pump it towards us, in a way that can become overwhelming and that can provide validity and reassurance where doubt might otherwise set in.
Allowing that content to remain online without warnings, or allowing it to be visible to all users unless they go searching through their settings to turn it off—which is wholly unrealistic—is a dereliction of duty and a missed opportunity to clean up the platforms and break the chains of radicalisation. As I set out, the chain of events is not unique to one form of radicalisation or hateful content. The same online algorithms that present extremist content to users also promote negative body image, eating disorders, and self-harm and suicide content.
I hope the Committee realises why I am so impassioned about “legal but harmful” clauses, and why I am particularly upset that a few Conservative Members appear to believe that such content should remain unchecked online because of free speech, with full knowledge that it is exactly that content that serves as the gateway for people to self-harm and to be radicalised. That is not free speech.
Paul Scully
I have talked a little already about these amendments, so let me sum up where I think we are. I talked about harmful health content and why it is not included. The Online Safety Bill will force social media companies to tackle health misinformation and disinformation online, where it constitutes a criminal offence. It includes the communications offence, which would capture posts encouraging dangerous hoax cures, where the sender knows the information to be false and intends to cause harm, such as encouraging drinking bleach to cure cancer, which we heard about a little earlier.
The legislation is only one part of the wider Government approach to this issue. It includes the work of the counter-disinformation unit, which brings together cross-Government monitoring and analysis capabilities and engages with platforms directly to ensure that appropriate action is taken, in addition to the Government’s work to build users’ resilience to misinformation through media literacy.
Including harmful health content as a category risks requiring companies to apply the adult user empowerment tools to an unfeasibly large volume of content—way beyond just the vaccine efficacy that was mentioned. That has implications both for regulatory burden and for freedom of expression, as it may capture important health advice. Similarly, on climate change, the Online Safety Bill itself will introduce new transparency, accountability and free speech duties and category one services. If a platform said that certain types of content are not allowed, it will be held to account for their removal.
We recognised that there was a heightened risk of disinformation surrounding the COP26 summit. The counter-disinformation unit led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport brought together monitoring and analysis capabilities across Government to understand disinformation that posed a risk to public safety or to delegates or that represented attempts at interference from malign actors. We are clear that free debate is essential to a democracy and that the counter-disinformation unit should not infringe upon political debate. Government already work closely with the major social media platforms to encourage them to collaborate at speed to remove disinformation as per their terms of service.
Amendment (a) to amendment 15 and amendment (a) to amendment 16 would create that new category of content that incites hateful extremism. That is closely aligned with the approach that the Government are already taking with amendment 15, specifically subsections (8C) and (8D), which create a category of content that is abusive or incites hate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or gender reassignment. Those conditions would likely capture the majority of the kinds of content that the hon. Members are seeking to capture through their hateful extremism category. For example, it would capture antisemitic abuse and conspiracy theories, racist abuse and promotion of racist ideologies.
Furthermore, where companies’ terms of service say they prohibit or apply restrictions to the kind of content listed in the Opposition amendments, companies must ensure that those terms are consistently enforced. It comes back so much to the enforcement. They must also ensure that the terms of service are easily understandable.
Charlotte Nichols
If this is about companies enforcing what is in their terms of service for the use of their platforms, could it not create a perverse incentive for them to have very little in their terms of service? If they will be punished for not enforcing their terms of service, surely they will want them to be as lax as possible in order to limit their legal liability for enforcing them. Does the Minister follow?
Paul Scully
I follow, but I do not agree. The categories of content in proposed new subsections (8C) and (8D), introduced by amendment 15, underpin a lot of this. I answered the question in an earlier debate when talking about the commercial impetus. I cannot imagine many mainstream advertisers wanting to advertise with a company that removed from its terms of service the exclusion of racial abuse, misogyny and general abuse. We have seen that commercial impetus really kicking in with certain platforms. For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendments to the amendments, and I hope that the Opposition will not press them to a vote.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the opportunity to push the Minister further. I asked him whether he could outline where the list in amendment 15 came from. Will he publish the research that led him to compile that specific list of priority harms?
Paul Scully
The definitions that we have taken are ones that strike the right balance and have a comparatively high threshold, so that they do not capture challenging and robust discussions on controversial topics.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments made: 9, in clause 14, page 14, line 5, after “to” insert “effectively”.
This amendment strengthens the duty in this clause by requiring that the systems or processes used to deal with the kinds of content described in subsections (8B) to (8D) (see Amendment 15) should be designed to effectively increase users’ control over such content.
Amendment 10, in clause 14, page 14, line 6, leave out from “encountering” to “the” in line 7 and insert
“content to which subsection (2) applies present on”.
This amendment inserts a reference to the kinds of content now relevant for this clause, instead of referring to priority content that is harmful to adults.
Amendment 11, in clause 14, page 14, line 9, leave out from “to” to end of line 10 and insert
“content present on the service that is a particular kind of content to which subsection (2) applies”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment inserts a reference to the kinds of content now relevant for this clause, instead of referring to priority content that is harmful to adults.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 14, page 14, line 12, leave out “made available to” and insert “in operation for”.
This amendment, and Amendment 103, relate to the tools proposed in Clause 14 which will be available for individuals to use on platforms to protect themselves from harm. This amendment specifically forces platforms to have these safety tools “on” by default.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 103, in clause 14, page 14, line 15, leave out “take advantage of” and insert “disapply”.
This amendment relates to Amendment 102.
Alex Davies-Jones
The amendments relate to the tools proposed in clause 14, which as we know will be available for individuals to use on platforms to protect themselves from harm. As the Minister knows, Labour fundamentally disagrees with that approach, which will place the onus on the user, rather than the platform, to protect themselves from harmful content. It is widely recognised that the purpose of this week’s Committee proceedings is to allow the Government to remove the so-called “legal but harmful” clauses and replace them with the user empowerment tool option. Let us be clear that that goes against the very essence of the Bill, which was created to address the particular way in which social media allows content to be shared, spread and broadcast around the world at speed.
This approach could very well see a two-tier internet system develop, which leaves those of us who choose to utilise the user empowerment tools ignorant of harmful content perpetuated elsewhere for others to see. The tools proposed in clause 14, however, reflect something that we all know to be true: that there is some very harmful content out there for us all to see online. We can all agree that individuals should therefore have access to the appropriate tools to protect themselves. It is also right that providers will be required to ensure that adults have greater choice and control over the content that they see and engage with, but let us be clear that instead of focusing on defining exactly what content is or is not harmful, the Bill should focus on the processes by which harmful content is amplified on social media.
However, we are where we are, and Labour believes that it is better to have the Bill over the line, with a regulator in place with some powers, than simply to do nothing at all. With that in mind, we have tabled the amendment specifically to force platforms to have safety tools on by default. We believe that the user empowerment tools should be on by default and that they must be appropriately visible and easy to use. We must recognise that for people at a point of crisis—if a person is suffering with depressive or suicidal thoughts, or with significant personal isolation, for example—the tools may not be at the forefront of their minds if their mental state is severely impacted.
On a similar point, we must not patronise the public. Labour sees no rational argument why the Government would not support the amendment. We should all assume that if a rational adult is able to easily find and use these user empowerment tools, then they will be easily able to turn them off if they choose to do so.
The Minister knows that I am not in the habit of guessing but, judging from our private conversations, his rebuttal to my points may be because he believes it is not the Government’s role to impose rules directly on platforms, particularly when they impact their functionality. However, for Labour, the existence of harm and the importance of protecting people online tips the balance in favour of turning these user empowerment tools on by default. We see no negative reason why that should not be the case, and we now have a simple amendment that could have a significantly positive impact.
I hope the Minister and colleagues will reflect strongly on these amendments, as we believe they are a reasonable and simple ask of platforms to do the right thing and have the user empowerment tools on by default.
Kirsty Blackman
Once again, this is a very smart amendment that I wish I had thought of myself and I am happy to support. The case made by those campaigning for freedom of speech at any cost is about people being able to say what they want to say, no matter how harmful that may be. It is not about requiring me, or anyone else, to read those things—the harmful bile, the holocaust denial or the promotion of suicide that is spouted. It is not freedom of speech to require someone else to see and read such content so I cannot see any potential argument that the Government could come up with against these amendments.
The amendments have nothing to do with freedom of speech or with limiting people’s ability to say whatever they want to say or to promote whatever untruths they want to promote. However, they are about making sure that people are protected and that they are starting from a position of having to opt in if they want to see harmful content. If I want to see content about holocaust denial—I do not want to see that, but if I did—I should have to clearly tick a button that says, “Yes, I am pretty extreme in my views and I want to see things that are abusing people. I want to see that sort of content.” I should have to opt in to be able to see that.
There are a significant number of newspapers out there. I will not even pick up a lot of them because there is so much stuff in them with which I disagree, but I can choose not to pick them up. I do not have that newspaper served to me against my will because I have the opportunity to choose to opt out from buying it. I do not have to go into the supermarket and say, “No, please do not give me that newspaper!” I just do not pick it up. If we put the Government’s proposal on its head and do what has been suggested in the Opposition amendments, everyone would be in a much better position.
Charlotte Nichols
I note that many providers of 4G internet, including the one I have on my own phone, already block adult content. Essentially, if people want to look at pornography or other forms of content, they have to proactively opt in to be allowed to see it. Would it not make sense to make something as straightforward as that, which already exists, into the model that we want on the internet more widely, as opposed to leaving it to EE and others to do?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. Another point that has been made is that this is not creating undue burden; the Government are already creating the burden for companies—I am not saying that it is a bad burden, but the Government are already creating it. We just want people to have the opportunity to opt into it, or out of it. That is the position that we are in.
Kim Leadbeater
I will speak briefly in favour of amendments 102 and 103. As I mentioned a few moments ago, legal but harmful content can act as the gateway to dangerous radicalisation and extremism. Such content, hosted by mainstream social media platforms, should not be permitted unchecked online. I appreciate tható for children the content will be banned, but I strongly believe that the default position should be for such content to be hidden by default to all adult users, as the amendments would ensure.
The chain of events that leads to radicalisation, as I spelt out, relies on groups and individuals reaching people unaware that they are being radicalised. The content is posted in otherwise innocent Facebook groups, forums or Twitter threads. Adding a toggle, hidden somewhere in users’ settings, which few people know about or use, will do nothing to stop that. It will do nothing to stop the harmful content from reaching vulnerable and susceptible users.
We, as legislators, have an obligation to prevent at root that harmful content reaching and drawing in those vulnerable and susceptible to the misinformation and conspiracy spouted by vile groups and individuals wishing to spread their harm. The only way that we can make meaningful progress is by putting the responsibility squarely on platforms, to ensure that by default users do not come across the content in the first place.
Paul Scully
In the previous debate, I talked about amendment 15, which brought in a lot of protections against content that encourages and promotes, or provides instruction for, self-harm, suicide or eating disorders, and against content that is abusive or incites hate on the base of race, religion, disability, sex, gender reassignment or sexual orientation. We have also placed a duty on the largest platforms to offer adults the option to filter out unverified users if they so wish. That is a targeted approach that reflects areas where vulnerable users in particular could benefit from having greater choice and control. I come back to the fact that that is the third shield and an extra safety net. A lot of the extremes we have heard about, which have been used as debating points, as important as they are, should very much be wrapped up by the first two shields.
We have a targeted approach, but it is based on choice. It is right that adult users have a choice about what they see online and who they interact with. It is right that this choice lies in the hands of those adults. The Government mandating that these tools be on by default goes against the central aim of users being empowered to choose for themselves whether they want to reduce their engagement with some kinds of legal content.
We have been clear right from the beginning that it is not the Government’s role to say what legal content adults should or should not view online or to incentivise the removal of legal content. That is why we removed the adult legal but harmful duties in the first place. I believe we are striking the right balance between empowering adult users online and protecting freedom of expression. For that reason, I am not able to accept the amendments from the hon. Member for Pontypridd.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is disappointing that the Government are refusing to back these amendments to place the toggle as “on” by default. It is something that we see as a safety net, as the Minister described. Why would someone have to choose to have the safety net there? If someone does not want it, they can easily take it away. The choice should be that way around, because it is there to protect all of us.
Charlotte Nichols
I am sure that, like me, the shadow Minister will be baffled that the Government are against our proposals to have to opt out. Surely this is something that is of key concern to the Government, given that the former MP for Tiverton and Honiton might still be an MP if users had to opt in to watching pornography, rather than being accidentally shown it when innocently searching for tractors?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It goes to show the nature of this as a protection for all of us, even MPs, from accessing content that could be harmful to our health or, indeed, profession. Given the nature of the amendment, we feel that this is a safety net that should be available to all. It should be on by default.
Paul Scully
I should say that in the spirit of choice, companies can also choose to default it to be switched off in the first place as well.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Minister makes the point that companies can choose to have it off by default, but we would not need this Bill in the first place if companies did the right thing. Let us be clear: we would not have had to be here debating this for the past five years —for me it has been 12 months—if companies were going to do the right thing and protect people from harmful content online. On that basis, I will push the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 14, page 14, line 17, at end insert—
“(6A) A duty to ensure features and provisions in subsections (2), (4) and (6) are accessible and understandable to adult users with learning disabilities.”
This amendment creates a duty that user empowerment functions must be accessible and understandable to adult users with learning disabilities.
This issue was originally brought to my attention by Mencap. It is incredibly important, and it has potentially not been covered adequately by either our previous discussions of the Bill or the Bill itself. The amendment is specifically about ensuring that available features are accessible to adult users with learning disabilities. An awful lot of people use the internet, and people should not be excluded from using it and having access to safety features because they have a learning disability. That should not be the case, for example, when someone is trying to find how to report something on a social media platform. I had an absolute nightmare trying to report a racist gif that was offered in the list of gifs that came up. There is no potential way to report that racist gif to Facebook because it does not take responsibility for it, and GIPHY does not take responsibility for it because it might not be a GIPHY gif.
It is difficult to find the ways to report some of this stuff and to find some of the privacy settings. Even when someone does find the privacy settings, on a significant number of these platforms they do not make much sense—they are not understandable. I am able to read fairly well, I would think, and I am able to speak in the House of Commons, but I still do not understand some of the stuff in the privacy features found on some social media sites. I cannot find how to toggle off things that I want to toggle off on the level of accessibility or privacy that I have, particularly on social media platforms; I will focus on those for the moment. The Bill will not achieve even its intended purpose if all people using these services cannot access or understand the safety features and user empowerment tools.
I am quite happy to talk about the difference between the real world and the online world. My online friends have no problem with me talking about the real world as if it is something different, because it is. In the real world, we have a situation where things such as cuckooing take place and people take advantage of vulnerable adults. Social services, the police and various organisations are on the lookout for that and try to do what they can to put protections in place. I am asking for more parity with the real world here. Let us ensure that we have the protections in place, and that people who are vulnerable and taken advantage of far too often have access to those tools in order to protect themselves. It is particularly reasonable.
Let us say that somebody with a learning disability particularly likes cats; the Committee may have worked out that I also particularly like cats. Let us say that they want to go on TikTok or YouTube and look at videos of cats. They have to sign up to watch videos of cats. They may not have the capacity or understanding to know that there might be extreme content on those sites. They may not be able to grasp that. It may never cross their minds that there could be extreme content on that site. When they are signing up to TikTok, they should not have to go and find the specific toggle to switch off eating disorder content. All they had thought about was that this is a cool place to look at videos of cats.
Paul Scully
I am happy to do that. In the same way that we spoke this morning about children’s protection, I am very aware of the terms of service and what people are getting into by looking for cats or whatever they want to do.
The Bill requires providers to make all the usual enforcement and protection tools available to all adults, including those with learning disabilities. Clause 14(4) makes it explicitly clear that features offered by providers, in compliance with the duty for users to be given greater control over the content that they see, must be made available to all adult users. Clause 14(5) further outlines that providers must have clear and accessible terms of service about what tools are offered in their service and how users may take advantage of them. We have strengthened the accessibility of the user enforcement duties through Government amendment 12 as well, to make sure that user enforcement tools and features are easy for users to access.
In addition, clause 58(1) says that providers must offer all adult users the option to verify themselves so that vulnerable users, including those with learning disabilities, are not at a disadvantage as a result of the user empowerment duties. Clause 59(2) and (3) further stipulate that in producing the guidance for providers about the user verification duty, Ofcom must have particular regard to the desirability of making identity verification available to vulnerable adult users, and must consult with persons who represent the interests of vulnerable adult users. That is about getting the thoughts of experts and advocates into their processes to make sure that they can enforce what is going on.
In addition, Ofcom is subject to the public sector equality duty, so it will have to take into account the ways in which people with disabilities may be impacted when performing its duties, such as writing its codes of practice for the user empowerment duty. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate the fact that, in a holistic way, that covers the essence of exactly what she is trying to do in her amendment, so I do not believe her amendment is necessary.
Kirsty Blackman
In view of the Minister’s statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 13, in clause 14, page 14, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) the likelihood of adult users encountering content to which subsection (2) applies by means of the service, and”
This amendment is about factors relevant to the proportionality of measures to comply with the duty in subsection (2). The new wording replaces a reference to an adults’ risk assessment, as adults’ risk assessments are no longer required (see Amendment 6 which removes clause 12).
Amendment 14, in clause 14, page 14, line 29, leave out “a” and insert “the”.—(Paul Scully.)
This is a technical amendment consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment (a) proposed to amendment 15: (a), at end insert—
“(8E) Content is within this subsection if it—
(a) incites hateful extremism,
(b) provides false information about climate change, or
(c) is harmful to health.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 18, page 19, line 32, leave out from “also” to second “section”.
This is a technical amendment relating to Amendment 20.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 20 and 21, 26 and 27, 30, 34 and 35, 67, 71, 46 and 47, 50, 53, 55 to 57, and 95.
Government new clause 3—Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service.
Government new clause 4—Further duties about terms of service.
Government new clause 5—OFCOM’s guidance about duties set out in sections (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) and (Further
duties about terms of service).
Government new clause 6—Interpretation of this Chapter.
Paul Scully
I am seeking to impose new duties on category 1 services to ensure that they are held accountable to their terms of service and to protect free speech. Under the status quo, companies get to decide what we do and do not see online. They can arbitrarily ban users or remove their content without offering any form of due process and with very few avenues for users to achieve effective redress. On the other hand, companies’ terms of service are often poorly enforced, if at all.
I have mentioned before the horrendous abuse suffered by footballers around the 2020 Euro final, despite most platforms’ terms and conditions clearly not allowing that sort of content. There are countless similar instances, for example, relating to antisemitic abuse—as we have heard—and other forms of hate speech, that fall below the criminal threshold.
This group of amendments relates to a series of new duties that will fundamentally reset the relationship between platforms and their users. The duties will prevent services from arbitrarily removing content or suspending users without offering users proper avenues to appeal. At the same time, they will stop companies making empty promises to their users about their terms of service. The duties will ensure that where companies say they will remove content or ban a user, they actually do.
Government new clause 3 is focused on protecting free speech. It would require providers of category 1 services to remove or restrict access to content, or ban or suspend users, only where this is consistent with their terms of service. Ofcom will oversee companies’ systems and processes for discharging those duties, rather than supervising individual decisions.
Damian Collins
I am grateful for what the Minister has said, and glad that Ofcom will have a role in seeing that companies do not remove content that is not in breach of terms of service where there is no legal requirement to do so. In other areas of the Bill where these duties exist, risk assessments are to be conducted and codes of practice are in place. Will there similarly be risk assessments and codes of practice to ensure that companies comply with their freedom of speech obligations?
Paul Scully
Absolutely. As I say, it is really important that people understand right at the beginning, through risk assessments, what they are signing up for and what they can expect. To come back to the point of whether someone is an adult or a child, it is really important that parents lean in when it comes to children’s protections; that is a very important tool in the armoury.
New clause 4 will require providers of category 1 services to ensure that what their terms of service say about their content moderation policies is clear and accessible. Those terms have to be easy for users to understand, and should have sufficient detail, so that users know what to expect, in relation to moderation actions. Providers of category 1 services must apply their terms of service consistently, and they must have in place systems and processes that enable them to enforce their terms of service consistently.
These duties will give users the ability to report any content or account that they suspect does not meet a platform’s terms of service. They will also give users the ability to make complaints about platforms’ moderation actions, and raise concerns if their content is removed in error. Providers will be required to take appropriate action in response to complaints. That could include removing content that they prohibit, or reinstating content removed in error. These duties ensure that providers are made aware of issues to do with their services and require them to take action to resolve them, to keep users safe, and to uphold users’ rights to free speech.
The duties set out in new clauses 3 and 4 will not apply to illegal content, content that is harmful to children or consumer content. That is because illegal content and content that is harmful to children are covered by existing duties in the Bill, and consumer content is already regulated under consumer protection legislation. Companies will also be able to remove any content where they have a legal obligation to do so, or where the user is committing a criminal offence, even if that is not covered in their terms of service.
New clause 5 will require Ofcom to publish guidance to help providers of category 1 services to understand what they need to do to comply with their new duties. That could include guidance on how to make their terms of service clear and easy for users to understand, and how to operate an effective reporting and redress mechanism. The guidance will not prescribe what types of content companies should include in their terms of service, or how they should treat such content. That will be for companies to decide, based on their knowledge of their users, and their brand and commercial incentives, and subject to their other legal obligations.
New clause 6 clarifies terms used in new clauses 3 and 4. It also includes a definition of “Consumer content”, which is excluded from the main duties in new clauses 3 and 4. This covers content that is already regulated by the Competition and Markets Authority and other consumer protection bodies, such as content that breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. These definitions are needed to provide clarity to companies seeking to comply with the duties set out in new clauses 3 and 4.
The remaining amendments to other provisions in the Bill are consequential on the insertion of these new transparency, accountability and free speech duties. They insert references to the new duties in, for example, the provisions about content reporting, enforcement, transparency and reviewing compliance. That will ensure that the duties apply properly to the new measure.
Amendment 30 removes the duty on platforms to include clear and accessible provisions in their terms of service informing users that they have a right of action in court for breach of contract if a platform removes or restricts access to their content in violation of its terms of service. This is so that the duty can be moved to new clause 4, which focuses on ensuring that platforms comply with their terms of service. The replacement duty in new clause 4 will go further than the original duty, in that it will cover suspensions and bans of users as well as restrictions on content.
Amendments 46 and 47 impose a new duty on Ofcom to have regard to the need for it to be clear to providers of category 1 services what they must do to comply with their new duties. These amendments will also require Ofcom to have regard to the extent to which providers of category 1 services are demonstrating, in a transparent and accountable way, how they are complying with their new duties.
Lastly, amendment 95 temporarily exempts video-sharing platforms that are category 1 services from the new terms of service duties, as set out in new clauses 3 and 4, until the Secretary of State agrees that the Online Safety Bill is sufficiently implemented. This approach simultaneously maximises user protections by the temporary continuation of the VSP regime and minimises burdens for services and Ofcom. The changes are central to the Government’s intention to hold companies accountable for their promises. They will protect users in a way that is in line with companies’ terms of service. They are a critical part of the triple shield, which aims to protect adults online. It ensures that users are safe by requiring companies to remove illegal content, enforce their terms of service and provide users with tools to control their online experiences. Equally, these changes prevent arbitrary or random content removal, which helps to protect pluralistic and robust debate online. For those reasons, I hope that Members can support the amendments.
Alex Davies-Jones
This is an extremely large grouping so, for the sake of the Committee, I will do my best to keep my comments focused and brief where possible. I begin by addressing Government new clauses 3 and 4 and the consequential amendments.
Government new clause 3 introduces new duties that aim to ensure that the largest or most risky online service providers design systems and processes that ensure they cannot take down or restrict content in a way prevents a person from seeing it without further action by the user, or ban users, except in accordance with their own terms of service, or if the content breaks the law or contravenes the Online Safety Bill regime. This duty is referred to as the duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service. In reality, that will mean that the focus remains far too much on the banning, taking down and restriction of content, rather than our considering the systems and processes behind the platforms that perpetuate harm.
Labour has long held the view that the Government have gone down an unhelpful cul-de-sac on free speech. Instead of focusing on defining exactly which content is or is not harmful, the Bill should be focused on the processes by which harmful content is amplified on social media. We must recognise that a person posting a racist slur online that nobody notices, shares or reads is significantly less harmful than a post that can quickly go viral, and can within hours gain millions of views or shares. We have talked a lot in this place about Kanye West and the comments he has made on Twitter in the past few weeks. It is safe to say that a comment by Joe Bloggs in Hackney that glorifies Hitler does not have the same reach or produce the same harm as Kanye West saying exactly the same thing to his 30 million Twitter followers.
Our approach has the benefit of addressing the things that social media companies can control—for example, how content spreads—rather than the things they cannot control, such as what people say online. It reduces the risk to freedom of speech because it tackles how content is shared, rather than relying entirely on taking down harmful content. Government new clause 4 aims to improve the effectiveness of platforms’ terms of service in conjunction with the Government’s new triple shield, which the Committee has heard a lot about, but the reality is they are ultimately seeking to place too much of the burden of protection on extremely flexible and changeable terms of service.
If a provider’s terms of service say that certain types of content are to be taken down or restricted, then providers must run systems and processes to ensure that that can happen. Moreover, people must be able to report breaches easily, through a complaints service that delivers appropriate action, including when the service receives complaints about the provider. This “effectiveness” duty is important but somewhat misguided.
The Government, having dropped some of the “harmful but legal” provisions, seem to expect that if large and risky services—the category 1 platforms—claim to be tackling such material, they must deliver on that promise to the customer and user. This reflects a widespread view that companies may pick and choose how to apply their terms of service, or implement them loosely and interchangeably, as we have heard. Those failings will lead to harm when people encounter things that they would not have thought would be there when they signed up. All the while, service providers that do not fall within category 1 need not enforce their terms of service, or may do so erratically or discriminatorily. That includes search engines, no matter how big.
This large bundle of amendments seems to do little to actually keep people safe online. I have already made my concerns about the Government’s so-called triple shield approach to internet safety clear, so I will not repeat myself. We fundamentally believe that the Government’s approach, which places too much of the onus on the user rather than the platform, is wrong. We therefore cannot support the approach that is taken in the amendments. That being said, the Minister can take some solace from knowing that we see the merits of Government new clause 5, which
“requires OFCOM to give guidance to providers about complying with the duties imposed by NC3 and NC4”.
If this is the avenue that the Government insist on going down, it is absolutely vital that providers are advised by Ofcom on the processes they will be required to take to comply with these new duties.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendment made: 20, in clause 18, page 19, line 33, at end insert
“, and
(b) section (Further duties about terms of service)(5)(a) (reporting of content that terms of service allow to be taken down or restricted).”—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment inserts a signpost to the new provision about content reporting inserted by NC4.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Duties about complaints procedures
Amendment made: 21, in clause 19, page 20, line 15, leave out “, (3) or (4)” and insert “or (3)”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment removes a reference to clause 20(4), as that provision is moved to NC4.
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 19, page 20, line 27, leave out from “down” to “and” in line 28 and insert
“or access to it being restricted, or given a lower priority or otherwise becoming less likely to be encountered by other users,”.
NC2 states what is meant by restricting users’ access to content, and this amendment makes a change in line with that, to avoid any implication that downranking is a form of restriction on access to content.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 59.
Government new clause 2—Restricting users’ access to content.
Paul Scully
These amendments clarify the meaning of “restricting access to content” and “access to content” for the purposes of the Bill. Restricting access to content is an expression that is used in various provisions across the Bill, such as in new clause 2, under which providers of category 1 services will have a duty to ensure that they remove or restrict access to users’ content only where that is in accordance with their terms of service or another legal obligation. There are other such references in clauses 15, 16 and 17.
The amendments make it clear that the expression
“restricting users’ access to content”
covers cases where a provider prevents a user from accessing content without that user taking a prior step, or where content is temporarily hidden from a user. They also make it clear that this expression does not cover any restrictions that the provider puts in place to enable users to apply user empowerment tools to limit the content that they encounter, or cases where access to content is controlled by another user, rather than by the provider.
The amendments are largely technical, but they do cover things such as down-ranking. Amendment 22 is necessary because the previous wording of this provision wrongly suggested that down-ranking was covered by the expression “restricting access to content”. Down-ranking is the practice of giving content a lower priority on a user’s feed. The Government intend that users should be able to complain if they feel that their content has been inappropriately down-ranked as a result of the use of proactive technology. This amendment ensures consistency.
I hope that the amendments provide clarity as to the meaning of restricting access to content for those affected by the Bill, and assist providers with complying with their duties.
Alex Davies-Jones
Again, I will keep my comments on clause 19 brief, as we broadly support the intentions behind the clause and the associated measures in the grouping. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke at length about this important clause, which relates to the all-important complaints procedures available around social media platforms and companies, in the previous Bill Committee.
During the previous Committee, Labour tabled amendments that would have empowered more individuals to make a complaint about search content in the event of non-compliance. In addition, we wanted an external complaints option for individuals seeking redress. Sadly, all those amendments were voted down by the last Committee, but I must once again press the Minister on those points, particularly in the context of the new amendments that have been tabled.
Without redress for individual complaints, once internal mechanisms have been exhausted, victims of online abuse could be left with no further options. Consumer protections could be compromised and freedom of expression, with which the Government seem to be borderline obsessed, could be infringed for people who feel that their content has been unfairly removed.
Government new clause 2 deals with the meaning of references to
“restricting users’ access to content”,
in particular by excluding restrictions resulting from the use of user empowerment tools as described in clause 14. We see amendments 22 and 59 as important components of new clause 2, and are therefore more than happy to support them. However, I reiterate to the Minister and place on the record once again the importance of introducing an online safety ombudsman, which we feel is crucial to new clause 2. The Joint Committee recommended the introduction of such an ombudsman, who would consider complaints when internal routes of redress had not resulted in resolution, had failed to address risk and had led to significant and demonstrable harm. As new clause 2 relates to restricting users’ access to content, we must also ensure that there is an appropriate channel for complaints if there is an issue that users wish to take up around restrictions in accessing content.
By now, the Minister will be well versed in my thoughts on the Government’s approach, and on the reliance on the user empowerment tool approach more broadly. It is fundamentally an error to pursue a regime that is so content-focused. Despite those points, we see the merits in Government amendments 22 and 59, and in new clause 2, so have not sought to table any further amendments at this stage.
Kirsty Blackman
I am slightly confused, and would appreciate a little clarification from the Minister. I understand what new clause 2 means; if the hon. Member for Pontypridd says that she does not want to see content of a certain nature, and I put something of that nature online, I am not being unfairly discriminated against in any way because she has chosen to opt out of receiving that content. I am slightly confused about the downgrading bit.
I know that an awful lot of platforms use downgrading when there is content that they find problematic, or something that they feel is an issue. Rather than taking that content off the platform completely, they may just no longer put it in users’ feeds, for example; they may move it down the priority list, and that may be part of what they already do to keep people safe. I am not trying to criticise what the Government are doing, but I genuinely do not understand whether that downgrading would still be allowed, whether it would be an issue, and whether people could complain about their content being downgraded because the platform was a bit concerned about it, and needed to check it out and work out what was going on, or if it was taken off users’ feeds.
Some companies, if they think that videos have been uploaded by people who are too young to use the platform, or by a registered child user of the platform, will not serve that content to everybody’s feeds. I will not be able to see something in my TikTok feed that was published by a user who is 13, for example, because there are restrictions on how TikTok deals with and serves that content, in order to provide increased protection and the safety that they want on their services.
Will it still be acceptable for companies to have their own internal downgrading system, in order to keep people safe, when content does not necessarily meet an illegality bar or child safety duty bar? The Minister has not used the phrase “market forces”; I think he said “commercial imperative”, and he has talked a lot about that. Some companies and organisations use downgrading to improve the systems on their site and to improve the user experience on the platform. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister explained whether that will still be the case. If not, will we all have a worse online experience as a result?
Paul Scully
I will have a go at that, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady if I do not respond as fully as she wants. Down-ranking content is a moderation action, as she says, but it is not always done just to restrict access to content; there are many reasons why people might want to do it. Through these changes, we are saying that the content is not actually being restricted; it can still be seen if it is searched for or otherwise encountered. That is consistent with the clarification.
Damian Collins
This is quite an important point. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North was talking about recommendation systems. If a platform chooses not to amplify content, that is presumably not covered. As long as the content is accessible, someone could search and find it. That does not inhibit a platform’s decision, for policy reasons or whatever, not to actively promote it.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. There are plenty of reasons why platforms will rank users’ content, including down-ranking it. Providing personal content recommendations will have that process in it as well. It is not practical to specify that restricting access includes down-ranking. That is why we made that change.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendments made: 23, in clause 19, page 21, line 7, leave out from “The” to “complaints” in line 10 and insert
“relevant kind of complaint for Category 1 services is”.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 24, in clause 19, page 21, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 7 (removal of clause 13).
Amendment 25, in clause 19, page 21, line 18, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
This amendment is consequential on the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 26, in clause 19, page 21, line 33, leave out from “also” to second “section”.
This is a technical amendment relating to Amendment 27.
Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 21, line 34, at end insert
“, and
(b) section (Further duties about terms of service)(6) (complaints procedure relating to content that terms of service allow to be taken down or restricted).”—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment inserts a signpost to the new provision about complaints procedures inserted by NC4.
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Duties about freedom of expression and privacy
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 20, page 21, line 42, after “have” insert “particular”.
This amendment has the result that providers of regulated user-to-user services must have particular regard to freedom of expression when deciding on and implementing safety measures and policies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 29, 31, 36 to 38 and 40.
Paul Scully
I will be brief. The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are essential to our democracy. We have long been clear that the Bill must not interfere with those rights. The amendments will further strengthen protections for freedom of expression and privacy and ensure consistency in the Bill. They require regulated user-to-user and search services to have particular regard to freedom of expression and privacy when deciding on and implementing their safety measures and policy.
Amendments 28, 29 and 31 mean that service providers will need to thoroughly consider the impact that their safety and user empowerment measures have on users’ freedom of expression and privacy. That could mean, for example, providing detailed guidance and training for human reviewers about content that is particularly difficult to assess. Amendments 36 and 37 apply that to search services in relation to their safety duties. Ofcom can take enforcement action against services that fail to comply with those duties and will set out steps that platforms can take to safeguard freedom of expression and privacy in their codes of practice.
Those changes will not detract from platforms’ illegal content and child protection duties. Companies must tackle illegal content and ensure that children are protected on their services, but the amendments will protect against platforms taking an over-zealous approach to removing content or undermining users’ privacy when complying with their duties. Amendments 38 and 40 ensure that the rest of the Bill is consistent with those changes. The new duties will therefore ensure that companies give proper consideration to users’ rights when complying with them, and that that is reflected in Ofcom’s codes, providing greater clarity to companies.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendments made: 29, in clause 20, page 22, line 2, after “have” insert “particular”.
This amendment has the result that providers of regulated user-to-user services must have particular regard to users’ privacy when deciding on and implementing safety measures and policies.
Amendment 30, in clause 20, page 22, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment removes clause 20(4), as that provision is moved to NC4.
Amendment 31, in clause 20, page 22, line 37, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) section 14 (user empowerment),”.—(Paul Scully.)
The main effect of this amendment is that providers must consider freedom of expression and privacy issues when deciding on measures and policies to comply with clause 14 (user empowerment). The reference to clause 14 replaces the previous reference to clause 13 (adults’ safety duties), which is now removed (see Amendment 7).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will speak broadly to clause 20, as it is an extremely important clause, before making remarks about the group of Government amendments we have just voted on.
Clause 20 is designed to provide a set of balancing provisions that will require companies to have regard to freedom of expression and privacy when they implement their safety duties. However, as Labour has repeatedly argued, it is important that companies cannot use privacy and free expression as a basis to argue that they can comply with regulations in less substantive ways. That is a genuine fear here.
We all want to see a Bill in place that protects free speech, but that cannot come at the expense of safety online. The situation with regards to content that is harmful to adults has become even murkier with the Government’s attempts to water down the Bill and remove adult risk assessments entirely.
The Minister must acknowledge that there is a balance to be achieved. We all recognise that. The truth is—and this is something that his predecessor, or should I say his predecessor’s predecessor, touched on when we considered this clause in the previous Bill Committee—that at the moment platforms are extremely inconsistent in their approach to getting the balance right. Although Labour is broadly supportive of this clause and the group of amendments, we feel that now is an appropriate time to put on record our concerns over the important balance between safety, transparency and freedom of expression.
Labour has genuine concerns over the future of platforms’ commitment to retaining that balance, particularly if the behaviours following the recent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk are anything to go by. Since Elon Musk took over ownership of the platform, he has repeatedly used Twitter polls, posted from his personal account, as metrics to determine public opinion on platform policy. The general amnesty policy and the reinstatement of Donald Trump both emerged from such polls.
According to former employees, those polls are not only inaccurate representations of the platform’s user base, but are actually
“designed to be spammed and gamed”.
The polls are magnets for bots and other inauthentic accounts. This approach and the reliance on polls have allowed Elon Musk to enact and dictate his platform’s policy on moderation and freedom of expression. Even if he is genuinely trusting the results of these polls and not gamifying them, they do not accurately represent the user base nor the best practices for confronting disinformation and harm online.
Elon Musk uses the results to claim that “the people have spoken”, but they have not. Research from leading anti-hate organisation the Anti-Defamation League shows that far-right extremists and neo-Nazis encouraged supporters to actively re-join Twitter to vote in these polls. The impacts of platforming neo-Nazis on Twitter do not need to be stated. Such users are explicitly trying to promote violent and hateful agendas, and they were banned initially for that exact reason. The bottom line is that those people were banned in line with Twitter’s terms of service at the time, and they should not be re-platformed just because of the findings of one Twitter poll.
These issues are at the very heart of Labour’s concerns in relation to the Bill—that the duties around freedom of expression and privacy will be different for those at the top of the platforms. We support the clause and the group of amendments, but I hope the Minister will be able to address those concerns in his remarks.
Paul Scully
I endorse the general approach set out by the hon. Member for Pontypridd. We do not want to define freedom of speech based on a personal poll carried out on one platform. That is exactly why we are enshrining it in this ground-breaking Bill.
We want to get the balance right. I have talked about the protections for children. We also want to protect adults and give them the power to understand the platforms they are on and the risks involved, while having regard for freedom of expression and privacy. That is a wider approach than one man’s Twitter feed. These clauses are important to ensure that the service providers interpret and implement their safety duties in a proportionate way that limits negative impact on users’ rights to freedom of expression. However, they also have to have regard to the wider definition of freedom of expression, while protecting users, which the rest of the Bill covers in a proportionate way.
Alex Davies-Jones
This goes to the heart of more than just one person’s Twitter feed, although we could say that that person is an incredibly powerful and influential figure on the platform. In the past 24 hours, Twitter has disbanded its trust and safety council. Members of that council included expert groups working to tackle harassment and child sexual exploitation, and to promote human rights. Does the Minister not feel that the council being disbanded goes to the heart of what we have been debating? It shows how a platform can remove its terms of service or change them at whim in order to prevent harm from being perpetrated on that platform.
Paul Scully
I will come back to some of the earlier points. At the end of the day, when platforms change their terms and conditions, which they are free to do, they will be judged by their users and indeed the advertisers from whom they make their money. There are market forces—I will use that phrase as well as “commercial imperative”, to get that one in there—that will drive behaviour. It may be the usability of Facebook, or Twitter’s terms and conditions and the approach of its new owner, that will drive those platforms to alternative users. I am old enough to remember Myspace, CompuServe and AOL, which tried to box people into their walled gardens. What happened to them? Only yesterday, someone from Google was saying that the new artificial intelligence chatbot—ChatGPT—may well disrupt Google. These companies, as big as they are, do not have a right to exist. They have to keep innovating. If they get it wrong, then they get it wrong.
Damian Collins
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is why the Bill is structured in the way it is? We have a wide range of priority illegal offences that companies have to meet, so it is not down to Elon Musk to determine whether he has a policy on race hate. They have to meet the legal standards set, and that is why it is so important to have that wide range of priority illegal offences. If companies go beyond that and have higher safety standards in their terms of service, that is checked as well. However, a company cannot avoid its obligations simply by changing its terms of service.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are putting in those protections, but we want companies to have due regard to freedom of speech.
I want to clarify a point that my hon. Friend made earlier about guidance to the new accountability, transparency and free speech duties. Companies will be free to set any terms of service that they want to, subject to their other legal obligations. That is related to the conversations that we have just been having. Those duties are there to properly enforce the terms of service, and not to remove content or ban users except in accordance with those terms. There will no platform risk assessments or codes of practices associated with those new duties. Instead, Ofcom will issue guidance on how companies can comply with their duties rather than codes of practice. That will focus on how companies set their terms of service, but companies will not be required to set terms directly for specific types of content or cover risks. I hope that is clear.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I agree with the overall sentiment about how we need to protect freedom of expression.
Damian Collins
I want to be clear on my point. My question was not related to how platforms set their terms of service, which is a matter for them and they are held to account for that. If we are now bringing in requirements to say that companies cannot go beyond terms of service or their duties in the Bill if they are going to moderate content, who will oversee that? Will Ofcom have a role in checking whether platforms are over-moderating, as the Minister referred to earlier? In that case, where those duties exist elsewhere in the Bill, we have codes of practice in place to make sure it is clear what companies should and should not do. We do not seem to be doing that with this issue.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. We have captured that in other parts of the Bill, but I wanted to make that specific bit clear because I am not sure whether I understood or answered my hon. Friend’s question correctly at the time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Record-keeping and review duties
Amendments made: 32, in clause 21, page 23, line 5, leave out “, 10 or 12” and insert “or 10”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6 (removal of clause 12).
Amendment 33, in clause 21, page 23, line 45, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 7 (removal of clause 13).
Amendment 34, in clause 21, page 24, line 6, leave out “section” and insert “sections”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 35.
Amendment 35, in clause 21, page 24, line 6, at end insert—
“, (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) and (Further duties about terms of service) (duties about terms of service).”—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment ensures that providers have a duty to review compliance with the duties set out in NC3 and NC4 regularly, and after making any significant change to the design or operation of the service.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Given that there are few changes to this clause from when the Bill was amended in the previous Public Bill Committee, I will be brief. We in the Opposition are clear that record-keeping and review duties on in-scope services make up an important function of the regulatory regime and sit at the very heart of the Online Safety Bill. We must push platforms to transparently report all harms identified and the action taken in response, in line with regulation.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on the issue that was just raised, there were two written ministerial statements on the Online Safety Bill. The first specifically said that an amendment would
“require the largest platforms to publish summaries of their risk assessments for illegal content and material that is harmful to children, to allow users and empower parents to clearly understand the risks presented by these services and the approach platforms are taking to children’s safety”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 31WS.]
Unless I have completely missed an amendment that has been tabled for this Committee, my impression is that that amendment will be tabled in the Lords and that details will be made available about how exactly the publishing will work and which platforms will be required to publish.
I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide more clarity about what that might look like, and about which platforms might have to publish their assessments. I appreciate that that will be scrutinised in the Lords but, to be fair, this is the second time that the Bill has been in Committee in the Commons. It would be helpful if we could be a bit more sighted on what exactly the Government intend to do—meaning more than the handful of lines in a written ministerial statement—because then we would know whether the proposal is adequate, or whether we would have to ask further questions in order to draw it out and ensure that it is published in a certain form. The more information the Minister can provide, the better.
Paul Scully
I think we all agree that written records are hugely important. They are important as evidence in cases where Ofcom is considering enforcement action, and a company’s compliance review should be done regularly, especially before they make changes to their service.
The Bill does not intend to place excessive burdens on small and low-risk businesses. As such, clause 21 provides Ofcom with the power to exempt certain types of service from the record-keeping and review duties. However, the details of any exemptions must be published.
To half-answer the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, the measures will be brought to the Lords, but I will endeavour to keep her up to date as best we can so that we can continue the conversation. We have served together on several Bill Committees, including on technical Bills that required us to spend several days in Committee—although they did not come back for re-committal—so I will endeavour to keep her and, indeed, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, up to date with developments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
duties about freedom of expression and privacy
Amendments made: 36, in clause 30, page 31, line 31, after “have” insert “particular”.
This amendment has the result that providers of regulated search services must have particular regard to freedom of expression when deciding on and implementing safety measures and policies.
Amendment 37, in clause 30, page 31, line 34, after “have” insert “particular”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment has the result that providers of regulated search services must have particular regard to users’ privacy when deciding on and implementing safety measures and policies.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Relationship between duties and codes of practice
Amendments made: 38, in clause 46, page 44, line 27, after “have” insert “particular”.
This amendment has the result that providers of services who take measures other than those recommended in codes of practice in order to comply with safety duties must have particular regard to freedom of expression and users’ privacy.
Amendment 39, in clause 46, page 45, line 12, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 7 (removal of clause 13).
Amendment 40, in clause 46, page 45, line 31, at end insert “, or
(ii) a duty set out in section 14 (user empowerment);”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment has the effect that measures recommended in codes of practice to comply with the duty in clause 14 are relevant to the question of whether a provider is complying with the duties in clause 20(2) and (3) (having regard to freedom of expression and users’ privacy).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
I do not wish to repeat myself and test the Committee’s patience, so I will keep my comments brief. As it stands, service providers would be treated as complying with their duties if they had followed the recommended measures set out in the relevant codes of practice, as set out in the Bill. However, providers could take alternative measures to comply, but as I said in previous Committee sittings, Labour remains concerned that the definition of “alternative measures” is far too broad. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on his assessment of the instances in which a service provider may seek to comply via alternative measures.
The codes of practice should be, for want of a better phrase, best practice. Labour is concerned that, to avoid the duties, providers may choose to take the “alternative measures” route as an easy way out. We agree that it is important to ensure that providers have a duty with regard to protecting users’ freedom of expression and personal privacy. As we have repeatedly said, the entire Online Safety Bill regime relies on that careful balance being at the forefront. We want to see safety at the forefront, but recognise the importance of freedom of expression and personal privacy, and it is right that those duties are central to the clause. For those reasons, Labour has not sought to amend this part of the Bill, but I want to press the Minister on exactly how he sees this route being used.
Paul Scully
It is important that service providers have flexibility, so that the Bill does not disincentivise innovation or force service providers to use measures that might not work for all business models or technological contexts. The tech sector is diverse and dynamic, and it is appropriate that companies can take innovative approaches to fulfilling their duties. In most circumstances, we expect companies to take the measures outlined in Ofcom’s code of practice as the easiest route to compliance. However, where a service provider takes alternative measures, Ofcom must consider whether those measures safeguard users’ privacy and freedom of expression appropriately. Ofcom must also consider whether they extend across all relevant areas of a service mentioned in the illegal content and children’s online safety duties, such as content moderation, staff policies and practices, design of functionalities, algorithms and other features. Ultimately, it will be for Ofcom to determine a company’s compliance with the duties, which are there to ensure users’ safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 disagreed to.
Clause 56
Regulations under sections 54 and 55
Amendments made: 42, in clause 56, page 54, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41 (removal of clause 55).
Amendment 43, in clause 56, page 54, line 46, leave out “or 55”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41 (removal of clause 55).
Amendment 44, in clause 56, page 55, line 8, leave out “or 55”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41 (removal of clause 55).
Amendment 45, in clause 56, page 55, line 9, leave out
“or adults are to children or adults”
and insert “are to children”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41 (removal of clause 55).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
As we know, the clause makes provision in relation to the making of regulations designating primary and priority content that is harmful to children, and priority content that is harmful to adults. The Secretary of State may specify a description of content in regulations only if they consider that there is a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children or adults in the United Kingdom presented by user-generated or search content of that description, and must consult Ofcom before making such regulations.
In the last Bill Committee, Labour raised concerns that there were no duties that required the Secretary of State to consult others, including expert stakeholders, ahead of making these regulations. That decision cannot be for one person alone. When it comes to managing harmful content, unlike illegal content, we can all agree that it is about implementing systems that prevent people from encountering it, rather than removing it entirely.
Sarah Owen
The fact that we are here again to discuss what one Secretary of State wanted to put into law, and which another is now seeking to remove before the law has even been introduced, suggests that my hon. Friend’s point about protection and making sure that there are adequate measures within which the Secretary of State must operate is absolutely valid.
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree: we are now on our third Secretary of State, our third Minister and our third Prime Minister since we began considering this iteration of the Bill. It is vital that this does not come down to one person’s ideological beliefs. We have spoken at length about this issue; the hon. Member for Don Valley has spoken about his concerns that Parliament should be sovereign, and should make these decisions. It should not be for one individual or one stakeholder to make these determinations.
We also have issues with the Government’s chosen toggle approach—we see that as problematic. We have debated it at length, but our concerns regarding clause 56 are about the lack of consultation that the Secretary of State of the day, whoever that may be and whatever political party they belong to, will be forced to make before making widespread changes to a regime. I am afraid that those concerns still exist, and are not just held by us, but by stakeholders and by Members of all political persuasions across the House. However, since our proposed amendment was voted down in the previous Bill Committee, nothing has changed. I will spare colleagues from once again hearing my pleas about the importance of consultation when it comes to determining all things related to online safety, but while Labour Members do not formally oppose the clause, we hope that the Minister will address our widespread concerns about the powers of the Secretary of State in his remarks.
Paul Scully
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s remarks. We have tried to ensure that the Bill is proportionate, inasmuch as the Secretary of State can designate content if there is material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the United Kingdom. The Bill also requires the Secretary of State to consult Ofcom before making regulations on the priority categories of harm.
Charlotte Nichols
I appreciate that this point has been made about the same wording earlier today, but I really feel that the ambiguity of “appreciable number” is something that could do with being ironed out. The ambiguity and vagueness of that wording make it very difficult to enforce the provision. Does the Minister agree that “appreciable number” is too vague to be of real use in legislation such as this?
Paul Scully
The different platforms, approaches and conditions will necessitate different numbers; it would be hard to pin a number down. The wording is vague and wide-ranging because it is trying to capture any number of scenarios, many as yet unknown. However, the regulations designating priority harms will be made under the draft affirmative resolution procedure.
Sarah Owen
On that point, which we discussed earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North discussed it—I am struggling to understand what is an acceptable level of harm, and what is the acceptable number of people to be harmed, before a platform has to act.
Paul Scully
It totally depends on the scenario. It is very difficult for me to stand here now and give a wide number of examples, but the Secretary of State will be reacting to a given situation, rather than trying to predict them.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Minister has just outlined exactly what our concerns are. He is unable to give an exact number, figure or issue, but that is what the Secretary of State will have to do, without having to consult any stakeholders regarding that issue. There are many eyes on us around the world, with other legislatures looking at us and following suit, so we want the Bill to be world-leading. Many Governments across the world may deem that homosexuality, for example, is of harm to children. Because this piece of legislation creates precedent, a Secretary of State in such a Government could determine that any platform in that country should take down all that content. Does the Minister not see our concerns in that scenario?
Paul Scully
I was about to come on to the fact that the Secretary of State would be required to consult Ofcom before making regulations on the priority categories of harm. Indeed Ofcom, just like the Secretary of State, speaks to and engages with a number of stakeholders on this issue to gain a deeper understanding. Regulations designating priority harms would be made under the draft affirmative resolution procedure, but there is also provision for the Secretary of State to use the made affirmative resolution procedure in urgent scenarios, and this would be an urgent scenario. It is about getting the balance right.
Alex Davies-Jones
As we know, this clause requires providers of relevant services to publish annual transparency reports and sets out Ofcom’s powers in relation to those reports. The information set out in transparency reports is intended to help users to understand the steps that providers are taking to help keep them safe and to provide Ofcom with the information required to hold them to account.
These duties on regulated services are very welcome indeed. Labour has long held the view that mandatory transparency reporting and reporting mechanisms are vital to hold platforms to account, and to understand the true nature of how online harm is driven and perpetuated on the internet.
I will reiterate the points that were made in previous Committee sittings about our concerns about the regularity of these transparency reports. I note that, sadly, those reports remain unchanged and therefore they will only have to be submitted to Ofcom annually. It is important that the Minister truly considers the rapid rate at which the online world can change and develop, so I urge him to reconsider this point and to make these reports a biannual occurrence. Labour firmly believes that increasing the frequency of the transparency reports will ensure that platforms and services remain on the pulse, and are forced to be aware of and act on emergent risks. In turn, that would compel Ofcom to do the same in its role as an industry regulator.
I must also put on the record some of our concerns about subsections (12) and (13), which state that the Secretary of State of the day could amend by regulation the frequency of the transparency reporting, having consulted Ofcom first. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that this approach will not result in our ending up in a position where, perhaps because of Ofcom’s incredible workload, transparency reporting becomes even less frequent than an annual occurrence. We need to see more transparency, not less, so I really hope that he can reassure me on this particular point.
Kim Leadbeater
Does my hon. Friend agree that transparency should be at the heart of this Bill and that the Government have missed an opportunity to accelerate the inclusion of a provision in the Bill, namely the requirement to give researchers and academics access to platform data? Data access must be prioritised in the Bill and without such prioritisation the UK will fall behind the rest of Europe in safety, research and innovation. The accessibility and transparency of that data from a research perspective are really important.
Alex Davies-Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We both made the point at length in previous sittings of the Committee about the need to ensure transparency, access to the data, and access to reporting for academics, civil society and researchers.
That also goes to the point that it is not for this Committee or this Minister—it is not in his gift—to determine something that we have all discussed in this place at length, which is the potential requirement for a standalone Committee specifically to consider online harm. Such a Committee would look at whether this legislation is actively doing what we need it to do, whether it needs to be reviewed, whether it could look at the annual reports from Ofcom to determine the length and breadth of harm on the internet, and whether or not this legislation is actually having an impact. That all goes to the heart of transparency, openness and the review that we have been talking about.
I want to go further and raise concerns about how public the reports will be, as we have touched on. The Government claim that their so-called triple shield approach will give users of platforms and services more power and knowledge to understand the harms that they may discover online. That is in direct contradiction to the Bill’s current approach, which does not provide any clarity about exactly how the transparency reports will be made available to the public. In short, we feel that the Government are missing a significant opportunity. We have heard many warnings about what can happen when platforms are able to hide behind a veil of secrecy. I need only point to the revelations of whistleblowers, including Frances Haugen, to highlight the importance of that point.
As the Bill stands, once Ofcom has issued a notice, companies will have to produce a transparency report that
“must…be published in the manner and by the date specified in the notice”.
I want to press the Minister on that and ask him to clarify the wording. We are keen for the reports to be published publicly and in an accessible way, so that users, civil society, researchers and anyone else who wants to see them can make sense of them. The information contained in the transparency reports is critical to analysing trends and harms, so I hope that the Minister will clarify those points in his response.
Kim Leadbeater
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are to achieve their objective—which we all share—for the Bill to be world-leading legislation, we cannot rely on whistleblowers to tell us what is really going on in the online space? That is why transparency is vital. This is the perfect opportunity to provide that transparency, so that we can do some proper research into what is going on out there. We cannot rely on whistleblowers to give us such information.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want the Bill to work. We have always wanted the Bill to work. We want it to achieve its aim of keeping children, adults and everyone who uses the internet safe from the harms that are perpetuated there. If there is no transparency, how will we know that the platforms are breaking the rules covertly, and whether they are hiding content and getting round the rules? That is what they do; we know it, because we have heard it from whistleblowers, but we cannot rely on whistleblowers alone to highlight exactly what happens behind the closed doors of the platforms.
We need the transparency and the reports to be made public, so that we can see whether the legislation is working. If that does not happen, although we have waited five years, we will need another piece of legislation to fix it. We know that the Bill is not perfect, and the Minister knows that—he has said so himself—but, ultimately, we need to know that it works. If it does not, we have a responsibility as legislators to put something in place that does. Transparency is the only way in which we will figure that out.
Sarah Owen
I want to add to the brilliant points made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, in particular on the continually changing nature of market forces, which the Minister himself referenced. We want innovation. We want the tech companies to innovate—preferably ones in the UK—but we do not want to be playing catch-up as we are now, making legislation retrospectively to right wrongs that have taken place because our legislative process has been too slow to deal with the technological changes and the changes in social media, in apps, and with how we access data and communicate with one another online. The bare minimum is a biannual report.
Within six months, if a new piece of technology comes up, it does not simply stay with one app or platform; that technology will be leapfrogged by others. Such technological advances can take place at a very rapid pace. The transparency aspect is important, because people should have a right to know what they are using and whether it is safe. We as policy makers should have a right to know clearly whether the legislation that we have introduced, or the legislation that we want to amend or update, is effective.
If we look at any other approach that we take to protect the health and safety of the people in our country—the people we all represent in our constituencies —we always say that prevention is better than cure. At the moment, without transparency and without researchers being able to update the information we need to see, we will constantly be playing catch-up with digital tech.
Kirsty Blackman
This may be the only place in the Bill where I do not necessarily agree wholeheartedly with the Labour Front Benchers. I agree with the vast majority of what was said, but I have some concerns about making mandatory the requirement for transparency reports to be public in all circumstances, because there are circumstances in which that would simply highlight loopholes, allowing people to exploit them in a way that we do not want them to do.
Specifically on the regularity of reporting and some level of transparency, given that the Minister is keen on the commercial imperative and ensuring that people are safe, we need a higher level of transparency than we currently see among the platforms. There is a very good case to be made for some of the transparency reporting to be made public, particularly for the very largest platforms to be required to make it public, or to make sections of it public.
I want to talk about the speed of change to the terms of service and about proportionality. If Ofcom could request transparency reporting only annually, imagine that it received transparency information three days before Elon Musk took over Twitter. Twitter would be a completely different place three days later, and Ofcom would be unable to ask for more transparency information for a whole year, by which point a significant amount of damage could have been done. We have seen that the terms of service can change quickly. Ofcom would not have the flexibility to ask for an updated transparency report, even if drastic changes were made to the services.
Another thing slightly concerns me about doing this annually and not allowing a bit more flexibility. Let us say that a small platform that none of us has ever heard of, such as Mastodon, shoots to prominence overnight. Let us also say that, as a small platform, Mastodon was previously regulated, and Ofcom had made a request for transparency information shortly before Elon Musk took over Twitter and people had migrated to Mastodon. Mastodon would now be suffering from very different issues than those it had when it had a small number of users, compared with the significant number that it has now. It would have changed dramatically, yet Ofcom would not have the flexibility to seek that information. We know that platforms in the online world have sudden stellar increases in popularity overnight. Some have been bubbling along for ages with nobody using them. Not all of them are brand-new platforms that suddenly shoot to prominence. The lack of flexibility is a problem.
Lastly, I agree about researchers being able to access the transparency information provided. It is really important that we recognise that Ofcom is not the only expert. Ofcom has a huge amount of expertise, and it is massively increasing its staff numbers to cope with these issues, but the reality is that those staff are not academic researchers. They are unable to look at the issues and are not necessarily the most prominent experts in the field of child protection, for example. That is not to take away from the expertise in Ofcom, but we could allow it to ask a regulated group of researchers to look at the information and point out any issues that may not have been spotted, particularly given the volume of transparency reports that there are likely to be.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Lady makes an important point. In terms of transparency, the question for me is, what are the Government worried about? Surely part of the Bill is about finding out what is really going on, and the only way that we will do that is by having access to the information. The more transparency, the better. The hon. Lady is right that having experts who can research what is going on is fundamental. If there is a concern around the workload for Ofcom, that is a separate issue that the Minister needs to address, but surely the more work that is done in terms of research and transparency, the better.
Kirsty Blackman
We have seen that just from the people from external organisations who have contacted us about the Bill. The amount of expertise that we do not have that they have brought to the table has significantly improved the debate and hopefully the Bill. Even prior to the consultations that have happened, that encouraged the Minister to make the Bill better. Surely that is why the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee looked at the Bill—in order to improve it and to get expert advice. I still think that having specific access to expertise in order to analyse the transparency report has not been covered adequately.
Damian Collins
Annual transparency reporting is an important part of how the system will work. Transparency is one of the most important aspects of how the Online Safety Bill works, because without it companies can hide behind the transparency reports they produce at the moment, which give no transparency at all. For example, Facebook and YouTube report annually that their AI finds 95% of the hate speech they remove, but Frances Haugen said that they removed only 5% of the hate speech. So the transparency report means that they remove 95% of 5%, and that is one of the fundamental problems. The Bill gives the regulator the power to know, and the regulator then has to make informed decisions based on the information it has access to.
Charlotte Nichols
As much as I am keen on the idea of Ofcom special agents conceptually, my concern on the transparency front is that, to appoint a special agent and send them in to look at the data, Ofcom would have to have cause to believe that there was an issue of concern with the data, whereas if that data is more transparently available to the research community, they can then proactively identify things that they can flag to Ofcom as a concern. Without that, we are relying on an annual cycle of Ofcom being able to intervene only when they have a concern, rather than the research community, which is much better placed to make that determination, being able to keep a watching brief on the company.
Damian Collins
That concern would be triggered by Ofcom discovering things as a consequence of user complaint. Although Ofcom is not a complaint resolution company, users can complain to it. Independent academics and researchers may produce studies and reports highlighting problems at any time, so Ofcom does not have to wait through an annual cycle of transparency reporting. At any time, Ofcom can say, “We want to have a deeper look at this problem.” It could be something Ofcom or someone else has discovered, and Ofcom can either research that itself or appoint an outside expert.
As the hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned, very sensitive information might become apparent through the transparency reporting that one might not necessarily wish to make public because it requires further investigation and could highlight a particular flaw that could be exploited by bad actors. I would hope and expect, as I think we all would, that we would have the routine publication of transparency reporting to give people assurance that the platforms are meeting their obligations. Indeed, if Ofcom were to intervene against a platform, it would probably use information gathered and received to provide the rationale for why a fine has been issued or another intervention has been made. I am sure that Ofcom will draw all the time on information gathered through transparency reporting and, where relevant, share it.
Paul Scully
This has been a helpful debate. Everyone was right that transparency must be and is at the heart of the Bill. From when we were talking earlier today about how risk assessments and terms of service must be accessible to all, through to this transparency reporting section, it is important that we hold companies to account and that the reports play a key role in allowing users, Ofcom and civil society, including those in academia, to understand the steps that companies are taking to protect users.
Under clause 65, category 1 services, category 2A search services and category 2B user-to-user services need to publish transparency reports annually in accordance with the transparency report notice from Ofcom. That relates to the points about commerciality that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about. Ofcom will set out what information is required from companies in their notice, which will also specify the format, manner and deadline for the information to be provided to Ofcom. Clearly, it would not be proportionate to require every service provider within the scope of the overall regulatory framework to produce a transparency report—it is also important that we deal with capacity and proportionality—but those category threshold conditions will ensure that the framework is flexible and future-proofed.
Charlotte Nichols
I note what the Minister said about the commercial implications of some of these things, and some of those commercial implications might act as levers to push companies to do better on some things. By that same token, should this information not be more transparent and publicly available to give the user the choice he referred to earlier? That would mean that if a user’s data was not being properly protected and these companies were not taking the measures around safety that the public would expect, users can vote with their feet and go to a different platform. Surely that underpins a lot of what we have been talking about.
Paul Scully
Yes, and that is why Ofcom will be the one that decides which information should be published, and from whom, to ensure that it is proportionate. At the end of the day, I have talked about the fact that transparency is at the heart of the Bill and that the transparency reports are important. To go to the original point raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd about when these reports will be published, they will indeed be published in accordance with subsection 3(d) of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Transparency reports by providers of Category 1 services, Category 2A services and Category 2B services
Amendments made: 61, in schedule 8, page 203, line 13, leave out
“priority content that is harmful to adults”
and insert “relevant content”.
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about content which the terms of service say can be taken down or restricted. The reference to content that is harmful to adults is omitted, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 62, in schedule 8, page 203, line 15, leave out
“priority content that is harmful to adults”
and insert “relevant content”.
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about content which the terms of service say can be taken down or restricted. The reference to content that is harmful to adults is omitted, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 63, in schedule 8, page 203, line 17, leave out
“priority content that is harmful to adults”
and insert “relevant content”.
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about content which the terms of service say can be taken down or restricted. The reference to content that is harmful to adults is omitted, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 64, in schedule 8, page 203, line 21, leave out from “or” to end of line 23 and insert “relevant content”.
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about user reporting of content which the terms of service say can be taken down or restricted. The reference to content that is harmful to adults is omitted, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 65, in schedule 8, page 203, line 25, leave out
“priority content that is harmful to adults”
and insert “relevant content”.
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about content which the terms of service say can be taken down or restricted. The reference to content that is harmful to adults is omitted, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 66, in schedule 8, page 203, line 29, leave out
“priority content that is harmful to adults”
and insert “relevant content”.
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about content which the terms of service say can be taken down or restricted. The reference to content that is harmful to adults is omitted, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 67, in schedule 8, page 203, line 41, at end insert—
“11A Measures taken or in use by a provider to comply with any duty set out in section (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) or (Further duties about terms of service) (terms of service).”
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about measures taken to comply with the new duties imposed by NC3 and NC4.
Amendment 68, in schedule 8, page 204, line 2, leave out from “illegal content” to end of line 3 and insert
“or content that is harmful to children—”.
This amendment removes the reference to content that is harmful to adults, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 69, in schedule 8, page 204, line 10, leave out from “illegal content” to “, and” in line 12 and insert
“and content that is harmful to children”.
This amendment removes the reference to content that is harmful to adults, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 70, in schedule 8, page 204, line 14, leave out from “illegal content” to “present” in line 15 and insert
“and content that is harmful to children”.
This amendment removes the reference to content that is harmful to adults, as a result of the removal of the adult safety duties (see Amendments 6, 7 and 41).
Amendment 71, in schedule 8, page 205, line 38, after “Part 3” insert
“or Chapters 1 to 2A of Part 4”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment requires OFCOM, in considering which information to require from a provider in a transparency report, to consider whether the provider is subject to the duties imposed by Chapter 2A, which is the new Chapter expected to be formed by NC3 to NC6 (and Chapter 1 of Part 4).
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 72, in schedule 8, page 206, line 5, at end insert—
“35A (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, content of a particular kind is ‘relevant content’ if—
(a) a term of service, other than a term of service within sub-paragraph (2), states that a provider may or will take down content of that kind from the service or restrict users’ access to content of that kind, and
(b) it is regulated user-generated content.
(2) The terms of service within this sub-paragraph are as follows—
(a) terms of service which make provision of the kind mentioned in section 9(5) (protecting individuals from illegal content) or 11(5) (protecting children from content that is harmful to children);
(b) terms of service which deal with the treatment of consumer content.
(3) References in this Schedule to relevant content are to content that is relevant content in relation to the service in question.”
This amendment defines “relevant content” for the purposes of Schedule 8.
Paul Scully
The amendments to schedule 8 confirm that references to relevant content, consumer content and regulated user-generated content have the same meaning as established by other provisions of the Bill. Again, that ensures consistency, which will, in turn, support Ofcom in requiring providers of category 1 services to give details in their annual transparency reports of their compliance with the new transparency, accountability and freedom of expression duties.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will keep my comments on this grouping brief, because I have already raised our concerns and our overarching priority in terms of transparency reports in the previous debate, which was good one, with all Members highlighting the need for transparency and reporting in the Bill. With the Chair’s permission, I will make some brief comments on Government amendment 72 before addressing Government amendments 73 and 75.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that amendment 72, which defines relevant content for the purposes of schedule 8, has a key omission—specifying priority content harmful to adults. For reasons we have covered at length, we think that it is a gross mistake on the Government’s side to attempt to water down the Bill in this way. If the Minister is serious about keeping adults safe online, he must reconsider this approach. However, we are happy to see amendments 73 and 75, which define consumer content and regulated user-generated content. It is important for all of us—whether we are politicians, researchers, academics, civil society, stakeholders, platforms, users or anyone else—that these definitions are in the Bill so that, when it is passed, it can be applied properly and at pace. That is why we have not sought to amend this grouping.
I must press the Minister to respond on the issues around relevant content as outlined in amendment 72. We greatly feel that more needs to be done to address this type of content and its harm to adults, so I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s assessment of how exactly these transparency reports will report back on this type of harm, given its absence in this group of amendments and the lack of a definition.
Kirsty Blackman
I am pleased to see the list included and the number of things that Ofcom can ask for more information on. I have a specific question about amendment 75. Amendment 75 talks about regulated user-generated content and says it has the same meaning as it does in the interpretation of part 3 under clause 50. The Minister may or may not know that there are concerns about clause 50(5), which relates to
“One-to-one live aural communications”.
One-to-one live aural communications are exempted. I understand that that is because the Government do not believe that telephony services, for example, should be part of the Online Safety Bill—that is a pretty reasonable position for them to take. However, allowing one-to-one live aural communications not to be regulated means that if someone is using voice chat in Fortnite, for example, and there are only two people on the team that they are on, or if someone is using voice chat in Discord and there are only two people online on the channel at that time, that is completely unregulated and not taken into account by the Bill.
I know that that is not the intention of the Bill, which is intended to cover user-generated content online. The exemption is purely in place for telephony services, but it is far wider than the Government intend it to be. With the advent of more and more people using virtual reality technology, for example, we will have more and more aural communication between just two people, and that needs to be regulated by the Bill. We cannot just allow a free-for-all.
If we have child protection duties, for example, they need to apply to all user-generated content and not exempt it specifically because it is a live, one-to-one aural communication. Children are still at significant risk from this type of communication. The Government have put this exemption in because they consider such communication to be analogous to telephony services, but it is not. It is analogous to telephony services if we are talking about a voice call on Skype, WhatsApp or Signal—those are voice calls, just like telephone services—but we are talking about a voice chat that people can have with people who they do not know, whose phone number they do not know and who they have no sort of relationship with.
Some of the Discord servers are pretty horrendous, and some of the channels are created by social media influencers or people who have pretty extreme views in some cases. We could end up with a case where the Discord server and its chat functions are regulated, but if aural communication or a voice chat is happening on that server, and there are only two people online because it is 3 o’clock in the morning where most of the people live and lots of them are asleep, that would be exempted. That is not the intention of the Bill, but the Government have not yet fixed this. So I will make one more plea to the Government: will they please fix this unintended loophole, so that it does not exist? It is difficult to do, but it needs to be done, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could take that into consideration.
Paul Scully
I do not believe that the provisions in terms of Ofcom’s transparency powers have been watered down. It is really important that the Bill’s protection for adults strikes the right balance with its protections for free speech, which is why we have replaced the “legal but harmful” clause. I know we will not agree on that, but there are more new duties that will make platforms more accountable. Ofcom’s transparency powers will enable it to assess compliance with the new safety duties and hold platforms accountable for enforcing their terms of service to keep users safe. Companies will also have to report on the measures that they have in place to tackle illegal content or activity and content that is harmful for children, which includes proactive steps to address offences such as child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The legislation will set out high-level categories of information that companies may be required to include in their transparency reports, and Ofcom will then specify the information that service providers will need to include in those reports, in the form of a notice. Ofcom will consider companies’ resources and capacity, service type and audience in determining what information they will need to include. It is likely that the information that is most useful to the regulator and to users will vary between different services. To ensure that the transparency framework is proportionate and reflects the diversity of services in scope, the transparency reporting requirements set out in the Ofcom notice are likely to differ between those services, and the Secretary of State will have powers to update the list of information that Ofcom may require to reflect any changes of approach.
Kirsty Blackman
The in-game chat that children use is overwhelmingly voice chat. Children do not type if they can possibly avoid it. I am sure that that is not the case for all children, but it is for most children. Aural communication is used if someone is playing Fortnite duos, for example, with somebody they do not know. That is why that needs to be included.
Paul Scully
I very much get that point. It is not something that I do, but I have certainly seen it myself. I am happy to chat to the hon. Lady to ensure that we get it right.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendments made: 73, in schedule 8, page 206, line 6, at end insert—
“‘consumer content’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 2A of Part 4 (see section (Interpretation of this Chapter)(3));”.
This amendment defines “consumer content” for the purposes of Schedule 8.
Amendment 74, in schedule 8, page 206, leave out lines 7 and 8.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41 (removal of clause 55).
Amendment 75, in schedule 8, page 206, line 12, at end insert—
“‘regulated user-generated content’ has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 50), and references to such content are to content that is regulated user-generated content in relation to the service in question;”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment defines “regulated user-generated content” for the purposes of Schedule 8.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 11 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
Business Rates and Levelling Up
(1 year, 11 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
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered business rates and levelling up.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. It is extremely apt that the debate is taking place on the same day that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill returns to the House of Commons. If we can successfully reform business rates so that they are fair to businesses right across the country, that really will help to deliver meaningful levelling up.
At present, with businesses having to contend with a level of inflation not seen for a generation, soaring utility bills and stubbornly high rents, business rates are a fixed cost from which occupiers cannot escape. They are an impediment to regional growth, and their impact needs to be significantly reduced, with the system being put on a long-term, easily understood footing. In that way, businesses will know where they stand and can then make long-term investment decisions.
To be fair, all political parties have recognised the unfair and unjust nature of the current system and commitments have been made to both replacement and reform. From my perspective, I sense that the former—replacement—is the holy grail that is unachievable in the real world. To address the immediate threat that business rates pose to many businesses in different sectors and in different parts of the country, a wide variety of reliefs and exemptions have been introduced. Although welcome, they have made the system more complicated and difficult to comprehend.
Currently, the Labour party is committed to abolishing business rates and replacing them with a system fit for the 21st century. As I have said, I sense that it will be impossible for it to keep that promise, because, despite the drawbacks that business rates possess, they have inherent advantages for the Treasury: they yield approximately £25 billion per annum, are relatively easy to collect and are difficult to avoid. It is impossible to find an alternative system of taxation that has those advantages, and I believe that it is important to get on with reforming the current system.
Let me turn to the Government’s record. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made significant and largely welcome announcements in his autumn statement, which I shall detail later. However, I am mindful that we made commitments in the 2019 Conservative manifesto that we are yet to properly and fully implement. Those include carrying out a fundamental review of the system and reducing business rates in the long term for retail businesses, as well as extending the discounts to grassroots music venues, small cinemas, and pubs. Yes, we have provided a wide variety of short-term reliefs, but we have not yet provided the permanent fix that is so urgently needed.
It is appropriate to briefly describe business rates. They are a tax charged to most non-domestic properties, although there are some exceptions, such as small businesses with a rateable value of less than £12,000. They are calculated by multiplying the rateable value of the property by the uniform business rate multiplier. The rateable value is an assessment of the annual rent that the property would achieve if it were available to let on the open market at a specific, fixed valuation date. The UBR multiplier for 2022-23 is 51.2p in the pound, or 49.9p for small businesses.
Before I came to this place I was a chartered surveyor. Although I did not specialise in business rates, I did from time to time carry out business rates appeals. Invariably, that happened in situations with a lack of rental evidence on which to base an assessment of a property’s rateable value. As a result, it was difficult to agree a value, and there was the risk of a rateable value being imposed, which was abstract from reality and took no account of the ability of the business to pay and thus continue to exist and operate profitably. The Valuation Office Agency—the VOA—needs to be more transparent, open and collegiate in its dealings with businesses. I shall touch on that later.
As I have mentioned, the Chancellor made some significant announcements in his autumn statement, which included confirmation of a revaluation that will come into effect from April; the freezing of the uniform business rate multiplier; the reform of the transitional relief scheme; a supporting small business scheme; and a 75% retail, hospitality and leisure relief worth up to £110,000 per business. The revaluation is generally to be welcomed, although there are some notable exceptions, as it will on the whole bring down rates in economically depressed areas while raising rates in areas where rental values have risen.
The announcement that the downwards phasing of the transitional relief scheme for England is to abolished is good news, with upwards phasing being funded by the Treasury. The problem with transitional relief was that meaningful and full reductions in business rates, which businesses particularly in the retail sector desperately needed, took far too long to filter through. The measures will provide much needed support to help businesses get through the next few months, and they provide the foundation stone on which to now carry out the promised fundamental review.
Despite those measures, which in many respects can be likened to the application of yet more sticking plasters and, indeed, bandages, fundamental flaws remain to be addressed. Although the Government froze the UBR at 51p in the last two Budgets, it remains unsustainably high. In no other country in Europe do businesses pay half the rental value of premises in property taxes. Set at such a high level, business rates deter investment in retail, leisure and hospitality. It should be noted that the UBR was just 34p in the pound when it was first introduced in 1990.
The extension of business rates relief for retail premises from 50% to 75% in 2023-24 is welcome, even though it will help only smaller retailers because it applies to the first £110,000 of business rates paid. The Office for Budget Responsibility envisages that that relief will be removed from 1 April 2024, which would leave retailers with a massive tax hike at that point—in effect, a cliff edge. A tapering scheme will therefore need to be applied to overcome that particular problem.
In the recently published valuation list, which comes into effect next April, the valuation of retail premises fell by only 10% across the country in the six years from the last valuation date of April 2015. Without the Chancellor’s measures on downwards phasing to freeze the UBR, business rates would have had a massive levelling down impact on all retail, and on depressed regions in particular. That underlines the need for fundamental reform.
I shall move on to briefly highlight some of the inequities of the current system that need to be addressed. Business rates are a tax paid by businesses before a sale or a transaction has even been made. It is in effect a tax on existence rather than a tax based on success or failure. It therefore follows that it needs to be kept low so that it can be paid by all businesses. A high UBR discourages not only occupation, but investment in new accommodation and the physical expansion of existing premises. Ratepayers who have invested in improving their premises are penalised, as they then face higher bills. The system adversely affects physical retailers whose properties on high streets have significantly higher rateable values than the warehouses that serve online retailers. Similar challenges were faced by the hospitality sector.
While in theory, with the current UBR, business rates should represent 51% of the rental value of a property and hence one third of the cost of occupancy, retail has been struggling, and some landlords have agreed much lower rents to enable their tenants to stay in business. Rents are increasingly being linked to turnover, and are thus disconnected from the rental values that are used by the VOA to determine business rates bills. Therefore, many retail outlets will be paying business rates bills in excess of their actual rent, even after the revaluation takes effect. In the new list, rateable values for retail have gone down by 10% on average. That is surprisingly little, given that many shops were closed and paying no rent at all at the valuation date of 1 April 2021, when we were in the midst of a covid lockdown.
The valuation process that allocates properties their rateable value is not transparent, with the VOA not sharing the evidence that it uses to substantiate the basis of valuations. The only way for occupiers to assess that evidence is by challenging the valuation through the “check, challenge, appeal” process, which is lengthy and costly. There is therefore much concern that many challenges to the valuation process will be submitted over the coming months. The worry is that the VOA uses flimsy evidence when conducting property valuations. Those businesses that engage with the VOA through the appeals process, or by providing evidence leading up to the valuation, have more accurate valuations, while those that have not seen any reductions have not engaged with the VOA.
The VOA has outlawed 400,000 applications made by businesses in mitigation of rates bills on the basis of covid-19. Its view is that covid did not constitute what is known as a “material change in circumstances”, which can lead to a reassessment of a rateable value. That decision has been justified by the VOA on the basis of the allocation of the £1.5 billion covid relief fund, the distribution of which was devolved to local government. While some local authorities have been quick to distribute that relief, others have been slow. The lack of a uniform distribution mechanism has meant that receiving the relief payments is dependent on where the occupant is based, and a postcode lottery has, in effect, been created.
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor froze the UBR at 51p for one year only—that is, for 2023-24. As mentioned previously, the OBR’s figures indicate that the UBR will be index-linked thereafter. That means that as matters stand at present, business rates for retail premises will rise from April 2024. The Government have extended their 75% rate discount for shops paying up to £110,000 in rates until 2024. Likewise, unless the Government extend the relief, occupiers will again face a cliff edge when the scheme expires.
The Government will soon be bringing forward a non-domestic rating Bill. It is important that the contents of that Bill are fully debated, and that the opportunity is taken to ensure that it is a vehicle for delivering the fundamental reform of business rates that was promised in 2019. The Bill will include provisions such as the duty to notify of any change to a property; changes to the frequency of revaluation; and the removal of the need for transitional relief to be fiscally neutral. Alongside the duty to notify, there should also come a corresponding duty on the part of the VOA to share with occupiers the evidence it uses to assess rateable values.
Due to the complexity of the business rates system and the burden on ratepayers, occupiers quite understandably often seek advice from rating experts on how best to approach the whole process. Unlike with other professions, rating advisers do not need a licence to practice, resulting in some operators giving bad advice and cheating people out of their money. We need to find a way to outlaw such conduct.
Currently, property owners do not have to pay business rates on empty buildings for three months. After that period ends, most businesses have to pay business rates in full, although there are some exceptions. The outcome of the 2020-21 review was that the Government committed to an empty property relief consultation in 2022, but that has yet to take place. It is important that the relief is extended—it is probably best to extend it to 12 months—because rates will then be paid exclusively by revenue-generating businesses.
It is appropriate to highlight the particular challenges faced by the hospitality sector, which is a vital component part of many local economies all around the UK, including in the Waveney constituency that I represent. With a fair business rates system, the sector can play a key role in levelling up.
Looking at the revaluation list in the Waveney area, businesses that have invested and that are vital engines of local economic growth are being heavily penalised for their ambition and success. By way of example, the rateable value for the Kessingland Beach holiday park is due to rise from £291,450 to £388,500; for the Harbour Inn in Lowestoft, it will rise from £23,500 to £45,000; and for the Commodore in Oulton Broad, it will rise from £67,500 to £79,000.
The current system sees the hospitality sector overpay nationally by £2.4 billion a year relative to its turnover; in other words, it overpays by 300%. In the short term, the differential rates between large and small businesses should be removed and the eligibility rules for reliefs based on rateable value should be abolished. In the longer term, a significantly reduced UBR multiplier should be introduced.
To address the variety of problems that I have outlined, root-and-branch reform is urgently required. Business rates would be fairer and better if the system was simplified, the tax base broadened by removing the myriad complicated reliefs, annual valuations proposed, a one-year antecedent valuation date set, and fast appeals and greater evidence-sharing between occupiers and the VOA introduced.
Such reform could be achieved by making the following changes. First, the UBR could be reduced by 30%. By way of example, reducing the UBR from 51p to 34p, which was the rate in 1990, would reduce unsustainably high levels of business rates on retail and hospitality premises, and level the playing field for so many businesses. A lower UBR would also reduce the barriers to entry, expansion and innovation, thereby encouraging growth and broadening the tax base. In effect, this would plug the gaps in revenue that the Treasury might fear would result from a lower UBR.
Secondly, the Government have correctly moved from five-yearly to three-yearly valuations. That represents a step in the right direction, but yearly valuations would be far more equitable. By implementing yearly valuations, business rates would accurately reflect the dynamic movements of the market and allow occupiers to benefit immediately from changes to rateable values. The increased incidence of events such as the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine further emphasise the need for a system that is able quickly to react to rapidly changing economic conditions.
Thirdly, we need to look at the abolition of the system of complicated reliefs. Instead of the fundamental review that was promised, the Government have continued to apply sticking plasters to the system to ensure its continued functioning. That has culminated in a system of complicated reliefs that can be difficult to navigate. The business rates system comprises 12 reliefs. Those would be rendered unnecessary with the lowering of the UBR, which would mean a business benefiting from paying lower rates immediately instead of negotiating and navigating the VOA system of reliefs.
Fourthly, many of the problems I have detailed could be fixed by making the VOA more efficient. Its systems, which are predominantly paper based, are not fit for the 21st century. Digitisation would enable the VOA to make its collection systems more efficient and it could take a big step towards systems efficiencies such as annual valuations. The Government recently published a consultation to that effect, entitled the digitalising business consultation. However, unfortunately, it largely missed a point because instead of consulting on the measures that would reduce the administrative burdens on businesses and ratepayers, the Government are trying to increase those burdens by requiring more information so as more effectively to target reliefs.
I sense that I have spoken for far too long, and you will be pleased to hear, Mr Mundell, that I am nearing my conclusion. High business rates hold back economic growth, are a barrier to levelling up and are an added burden that many businesses simply cannot afford at present. To be fair, the Government have listened, and they are aware of the problem. The response has been the introduction of short-term reliefs, which are welcome, but they complicate the system further in the longer term.
We need to stop searching for that elusive holy grail and stop kicking the can down the road. Instead, we need to introduce pragmatic measures that can be delivered quickly, and we need to honour the commitment to a fundamental review. I therefore urge the Treasury to introduce those initiatives—in the spring Budget, I would suggest—and in the first instance I look forward to hearing the response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. At the outset, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate and giving us all a chance to reflect on the impact of business rates and levelling up.
Like my hon. Friend I represent a coastal constituency, although with a shoreline that faces east rather than west, and I do not want the levelling-up agenda to be based on a crude caricature of north versus south—often, the communities facing the greatest challenges lie on the southern coast. My hon. Friend did not speak for a moment too long; I found his points very interesting, and I was in great agreement with many of them with respect to how we need to change this form of taxation.
Communities such as Torbay can see wealth alongside areas with challenges, and we need to see levelling up in not only the national context, but the local, with the clear aim of turning back the tide on poverty, which is affecting some of the communities that I am proud to represent.
For Torbay, levelling up means looking to attract investment, which generates long-term jobs and ensures a genuinely vibrant local economy. That is where business rates can have such an impact. They effectively penalise businesses for investing in bricks and mortar, putting physical retail—not just, nowadays, high street retail—at a disadvantage to online outlets and potentially putting off development more widely across sectors such as tourism and hospitality, where a business rates liability will pretty much inevitably be created as part of a new investment.
Business rates might have been an irritant in the past, but they can often be the make-or-break factor now, especially in light of the other pressures that businesses face. Business rates are the bill that is not flexible. That bill is enforced by the magistrates, and it is often the final blow, as it takes little or no account of the actual income that a business receives, as my hon. Friend mentioned. It is literally a tax on existence. Businesses must pay the tax simply to be in their premises, before they open the door to do any trade or business.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, I found the figures around rental revaluation extraordinary. It does not strike me that rental values for shops have fallen by only 10%, as on most high streets agents are offering businesses “Will you pay the business rates?” style deals on properties for certain periods of time. The figures do not reflect where rentals would have been five, six or seven years ago, or even a couple of years ago, before the impact of the pandemic.
I will give a quick example of the impact of the cost of business rates, when combined with other costs. A company that runs four hotels in my constituency has, unsurprisingly, seen utility costs increase dramatically, meaning that the business needs an additional net income of £8 per room—a 12% increase—for all 125,000 room nights, just to pay the increased costs. That is simply not achievable in the current economic circumstances. The company pays £6.5 million in payroll to 470 employees in Torbay and spends £7 million a year through the supply chain, mostly in the west country. The moves we are seeing to increase wages are welcome, but they will mean the company will have a 9% payroll increase in April 2023. The retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief scheme, which has been confirmed to be 75% for 2023-24, is welcome and it will offset around £300,000 of the additional costs for business, but it will not reach the wider amounts needed, as those bills still need to be paid.
Similarly, another example is an innovative holiday park, with caravans that are the equivalent of staying in a hotel suite; the era of putting 50p in a meter is long gone—think caravans with widescreen TV and central heating. That business will potentially see its bill double, courtesy of its investment.
While we often focus on the impact of business rates on our high streets and town centres, the impact is much wider, especially in situations where it is not an option for staff to work from home or from remote locations, such as in the manufacturing or hospitality sectors. A holiday by Zoom or a pub night on Microsoft Teams will not be the same experience; a physical premises is needed to deliver those experiences.
What can be done? We need to look at providing further relief in the current system, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. We need to realise that the days of retail and hospitality being a handy way to raise revenue for local services are now over. The high street corner is no longer the prime place to do business. There are department stores standing empty across many of our town centres, such as the former Debenhams on Torquay harbourside. We need not walk far from this Chamber to see what was once a large department store lying empty in what was a prime shopping area of London—a sight unimaginable back in 1990, when the uniform business rates were introduced.
It is increasingly the presence of business rates liability that can directly and adversely affect the chances of levelling up a community by discouraging investment in commercial properties. That was one reason why I supported the previous investment zone suggestion that allowed business rate reductions in key areas that needed regeneration.
Ultimately, a derelict and boarded-up building creates costs, not revenue, for the public purse. I urge the Government to look at what can be done further about business rates to ensure they do not become a barrier to the regeneration of our town centres, not least in the context of large national charities receiving a mandatory 80% relief, often increased to 100% relief by billing authorities. At the very least, parity for smaller businesses trading in retail, leisure and hospitality within our key areas for levelling up would be a welcome incentive, before finally getting on with what needs to be delivered: a major review of this form of taxation.
It is oft talked about, but there needs to be a better option for the future in a system that is fundamentally rooted in the pre-digital era of economic activity, when physical premises were an integral part of doing business. I appreciate that that is easily said and harder done, not least when we consider the £25 billion of revenue that has been referenced. However, we should not shy away from doing it simply because it would be hard. Taxes have changed in the past to reflect economic, scientific and technological changes. The same is needed now.
I cannot cover in a short speech every aspect of the links between business rates and levelling-up policy, alongside their impact. However, I hope the Minister in her response will reflect on how we need to consider the real disincentives of the tax for businesses such as hospitality, which must innately operate from a physical space, and the deterrent to operating retail from the high street, town centre or even the out-of-town shopping centre, which is facing huge competition. If we are to truly level up many coastal communities, those issues must be addressed and a revaluation on its own will simply not do that. If they are not, there is a danger that our taxation system, designed for an era when people went to a public payphone and had to go to a physical premises to buy something, will hit our town centres and not deliver the levelling up and regeneration that so much of Government spending is trying to achieve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Mundell; I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for setting the scene so very well. He and I, and others in the debate today, often join forces to support our communities. His and my communities are similar in their culture and geographical stance, and we share an interest in fishing issues. It is always a pleasure to come along and support the hon. Gentleman. It is also a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), good friend that he is. He is back on the Back Benches now, but when we were on the Back Benches before, I used to follow him and he me. To be honest, normally, I follow everybody else—but it was a real pleasure to hear his contribution. I am also pleased to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in her place; I know she always generously tries to respond to our requests and I look forward to her contribution.
I think we are all on the same page on this one. I very much support the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken and what they are trying to achieve. I hope to be able to achieve that as well. I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in his place. We are a bit sparse in numbers on this side of the Chamber, but I know that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution will make up for that.
Like many others, I am and was excited about the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I looked at the money for Northern Ireland and imagined how many improvements could be made with that funding. Like the hon. Members who have spoken and who will speak afterwards, I have been concerned that the levelling-up programme seems to gloss over the needs of coastal communities. The hon. Members for Waveney and for Torbay outlined their requests on behalf of their communities. I have not read the speech of the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), who will follow, but he will probably endorse what we are saying as well. The hon. Member for Waveney gave his presentation of the subject at the start of the debate. It has been incredible to hear all of them.
As a quick aside, I should say that as I travelled up the beautiful peninsular roads in my Strangford constituency to the airport on Monday, in cool, crisp air, my thoughts were not only on the condition of the roads and their iciness, but on the knowledge that the road verges were getting smaller and smaller each year, giving less space for slippage and increasing the danger of those winding coastal roads. That is part of the reason why I have advocated for levelling-up funds to address coastal erosion concerns. We can have all the wonderful attractions we like, but if villages and roads slide into Strangford Lough, those attractions will mean nothing for those places.
Moving on, I want to highlight the concerns of small businesses. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective in these debates. I believe that it adds to the value of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that we can all come together from four regions to debate these issues and thereby engender support for all businesses in the regions, just as I support my colleagues here in the mainland.
In March 2022, most of the businesses in Northern Ireland—some 89%, or 70,510—were microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. Just over 2%, or 1,640 businesses, had 50 or more employees. Almost half of businesses in Northern Ireland—45% or 35,415 businesses—had a turnover of less than £100,000, while 10%, or 8,220, had a turnover in excess of £1 million. When the Government talk about percentages, I presume they are thinking in terms of thousands of pounds, yet the cost for many of these businesses is hundreds of pounds, which could cover the cost of, for example, pens, biros and pencils for their office. Yet, for a small business, these perpetual small increases can be the death knell. When the debate came forward, I was pleased to support it and add a Northern Ireland perspective.
In Northern Ireland, our small businesses pay 30% more for the delivery of products. That is, in part, to do with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, but also the movement of goods. They seek to absorb some of the cost, and this finds their profit margin down to 15% to cover all overheads. With respect, the pressure on businesses in Northern Ireland is more acute than it is for those on the mainland. When rates are put up by a few per cent, it can mean business owners working for less than the minimum wage. There is probably more pressure today than there has been for a long time, so again this debate is relevant to my constituents and businesses in Strangford.
Another struggling demographic is pubs. I support what both the hon. Members for Waveney and for Torbay said and will give my own perspective. Pubs pay more in business rates per pound of turnover than any other business. Both hon. Members referred to the hospitality sector, and that is a sector we are concerned about. I know we always come asking for things, but it is the nature of life that we seek to illustrate in these debates where our constituents are coming from. What help can the hospitality trade be given? I know the Government have helped in many cases, so this is not a criticism—I am not in the job of criticising; I am in the job of trying to find solutions, as others are.
The business rates bill for the sector accounts for 2.5% of total business rates paid, despite only representing 0.5% of total rateable turnover—an overpayment of £570 million. When the hon. Member for Waveney introduced the debate, he clearly suggested that the rates for the hospitality sector, including pubs and restaurants, need to be substantially reviewed, because the overpayment does not reflect a fairness in the system. It is time to look at that.
The draft ratings list for 2023 to 2026 shows pubs’ rateable values falling on average by 17%, which will start to address the overpayment, but there is still a long way to go, and we should look to the immediate concern. The extension of, and increase in, the hospitality business rates relief for 2022-23 was therefore extremely welcome. I always think we should give credit where credit is due. The Government have made some substantial moves, and it is important that we recognise that. The freezing of the multiplier and the abolition of the downward transition on relief were also welcome.
However, the decision not to bring forward—this is one of my requests for the Minister—the online sales tax to offset the cost of pub rates and provide for a fundamentally fairer business tax regime for the digital age was disappointing. I ask the Minister to see whether that request could be looked at. It is important because it is one of the solutions. In these debates, the hon. Member for Waveney always sets out how we can do things better, and that is incredibly helpful. The current business rates system remains unbalanced. I join the British Beer and Pub Association in urging the Government to bring forward meaningful reforms that level the playing field.
I will use a pun, which I think the hon. Members for Waveney and for Torbay, who spoke before, and the hon. Member for St Ives, who will follow, will perhaps appreciate, as they all come from coastal constituencies. Levelling up only works if the rising tide raises all ships and does not leave the essential but smaller craft marooned behind the yachts that are already away. It is about bringing the other ones on board—the smaller businesses, who are under incredible pressure. I ask again for greater consideration on those issues. I know the Minister will do all she can to try to address that.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for bringing this subject—a pet subject of mine—to the House once more. I am glad that the debate is called “Business Rates and Levelling Up”, because I want to pick up on both of those, and include the VAT threshold within the levelling-up issue, because it is absolutely relevant to my constituency.
Much of what has been said today does not come as a surprise, but every opportunity to argue for a reform of property-based taxes is one that we should seize. As I said, I will touch on business rates and levelling up in relation to the VAT threshold. I do not think I am alone in the view that business rates are arbitrary, taxing the existence of a business within a building, irrespective of its economic activity. It is unfair and discriminates against large independent businesses, especially in town centres, and favours—in my view—out-of-town and online businesses.
I believe that business rates should be scrapped altogether and replaced, although I know that I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on that. We should have the courage to replace business rates with a system that taxes in-town, out-of-town and online equally and fairly.
I have a great news story from my constituency. In Penzance, we have the oldest working dry dock. It is a fantastic business, and Members are welcome to come and see it. It is an amazing bit of infrastructure—donkey’s years old, and quite leaky, which does not really work for a dry dock. However, it would not be there—there is still a real risk of closure, partly because of businesses rates—if not for a local individual, a young man, who decided that it needed to be saved and wanted to have a go at it.
The dock was threatened with closure, but he has secured that business and all the jobs and skills there—and increased them—and is spending a huge amount of money on the infrastructure, trying to plug the holes and level the floor of the massive engineering workhouse. It is a fantastic piece of marine engineering, which is vital, and strategically important for the British coastline, particularly Cornwall.
That young man has invested significantly in that old facility, although much more is needed. New jobs and apprenticeships have been created and significant services have been secured and enhanced for marine engineering, and shipping more generally. However, it operates in a highly competitive market and he must find £4,000 a month just for business rates. That is undermining, as we speak, its ability to be competitive, as he needs to pour money into bringing the facility up to where it should be.
It is actually more tax-efficient—if that is the right phrase to use—to close that strategically important dry-dock facility in favour of housing or hospitality. I have done a lot of work with Cornwall Council, which says that there is nothing that it can do, but we are working to find a way to give that dry dock a level playing field with others in the area, which benefit from an enterprise zone arrangement.
I will move on to levelling up, particularly to the obstacle of the VAT threshold. In a rural coastal area where so much of the economic activity, and jobs supporting it, are compressed into the tourist season—many MPs share that problem—effort has been made for years to extend that activity. In west Cornwall, we have worked hard to extend the tourist season into the shoulder months—much earlier and later in the year. I am sure that is true in other coastal areas. That would increase economic gain, jobs wages and skills; it would provide job security, if nothing else.
However, we have faced challenges as we try to do that. There is an acute issue on the Isles of Scilly where, as we try to increase the shoulder months, we come up against the understandable need that small hotels, guest houses and restaurants have for curtailing their business. As they get closer to the VAT threshold, which I think is about £85,000, they will either close or slow down their business to avoid that threshold. The simple reason is that the minute they go over the £85,000 threshold, even by £1, they are clobbered for £9,000 of VAT. They would have to earn another £45,000 in order just to stand still. The problem with a small hotel is that it just does not have the beds, particularly in the shoulder months or the winter, to grow business to that extent.
Unfortunately, the inevitable and sensible decision for many businesses in Penzance and in my coastal community on St Mary’s on the Isles of Scilly is to close. That immediately puts other businesses in the area at risk, contributes to job insecurity and the challenges we face around that every year, hollows out communities, and threatens transport links. We tried to increase the transport running to and from Scilly in the shoulder months, but it was just not viable because people were booking the ferry, but were then unable to find accommodation or places to eat. It is a real challenge, which I have raised many times since I was elected. The last answer I received was that it was going to be looked at in 2024, but I think that might have been pushed further into the future.
Those businesses cannot grow and they would need to earn another £45,000 just to stand still—that is not an incentive for someone to work in the winter, supporting our local economy but with no gain for their business. As a result, we have a real problem in coastal areas. It is harming our ability to level up and to provide good, skilled jobs. We have seen during and following covid that jobs in hospitality and tourism are beginning to be reasonably well paid and more skilled, but they are not secure, partly because of this problem. There is thus a direct impact on job security, other businesses, transport and so on. I am not sure if this is the right place to raise it, but the simple fix is that when a business reaches the £85,000 threshold, VAT should be applied to all money earned above that. It is so simple and obvious that I am not sure why the Government do not do it.
In conclusion, I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney; tweaking business rates has actually increased unfairness and depressed growth and aspiration —that is the experience in my constituency. Business rates should be scrapped in favour of a tax that reflects the economic activity, not the building the business occupies. To support levelling up, serious consideration must be given to the chilling impact of an arbitrary VAT threshold.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate on business rates. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition.
We know that there are around 5.6 million small businesses in the UK, creating millions of jobs and opportunities. They provide essential services to local people, and make a significant contribution to the Exchequer. Businesses on high streets across our country are not just places to buy things we need. They are also an important part of where we live, work and share our daily lives.
While business rates affect businesses of all sizes, smaller businesses often struggle the most to meet those costs. They face the burden of an outdated system of business rates, while struggling with rising energy costs, rents or mortgages, and inflation, as well as the ongoing impacts of the pandemic and the September mini-Budget. Data released by the Office for National Statistics shows that the number of business closures in the UK in the first quarter of 2022 was a shocking 137,210which is 23% higher than the equivalent figure in the first quarter of 2021.
As the shopkeepers campaign has highlighted, the existing business rates system in England has become disconnected from the realities of modern retail and retail real estate. As the campaign explains, business rates in England were 87% higher in March 2020 than they were in 2001, whereas retail rents rose by only 17% over the same period. As it also points out, business rates have not responded effectively to evolving consumer and economic trends, not least the rapid growth of online retailing, and equitable business rates liabilities are the result of infrequent and delayed revaluations under a system that acts as a barrier to investment. Such views are echoed by the 2018 Confederation of British Industry report, “A Tax System that Enables Businesses to Invest and Grow”, which states:
“In an increasingly digitalised word, it has never been a more crucial time for the Government to act and set out a path for reform to the broken business rates system.”
I am sure the Minister will recall the 2019 Conservative manifesto, on which the party stood for election. Specifically, page 32 promised:
“We will cut the burden of tax on business by reducing business rates. This will be done via a fundamental review of the system.”
We recognise that any help for businesses that are struggling is welcome, and we recognise that the UBR has been frozen, relief extended into 2023-24, and downward phasing abolished. However, it seems that the promise of fundamental reform has now been abandoned. It seems that the Government have abandoned their promise fundamentally to address the imbalance that affects bricks-and-mortar businesses, which find themselves at a significant disadvantage compared with their online counterparts, whose warehouses typically attract considerably lower business rates.
My colleagues and I believe that the current system of business rates should be replaced to meet the needs of a modern economy. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) announced that a future Labour Government would replace the current system of rates with a new system of business taxation that is fit for the 21st century. We will set out our plans before the next general election, and such a system will involve more frequent revaluations—a move that many people have been urging for years. It will be a fairer system that asks online giants to pay a fairer share, so that small, local and high-street businesses in all parts of the country can thrive. Ahead of fundamental reform, we also believe that the same principle of rebalancing the burden of tax in the system should apply, which is why we have set out our plans for an increase in the threshold for small business rates relief, funded by an increase in the rate of the digital services tax.
We know that partnership between the Government and businesses is critical to economic growth, but it has been lacking in our economy for so long. We also know that small businesses have been held back, particularly by an outdated system of business rates, for many years. To increase growth in all parts of the UK, the Government should support small businesses to invest, grow and create jobs.
As the shadow Chancellor has set out, Labour will carry out the biggest overhaul of business taxation in a generation so that our businesses can thrive. Our replacement system will shift the burden of business taxation so that online firms take a fairer share, while freeing those that rely on bricks-and-mortar premises. Our new system will incentivise investment and include more frequent revaluations and instant reductions in bills where property values fall. It will reward businesses that move into empty premises and encourage, rather than penalise, green improvements to businesses. It will also make sure that no public services or local authorities will lose out from the changes.
Labour’s approach will be based on working together, with businesses, workers and public bodies all pulling together to rebuild Britain and to seize the opportunities of the future. A Labour Government will help to breathe new life into our high streets by calling time on the outdated model of business rates, so that British businesses in all parts of the country can play their part in creating economic growth and the jobs of the future.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. I am delighted that on our side of the House we have so much of the English coastline represented—I include myself in that, proud as I am to represent the Lincolnshire coastline.
I am also delighted to be joined by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I had many a happy time sailing in the famous Strangford lough in my childhood, and I know how important tourism and hospitality is to his constituency. I thank him for sharing his Northern Irish perspective, as he always does.
I hope colleagues are aware that the Government announced a significant support package for business rates in the autumn statement, and I welcome the opportunity to set that out. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss the substantial reforms to which we have already committed, which will make the business rates system fairer and more responsive to changes in the market. We have heard the concerns expressed about the status quo not just by hon. Members today, but by businesses in previous years. I will address some of those concerns and emphasise our keenness to make changes where appropriate.
Forgive me if first I go back to basics. The importance of business rates to public finances is perhaps lost in the understandable concerns raised about the impact on constituency businesses. Taxes on commercial property remain an important part of a fair and balanced business taxation system. Most advanced economies, including most OECD members, have a business property tax. Business rates raise over £20 billion a year in England alone. That money goes to fund vital public services—a priority that the Chancellor emphasised again and again in the autumn statement. Put simply, we do not believe that there is an alternative with widespread support that would raise sufficient revenue to replace business rates. For those reasons, we do not consider there is merit in a radical overhaul or abolition of business rates, but we have delivered meaningful change to improve the system and have continued to conduct several reviews on the issue. Those reviews reaffirmed the importance of business rates and concluded that they have several key advantages over other taxes. They are relatively easy to collect and hard to avoid, with a collection rate of around 98%, making them a vital and stable source of funding for local services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney suggested that the current tax rate discourages investment in new spaces and expansion of existing spaces, but there is little evidence of structural issues in property investment in the UK. As he would expect, we keep a close eye on that. We have the highest share of investment going to non-residential buildings of any member of the G7. We recognise the valuable role that businesses play in our economy and we have taken action to support them through the business rates system.
Kevin Foster
I find the Minister’s response interesting. She talks about the investment in commercial property—for example, we are seeing £140 million of investment in Torbay hotels. The issue is not so much the overall level of investment in commercial property, but the specific locations. We might have 34 million seafront hotels in Paignton, but in the town centre, which was once the main focus for the collection of business rates, we are struggling to get anywhere. Does she think there might be a link?
Victoria Atkins
Goodness me, I would not pretend to have an intimate knowledge of the economics of Torbay. My hon. Friend knows his constituency extremely well, but the realistic fact is that businesses in his high street have to pay taxes of some sort. That is why we have tried to mould the business rate support package to help the businesses that need it the most, which we recognise are those in the retail, hospitality and leisure industry. I will come on to that particular support, which is a very generous package that I hope will be of great benefit to businesses in his constituency.
We have a duty to ensure that the business rates system is fair and responsive, while raising sufficient revenue to support the public services that I have already talked about. Since 2017, when the Government doubled the 100% small business rate relief rateable value threshold from £6,000 to £12,000, a third of properties in England have paid no business rates whatever. In my own constituency, I know of many properties in my market towns that pay no business rates precisely because of that protection and they are, I hope, thriving as best they can as a result.
The Government provided £16 billion in business rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors during the pandemic because it was such a difficult time for them when the economy was essentially closed down. That was an unprecedented level of support for the high street, on which so many communities depend. From my own constituency, I know how vital that support was in keeping businesses’ heads above water during the lockdowns. The Government also provided a £1.5 billion covid additional relief fund for businesses that were affected by the pandemic but which were not eligible for other reliefs. Local authorities, due to their knowledge of their local areas, were responsible for designing and establishing those schemes. Progress has been in line with our expectations, and final distribution data will be published on gov.uk shortly.
As the Chancellor stated in the autumn statement last month, it is an important principle that revaluations should reflect market values. Hon. Members have emphasised that point during the debate. The 2023 revaluation will therefore go ahead. From April 2023, all rateable values will be updated for all non-domestic properties, with evidence from April 2021. This will mean initial bills will reflect changes in market conditions since 2015, and will ensure a fairer distribution of the tax burden between online and physical retail.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked me why the Government have not introduced an online sales tax. He will know that we launched a consultation on the issue earlier this year. We received many responses, which will shortly be published, but it is fair to say that there was not unanimity. Indeed, there was not even agreement—I would not put it as highly as that—as to what such a tax should look like, because many of even the smallest businesses on the high streets of our constituencies now have some form of online presence. It may not be the main part of their business—that may be the shop—but, understandably and laudably in the 21st century, they are trying to diversify by having an online business.
Nobody could quite see how we could differentiate between the enormous multinationals that we are all keen to ensure pay taxes and those microbusinesses that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney described so well. That is why in the autumn statement the Chancellor decided against an online sales tax, with the important caveat that the changes we are making to business rates, including with the revaluations, will mean that the distribution warehouses, which supply the multinationals that we are all keen to ensure pay their proper taxes, will see significant rises in their bills while we also protect the shops and microbusinesses to which he referred.
Jim Shannon
That is a very helpful response, as always; I expected nothing less. I will take the Minister’s point of view out of Hansard and give it to some microbusinesses in my constituency that have asked me these questions. I understand there is a wish for this revaluation to happen, and I understand the difficulties and complexities the Government face to get it over the line. If I could come back to the Minister directly with some thoughts, maybe we could see if we could review it in a positive way.
Victoria Atkins
Of course. I am always delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that there are many other factors; for example, click and collect was a stumbling block for many in the consultation. I look forward to his future correspondence.
The support package that we have introduced means that the revaluation will go some way to addressing the imbalance between online and offline retailers. On average, large distribution warehouses will see an increase in bills of about 27%, and bricks and mortar retailers will see decreases of about 20%. We recognise that business rates payers may feel uncertain about the upcoming revaluation, given other pressures the country is facing that are driven by global challenges.
Rising prices around the world, made worse by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, have hit businesses hard. In the autumn statement we announced the steps that we will take next year to provide support through these difficult times. We will deliver a business rates support package worth £13.6 billion over the next five years. That will protect businesses from facing large bill increases because of high inflation and rateable value increases following the revaluation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney urged the Treasury to cut the UBR to the 1990 level of 35p, showing the trade-offs that the Government must make. Doing so would cost £9 billion a year, which would be a significant potential loss to the public revenue. We have thus taken the steps we have through the support package to protect ratepayers from high inflation, and we are instead freezing the tax rate for three consecutive years at a cost of £14.5 billion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) described the vibrant hospitality sector in his constituency. We are extending and increasing the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme from 50% to 75%, up to a cash cap of £110,000 per business. Pubs and the holiday parks he referenced are included.
Peter Aldous
I am conscious that I will have the opportunity to respond at the end of the debate, but I want to pick up now on one specific point that the Minister has mentioned. She said that the Treasury had carried out an assessment and if we were to go back to the UBR of just over 30p from when this system was introduced in 1990, that would cost an extra £9 billion. Did that assessment take into account a situation in which we had annual revaluations as well? If we had annual revaluations, that sort of margin would be much lower and we would fairly redistribute the burden of business rates across the UK.
Victoria Atkins
I will come back to that point, and particularly the detail on annual revaluations, because I think there is some sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point of view.
The retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme is the largest business rates one-year relief we have provided in 30 years, so I encourage colleagues to ensure that their local businesses know that the Conservative Government are delivering for those businesses. It will support about 230,000 properties—not just on high streets, but beyond high streets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay emphasised. Therefore, although I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney regarding the temporary nature of these interventions, permanent changes have been announced and will provide support for affected businesses.
We will deliver on a key ask by trade bodies such as the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Retail Consortium by permanently removing downward caps from transitional relief, which previously restricted falls in bills. Removing those caps permanently means ratepayers seeing decreases in their rateable value will experience a full drop in their bills next year.
Taken together, the revaluation and the support package have updated bills to reflect market conditions. Those facing bill increases will see them phased in through transitional relief, and the small businesses that make up our high streets will be protected through targeted support. The multiplier freeze will protect all ratepayers against double-digit inflation.
Colleagues were keen to emphasise the important role that pubs play in our communities. As a proud Member of Parliament for many excellent pubs in my constituency, I understand their concerns. It might help colleagues if I lay out the forms of help that pubs will receive through the support package. As a result of the package of support, pubs’ bills have fallen by about 30%. All pubs will benefit from the multiplier freeze, and pubs with falling rateable values will benefit from the removal of the downward cap that I just described. They will also be eligible for the 75% retail, hospitality and leisure discount. Of course, small pubs that have a rateable value of below £12,000 pay no rates at all.
Would my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) be kind enough to write to me about his dry dock example? That business will receive some form of help through the overall package.
Let me turn to business rates reforms. We understand and listen to the concerns of those running businesses, and keep the operation of all tax policy under review. In the 2021 autumn Budget, we announced the outcome of the business rates review, and will shortly bring forward legislation to deliver those reforms. A core element of that package is more frequent revaluations, moving to revaluations every three years instead of every five; my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is smiling at me. That represents significant reform, and will ensure that the system is more responsive to changing market conditions.
To enable those reforms, we are also introducing some administrative measures, including a new information duty on ratepayers to ensure the VOA has sufficient data to accurately update rateable values every three years, and to help reduce the number of appeals and the time taken to resolve them. The changes will also unlock opportunities for further improvements to the system in future, such as even more frequent revaluations. We understand the merits of annual revaluations, but we need the change to three years to settle in a little bit, because even moving to three years represents significant operational complexity, but we very much understand the wish for annual revaluations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned the wish for increased transparency by the VOA, which I understand. I sympathise with the issues that ratepayers are facing through the “check, challenge, appeal” process. The Government are keen to address those issues by delivering on the commitments made in the business rates review. Accordingly, there is already a plan in place that is providing ratepayers with better access to improved information about how valuations are carried out. I urge my hon. Friend to pass to me any information he or others may have about the unscrupulous agents he described; I am most concerned about that, and will be very interested in that information, because I am looking at the role of agents across all aspects of tax policy. A lot of agents provide a very good service to their customers, but we must weed out those who are unscrupulous or even worse.
In the longer term, we expect ratepayers to be able to access fuller analysis of the evidence used to set the rateable value of a property, which I hope will in turn restore confidence in that system. We keep all business rates reliefs under review, as the system of reliefs plays a vital role in ensuring the overall sustainability and fairness of tax. The Government ensure that reliefs are as easy as possible for ratepayers to navigate, with several being automatically applied by local authorities, such as transitional relief, supporting small business relief, and empty property relief. Comprehensive guidance on reliefs is available on gov.uk.
Through the review—which I encourage the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) to read; perhaps he has not realised that we have done it—we have committed to several measures to modernise and digitalise the business rates system, including further investment in the Valuation Office Agency to enable it to upgrade its IT infrastructure and digital capabilities. The review recommitted to the digitalising business rates reform programme, which will match business rates data with central HMRC tax data to provide a better oversight of the rates system, more precise targeting of reliefs, and more effective compliance.
At the very beginning of the autumn statement, the Chancellor told the House that he had three key priorities:
“stability, growth and public services.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 844.]
We understand that the issue of business rates cuts across all three of those priorities because of the impact it has on our high streets and the money it raises for our vital public services.
As ever, this is about balance. We acted at the autumn statement to support business and we will deliver on the reforms announced at the 2021 business rates review through upcoming legislation. We will continue to listen to the arguments, but we will also continue to make the decisions we think are in the interests of the country as a whole. I thank hon. Members for their contributions and look forward to engaging with them all to ensure that this continues to be a system that serves us all.
Peter Aldous
This debate has been short on quantity of colleagues but long on quality; once we get through a lot of the rhetoric, perhaps there is not much between us all. There is, though, a need for urgency to move forward and carry out that fundamental reform, and the Chancellor set the foundation stone for that last month.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) is the odd one out here because, luckily for him, global warming and climate change mean that he is the only one of us who does not—yet—represent a coastal community. When it comes to levelling up, the dramatic impact of high business rates on coastal communities is quite noticeable. Our town centres—whether in Lowestoft, Torbay, St Ives or Strangford—are an important component part of attracting people and visitors, whether for a week’s holiday or just a day out. If they are hollowed out, there ain’t much to see.
In Lowestoft, there are exciting plans for regenerating the town centre. We are just about beginning to see that happening, but there is a danger that that reincarnation could be strangled at birth by high business rates. That is why we need the reform. Hotels, caravan parks, pubs and restaurants are vital to coastal economies. There is evidence that people who come in and invest in those businesses are being penalised for their investment under the current system. This debate has shown that we need to focus on the impact of high business rates on levelling up, particularly in coastal communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) disagreed about the need to replace business rates. He outlined the need for a digital tax and to look at the VAT thresholds. I largely agree with my hon. Friend the Minister; it would probably be impossible to get rid of business rates. Reading between the lines of what the Opposition say—although it is probably not for me to do that—I sense that if they form the next Government, they will reach the same conclusion. We can probably get the sort of reforms that I want now in place much quicker, without having to wait until 2024 or beyond.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives that we should trial digital taxes and looking at the thresholds, but I do not think that is the holy grail to the full replacement of business rates. We need the fundamental reform that I have outlined, with a lower UBR multiplier coupled with annual valuations, which would produce the more dynamic and fairer system that we require.
The reliefs that we have talked about are welcome, but they make the system incredibly complicated. If a form of business taxation is simplified, the businesses and entrepreneurs that are investing can see a way towards making long-term investments, rather than saying, “Hang on! That particular relief is only around for a couple of years for certain. Do I need to be going ahead with this?” Providing that certainty is very important.
An ex-surveying colleague has texted me, using words to the effect of, “Don’t you realise the valuation coming up in April will be a bloodbath?” Those were his particular words. I suspect many people and businesses will get pleasant surprises; it might be a case of Christmas coming early for them. Others will fall off their chairs in shock and think, “What on earth are we going to do to address this?” The Government need to reach out and support those parties, and do all they can to assist them.
We touched on unscrupulous so-called surveyors. There are some very good and highly professional people out there who are involved in business rates, but, as I have said, this issue is an incredibly complicated part of the property surveying world, so there is a small number of national and regional experts. That leaves a vacuum for the unscrupulous to fill, and fliers tend to appear from businesses from all over the place—not local ones—saying, “Come on. I can help you with this. Hand over a thousand quid and I will sort it.” When I was in practice, one very often got called in when a business had responded to such circulars and the person had taken the money up front and disappeared. We need to work together closely to sort that out.
In conclusion, I sense that we could be at the beginning of a journey to reforming business rates sensibly. On 17 November the Chancellor took a major step, but it is a journey that we can complete in a much shorter timescale than has been envisaged. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will set out the stepping stones on that journey sooner rather than later, both in the upcoming Bill and the spring Budget.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered business rates and levelling up.
Motor Neurone Disease Research: Government Funding
(1 year, 11 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
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I will call Karl Turner to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond to what is a timely debate following the sad death of Doddie Weir, who through his My Name’5 Doddie foundation was such a great campaigner on the issue. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to make a winding-up speech, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government funding for research into motor neurone disease.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. MND is a devastating, debilitating and untimely life-limiting disease. We saw that just two weeks ago with the tragic loss of Doddie Weir, to which you have referred. Doddie was a giant of a man, both on and off the field, but the MND Association estimates that in the UK six people a day die of MND. A third of them die within 12 months of diagnosis, but it is now more than a year since the Government pledged—in response to the tireless efforts of campaigners and following meetings between me and the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—to invest £50 million. We met the Secretary of State that day with campaigners, and he gave an assurance to us all that immediate action, meaning immediate money, would be forthcoming. It was not.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this important issue. I have a close working relationship with MND campaigners back home, and ahead of the debate they got in touch to point out the lack of adequate care and provision in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health back home needs help to improve the standard for accessing clinical trials, and the same applies for people across the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that people in all parts of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are able to gain from research and be involved in clinical trials? We all stand to gain from that.
Karl Turner
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is an incredibly impressive campaigner on the issue. I pay tribute to him. He is knowledgeable on the subject, and he raises it both publicly in debate and privately with Ministers when given the opportunity. I commend him for that.
I very much welcome the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care commenting at the weekend that the money will be fast-tracked into the hands of researchers, but I am sorry to say that it feels as though the Government have dragged their feet. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to this point by the impressive dedication of MND campaigners—not least Rob Burrow, who is a rugby league legend—and it is disappointing that we have had to wait 12 months for anything. This debate was secured, then there was talk in the media that there would be funding available, but campaigners are entitled to be a little concerned and a little nervous about where and when that money will be forthcoming.
I pay tribute to the campaigners. I have briefly mentioned Rob Burrow; for all his brilliance on the pitch, the whole rugby league community has been blown away by his determination to raise awareness of MND. It is his tenacity that has brought us to where we are today. I have to be honest that I knew very little about MND. I am a rugby league fanatic; I support both of the rugby league teams in Hull. I am bound to say, being the Member for east Hull, that I support the red and whites a bit more than the black and whites on occasion. Rob is the person who brought this to my attention. Special mention should also be given to Rob’s former teammate and best pal, Kevin Sinfield, who has completed seven ultra-marathons in seven days to raise about £1.5 million for MND charities. That is an incredible effort from an incredible campaigner and man.
This debate was secured before the Secretary of State announced the money at the weekend. I want to mention that I have spoken with the MND Association at length, and my office has spoken with it in preparation for this debate. It has one single ask. It desperately needs a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for BEIS, so that it can get a timeline and some understanding of when the money will be made physically available. It is no good promising money and then not delivering it. The promise was made more than 12 months ago—nothing has been forthcoming.
I am quite annoyed at the fact that the debate was secured, and all of a sudden there is discussion in the media that the money is coming. People are asking me whether it means 50 million quid last year and 50 million again this year. The reality is that it is 50 million quid, which is much needed—the association and campaigners are grateful for it—but they need to know when and how the money is going to be made available.
I am going to rest there; I do not think I have anything further to add. It is a simple ask: will the Minister agree to speak to the Secretaries of State concerned and put the meeting together as quickly as possible, so that we can move forward?
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) for securing this debate. I too pay tribute to Doddie Weir, an incredible man who sadly passed away at the end of November. My thoughts are with his wife Kathy, and their sons, Hamish, Angus and Ben.
I had the good fortune to meet Doddie during an online roundtable—online because it was during the pandemic—and I was inspired by his campaign for a brighter future for people living with MND. His charity, the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation, works tirelessly to raise funds for research and provide grants to people living with this cruel condition.
During the pandemic, and again since, I also met with my Mid-Kent MNDA branch as a constituency MP. Those meetings are vivid in my mind. The first call I had with them had literally everybody on the call in tears, as we talked about the experiences of those suffering with MND and their carers—usually family members—and how they were seeing their loved ones losing a bit of themselves day by day to MND. It is such a cruel disease, as the hon. Gentleman said. I am thankful to him and to several other Members of Parliament who have campaigned for research funding and actively lobbied me and other Ministers on that point.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I am a biographer of Don Revie. This is an important debate, because Don, who played for Hull City during his playing career, passed away from motor neurone disease in 1989. Like Doddie Weir and Rob Burrow, he played sport at a high level. If the Government are going to invest in research, will they look at the fact that sportsmen seem to be more likely than the rest of the population to develop motor neurone disease?
Secondly, I urge the Minister to tell GPs to ensure that people are tested for motor neurone disease early in their journey, because the problem is that it is one of the last things people test for. In the case of Don, he believed that the pain in his back was caused by slipped discs—tragically, it was motor neurone disease. I ask the Minister to look into those two asks.
Helen Whately
The hon. Member makes two really important points. As he says, several prominent sportsmen who have been effective campaigners have sadly been affected by the disease, and there is a potential relationship with head injuries. He also made a point about the challenge of diagnosis, which I will take away.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East rightly talked about the tenacity of campaigners such as Rob Burrow and how effective their visible campaigning has been at raising awareness of MND. The disease affects a significant number of people, with around 5,000 suffering from it right now. Sadly, we know that people do not live very long with MND, so a really significant number of people across the country are being affected over time. It is incredibly cruel for the individuals who suffer.
I heard the request of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East for a meeting, and I will come to some of the plans to address his calls in a moment. As I said, MND has a huge impact on those who have been diagnosed, and it is devastating for them and their families. We have made real progress in research, but we are yet to learn why motor neurones die off. There is still no cure for the disease and only one drug is licensed in the UK to treat MND, which is why the Government committed back in November 2021 to make at least £50 million available for MND research over the next five years.
Before I go into more about research, I want to say something about how we are supporting people living with MND, which is a degenerative condition—often rapidly so—that requires complex and anticipatory care. For that reason, the majority of services for people with MND are specialised and commissioned nationally in the 25 neurological treatment centres across England. In the absence of a cure, we want to make sure that people with MND have access to the best health and care support available to meet their complex needs. It is really important for people suffering from MND and their carers to have specialised and targeted support, including devices to help people with MND to be able to continue to communicate effectively for as long as possible, as well as other types of care.
Since November 2021, we have invested £790 million in the National Institute for Health and Care Research biomedical research centres, which bring together experts to translate scientific breakthroughs into treatments for patients. At the Sheffield centre, researchers have already pioneered evidence-based interventions to manage the symptoms of MND. In September, the Sheffield researchers published promising clinical trial results for the drug tofersen. Professor Dame Pamela Shaw, the director of the NIHR Sheffield BRC, said:
“I have conducted more than 25 MND clinical trials and the tofersen trial is the first trial in which patients have reported an improvement in their motor function.”
I want to emphasise that because, until now, it has been very hard to be optimistic about developing a cure for MND or even effective treatment. The trial is, in fact, grounds for optimism against this cruel disease.
In June, the Government and charity partners invested in a £4.25 million collaborative partnership on MND, which includes LifeArc, the MND Association, the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation and MND Scotland. The Government are supporting groundbreaking research undertaken by the UK Dementia Research Institute. Seven of its 50 research programmes are dedicated specifically to MND, with world experts undertaking discovery science, translational and clinical research to drive medical progress.
There has already been work going on to invest in MND research, but I heard the impatience of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and have heard from other hon. Members. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), who is here today, has also lobbied me and other Ministers on the desire for greater pace and so that money goes towards research quicker and then translates more quickly into treatments.
To that point, yesterday, we announced at the Department of Health and Social Care, together with the Secretary of State for BEIS, how we will deliver the full £50 million research commitment, which will build on our existing investments and successes to more rapidly fund MND research. In that regard, £30 million of Government funding will be invested immediately through specialist research centres and partnerships with leading researchers. That will include £12.5 million to the UK Dementia Research Institute to support groundbreaking research specifically into MND, a further £8 million investment into early-phase clinical research for MND via the NIHR biomedical research centres and £6 million for a translational accelerator that connects the DRI capabilities with those of the Francis Crick Institute, the Laboratory of Molecular Biology and the new MND collaborative partnership. We are investing a further £2 million in the MND collaborative partnership, which will specifically focus on data for MND research.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I am triggered by the reference to Francis Crick, who was also from Northampton, so there is quite a connection here, also given my great privilege to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on motor neurone disease. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) for having this debate, but particularly grateful to the Government for listening, making some really important announcements and pushing this forward. It has been received with great pleasure by the research community and MND sufferers. I hope the Minister will accept my thanks for that. I look forward to working further with her in taking this forward, now that we have the new announcements.
Helen Whately
It is good to hear from my hon. Friend. Credit goes to him for his campaigning, both personally and as chair of the APPG on motor neurone disease, together with that of other Members of Parliament, to push for investment to get out to the frontline on research. I look forward to working with him further so we can ensure this investment in research makes a difference for people suffering from MND and their carers, and for those in the future.
I have just mentioned the MND collaborative partnership, which is a mechanism by which the many initiatives that I just described will come together. The first meeting of this virtual institute took place at the end of November, and I am looking forward to hearing about further progress now that the funding is in place. The remainder of the committed £50 million of MND funding is available for researchers to access via the NIHR and the Medical Research Council. Government will support researchers in coming forward with ideas for new research via a joint highlight notice between NIHR and the Medical Research Council on MND. That will allow our funding to be responsive to progress in science and ensure breakthroughs reach patients in the quickest possible time. Further to that, the Secretary of State will shortly host leading researchers and patient groups at a roundtable to discuss MND research and help researchers make the best bids as quickly as possible. That addresses the call for a meeting from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the Minister and I welcome everything that she has helpfully just announced. However, my researcher spoke yesterday to the association and it still requests that meeting. It is the only ask. I accept what she says about roundtables and all sorts of other things going on behind the scenes, but the association wants a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Perhaps it is difficult to get them together, so there could be separate meetings. That is the only thing the association has asked me to ask for today, so it would be remiss of me if I did not push her to request that meeting after she leaves here.
Helen Whately
The hon. Member’s request is very clear. As I said to him a moment ago, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will meet researchers and patient groups at a roundtable about this issue. If that is not the same meeting as the one he wants, I am very happy to take that point away and find out exactly what meeting he wants and how we can make sure that it takes place as well as the planned meeting.
I have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South over the past few weeks about red tape getting in the way of research, which we clearly do not want to be the case. To help cut red tape, research funders from NIHR and the Medical Research Council are working together so that MND proposals will go to the right scheme at the early idea stage and so that applications can be considered before they even have full sign-off from their universities and institutions.
We are also building on our recent announcement of £790 million for the NIHR biomedical research centres by putting in MND funding, so that it gets quickly to the most promising researchers already working on MND.
To sum up and return to where we started, there is no doubt that MND is a cruel disease that takes people before their time and, as it does so, takes them bit by bit from their loved ones. As yet, there is no cure. However, I say “as yet” because I have hope, and we have real grounds for optimism with the clinical trials. We also have £50 million going into MND research. I have outlined today how we are accelerating that funding to go to the frontline of research and to develop the treatments that will make a difference to MND sufferers, whether here and now or in the future.
In no small part, that is thanks to the late Doddie Weir and his family, Rob Burrows, Ed Slater, Kevin Sinfield, and all the other MND campaigners and carers who have worked so hard to raise awareness of MND and push for more action on MND research. I can assure them that their efforts are not in vain. I personally take inspiration from all their tireless work, which reinforces the Government’s commitment to fund and support research into MND. We owe it to people with MND, future sufferers, and all the campaigners and researchers to push ahead with the groundbreaking research that will help to develop effective treatments and, indeed, cures for this cruel disease.
Question put and agreed to.
Benefit Sanctions
(1 year, 11 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
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered DWP’s policy on benefit sanctions.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group as I will be mentioning some issues that appertain to staff who work in the Department for Work and Pensions. There are three components to what I want to raise this afternoon: the latest figures on sanctions, the policy itself and some of the challenges, and the pressures facing DWP staff.
The latest figures on sanctions are shocking. In my written question 88916, I asked,
“how many benefit claims were subject to sanctions in the last three months for which data is available by constituency; and how much was the (a) total and (b) average sum of benefit income lost by claimants due to sanctions in each constituency.”
Members can refer to that particular written question and answer. In June 2022, just over £34 million was clawed back by the DWP in Great Britain. In July, it was £34.9 million and, in August, it was over £36 million, so the figures are increasing month on month. In Scotland, the August figure was £2.3 million, and in Glasgow South West the figure was £57,000. The average deduction in August was £262 a month, which is a considerable sum of money to deduct from someone’s social security. The figures suggest that the aggressive attitude we saw between 2013 and 2015 is back among us. The raising of the administrative earnings threshold means that 600,000 more claimants could be subject to a sanction, and that will include raising the number of people responsible for delivering the benefits being sanctioned, as I will come on to.
We know the history of benefit sanctions. The coalition Government said their Welfare Reform Act 2012 would
“lay the foundation for a clearer and stronger sanctions system that will act as a more effective deterrent to non-compliance.”
They made changes in three main areas. First, they extended the scope of conditionality and sanctions within the same claimant groups. Secondly, they increased the length of sanctions for certain groups. Thirdly, they introduced the concept of escalating sanctions, with longer sanction periods for second and third sanctionable failures within a 12-month period.
However, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Amber Rudd, had concluded that three-year sanctions were rarely used and were counterproductive, and ultimately undermined the goal of supporting people into work. The Work and Pensions Committee report in 2018 found that some claimant groups, such as single parents, care leavers and people with health conditions or disabilities, were disproportionately vulnerable to and affected by sanctions.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
A few months ago, a vulnerable constituent contacted me after she had been sanctioned for missing an appointment, despite being assured that she did not need to attend it for very good and sensitive reasons. She was an older woman who had been through extreme trauma and who had no access to the internet and no mobile phone credit. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more humanised approach must be taken by the DWP?
Chris Stephens
I thank my good and hon. Friend for that intervention. I will mention similar specific case studies, and there are clear questions for the Department to answer on this matter.
Going back to the Work and Pensions Committee 2018 report, it criticised the fact that a sanction incurred under one conditionality regime continues to apply even if the claimant’s circumstances change and they are no longer able or required to look for work. The report said that the sanction serves no purpose in such circumstances, and the Work and Pensions Committee recommended that it be cancelled. It further criticised the fact that the decision to impose a sanction is made by an independent decision maker
“who has never met the claimant and who cannot be expected to understand fully the circumstances that led to them to fail to comply.”
It therefore recommended that work coaches should be able to recommend
“whether a sanction should be imposed”.
The Government responded to the report and each of the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendations in January 2019. They agreed to evaluate the effectiveness of reforms to welfare conditionality and sanctions, and said that it would be focused on whether sanctions within the universal credit regime are effective at supporting claimants to search for work. The Government said they would look to publish the results in spring 2019, but that did not happen, and DWP Ministers were still saying in July 2020 that the Department was committed to conducting an evaluation and that it would look to so by the end of 2020. In January 2022, however, The Guardian reported that the Department for Work and Pensions had refused a freedom of information request from Dr David Webster to release a copy of the evaluation.
In February, it was reported to the Lords that the Department had not published its evaluation of the effectiveness of universal credit sanctions because it lacked robust legacy data. The former Secretary of State told the Work and Pensions Committee—in fact, it was in answer to the Chair, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is present—that she had noted that the evaluation had been commissioned by a previous Administration, and she explained that the notion of a sanction acts not only through its imposition on a claimant but, importantly, through its effect as a deterrent. That raises a couple of questions.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points about the Select Committee’s report, and I pay tribute to him for his work on this subject. I understand that his membership on the Committee will shortly come to an end, but I thank him very much for all his work.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the new Secretary of State say that he will want to have a fresh look at whether some of the things that the Department has refused to publish in the past should have been published. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this particular report should be high on that list of priorities?
Chris Stephens
It should be among the highest. I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his very kind words, which I appreciate. I have enjoyed working with him, and he chairs the Committee very effectively indeed. He is absolutely correct to say there is a real question about reports that are currently unpublished but should be published, and I will come to some of them in my remarks.
I would argue that the dugs in the street—or the dogs in the street, for those not from Scotland—could give us a comprehensive picture of sanctions and their effects on people. When I secured the debate, Feeding Britain and the Independent Food Aid Network asked for case studies and examples. I raised one with the Secretary of State at the Select Committee hearing about a Glasgow South West constituent who has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and severe anxiety, and who has extreme difficulty communicating with others. The local jobcentre applied a sanction after she failed to attend in-person appointments, despite the fact that, as part of a claim for employment and support allowance, it was agreed three years ago that reasonable adjustments would have to be made and that telephone meetings would be arranged for her. It raises the issue of the financial losses that occur, but the Department for Work and Pensions argued that there was no change of circumstances and that no sick notes were handed in.
We also have the example of an individual in Motherwell. A young mother who had escaped domestic violence was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment, despite the fact that she had advised the Department for Work and Pensions that she needed to care for her autistic child on that particular day.
In the city of Liverpool, clients have commented that DWP job coach appointments have come through to their phone journals at times when they had no credit for data or access to wi-fi. By the time that each was able to afford to that phone data, they had missed the appointment and been sanctioned. Digital exclusion will increasingly affect clients who are unable to afford a basic smartphone and/or a contract for data access. They then face longer journeys to their jobcentre as a result of one of the busiest jobcentres in that city, Toxteth, being due to relocate, making access harder for local people.
In Coventry, we are advised that the vast majority of sanctions are due to people not attending an appointment, but many are now told of their appointments through an online journal so, again, people with no access to internet are being told that they are going to be sanctioned.
In Somerset, we hear of the case of someone with severe mental health issues and anxiety, whose job coach assured her that any correspondence would go to the principal carer. Ordinarily, she was informed of her appointments via a journal entry. The job coach cancelled a planned appointment and arranged a new one, but put it on that job coach’s to-do list, not through the online journal. This is an area that has to be looked at, because that person was subject to a sanction.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Debbie Abrahams
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, and on all his work on the Select Committee. Is he as worried as I am that this is just a further iteration of the DWP sanctions issues going back to 2012? I particularly remember David Clapson, who was the first case that I came across—a former soldier who was sanctioned. He could not afford to keep his refrigerator on, his insulin went off, and he died as a consequence. Is the hon. Member as concerned as I am about sanctions potentially resulting in deaths?
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Lady, who is a good friend, for her intervention. She has done fantastic work in this area, which I very much support. I am concerned about the effects that sanctions have, and that the whole deductions policy has. The effect that taking money away from people has on cost of living payments is another real issue, which I will come on to.
I would also add that, based on exchanges I have had with Ministers past and present, people can be sanctioned if they refuse a zero-hours contract job. Someone could be in a position where they have secure work, but less hours. The Department is encouraging people to increase their earnings, so if that person refuses a zero-hours contract and insecure work, they will be subject to a sanction.
Then, we have the position of the DWP staff themselves. Some have received letters saying that they need to increase their earnings. It is no wonder that they are going on strike, is it? There is an anomaly here: many thousands of DWP staff are paid so poorly that they are claiming the same benefits they deliver, while sharing an office with someone who could then sanction them because they have not increased their earnings or their hours. I find that completely and utterly bizarre, and I hope that Ministers will look at PCS’s concerns and maybe treat the situation of DWP staff separately. It seems to me that the Department that is delivering social security should not be taking social security away from the people who are delivering it.
Food banks across the Independent Food Aid Network see a newly hungry person referred as the result of a sanction every three days on average, so I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that the current sanctions policy is forcing people to use food banks if they are not to go hungry? To that end, will the Minister undertake to publish the Department’s evidence review on the drivers of the need for food aid, which was promised two years ago, yet remains under wraps? As the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, has outlined, that is one of the reports that remains unpublished, and it is something that we want to see.
The Department’s own serious case panel agreed at its October meeting that
“there should be further collaborative work undertaken through the appropriate governance routes to explore strengthening the mechanisms which protect our most vulnerable customers in respect of sanctions.”
Will the Minister explain to us what that collaborative work will look like, and when it will take place? Will he also undertake to commission a study into any correlation that exists between the distance someone lives from their nearest Jobcentre Plus and the likelihood of them being sanctioned; the prevalence of poor mental health and vulnerability within households on universal credit and the likelihood of them being sanctioned; and the prevalence of digital exclusion within households on universal credit and the likelihood of them being sanctioned? We know that the Department has closed jobcentres; we also know that has made it more difficult for people to attend jobcentres and that they may be sanctioned for not attending a jobcentre.
Will the Minister also provide an update on the Department’s most recent trials of the yellow card early warning system in two areas, including any plans to roll out that system further afield? I do not accept that there should be conditionality in the system, but if we are going to have conditionality it seems sensible to me that there should be a yellow card system, or some sort of warning system, in place before the decision is made to issue a sanction. Given that the present system seems to rely heavily on individual discretion, which is resulting in people becoming destitute, does he agree that a fully national roll-out of a yellow card system is needed sooner rather than later?
As I have indicated, people being subject to a sanction could mean—indeed, has meant—that they do not receive their cost of living payment, but that decision could be reversed if they appeal and win their appeal. However, it seems to me that if there are 6,600 universal credit claimants who have missed out on that first cost of living payment because of sanctions, the Department for Work and Pensions should look at that situation. It seems to be a double punishment. The cost of living payment is in place so that people can meet their basic living needs and if they are sanctioned, it appears that there is something very wrong.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I agree with my hon. Friend that sanctioning people on the lowest of incomes at any time is grossly unfair, but at this time, when even many people in well-paid work are struggling to pay their bills, it is obscene. I had not been aware, so I thank him for highlighting it, that some people are not getting the cost of living payment that the Government say we need to survive.
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing this debate, but on asking the questions that led me to discover that this summer £153,000 was taken from my constituents by DWP sanctions. Will he join me in saying to his constituents, as I am now saying to my constituents in Glasgow North East, “If you have your benefits sanctioned, do not take it lying down. Contact me and I will fight this for you, because this is wrong and nobody should have to live on less than the minimum income”?
Chris Stephens
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and she is absolutely right. We are in a cost of living crisis. During the pandemic, the Department rightly took the view not to sanction people. We are now in a cost of living crisis, and if we did not sanction people during the pandemic, we should not sanction them during a cost of living crisis either. That seems to me to be a sensible approach.
My hon. Friend is also correct in highlighting the great work that constituency office staff do in helping the most vulnerable to see off these attacks. We have all dealt with cases of people being sanctioned; I think that every single constituency office across these islands has had to deal with that.
In closing, I will mention some of the staff concerns. There are concerns that jobcentres have been told by senior managers and Ministers to “up their game” when it comes to sanctions. There are very real concerns about the culture and certainly there is a view that there needs to be a mind-shift towards supporting people in what is important and that punishment has not achieved anything. There is very limited and patchy evidence that sanctions actually work.
There is inter-office competition, whereby different offices’ statistics are compared, pushing for higher sanction and deferral rates, and labour market decision makers are using box-ticking exercises. Pressure is put on the work coaches themselves, through tighter timescales and pushing people to physically attend the jobcentre, with the harms that causes the long-term employed. There are also real effects on disabled claimants who are thrown into a group of those most likely to get a sanction, and the relative rate of sanctions for claimants with disabilities—all of that really needs to be explored further.
Sanctions appear to be back with a vengeance, and that shift of approach requires parliamentary scrutiny. As someone who believes that conditionality has not worked, I think we need a change in approach to put the claimant and their needs at the heart of the social security system. The Department must accept the Select Committee’s recommendations to introduce either a yellow card system or another warning system, because failure to do so would mean the Department going back on its word in how it responded to previous Select Committee reports. I look forward to hearing whether colleagues have to say, including whether they accept—as I do—the need for change and reform.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate. I concur with all that has been said about his past work, both on the Work and Pensions Committee and more generally on this issue.
I have a simple question to ask the Minister. What is his understanding of the increase in this recent period? It is true that conditionality has always been an element of our social security system since the second world war, but there has been nothing on this scale. What worries me is the dramatic increase—comparing the figures now with the figures before the pandemic—and therefore the significant increase in the past year after the worst parts of the pandemic. Like others, my experience of conditionality and the use of sanctions has largely centred on the impact on constituents who live the most chaotic of lives. They have difficulty complying with the various requirements that are made of them and, in some instances, actually even understanding the conditions that are attached to them. Living those chaotic lives means that they become intensely vulnerable.
I will go through the figures again, so that I have this clear. The monthly universal credit sanctions reached a peak of 58,548 in March. They have now fallen back to an average of 45,100 in the last quarter—that is two and a half times the average in the three months before the pandemic, so there has been a 250% increase in that period. Sanctions as a percentage of UC claimants subject to conditionality are currently at 2.5% per month; in the three months before the pandemic it was 1.4% per month. The monthly sanction rate on unemployed UC claimants in July 2022 was higher, at approximately 2.8%—or one in 36 claimants—for those in the planning for work category. The number of UC claimants who were serving a sanction in August was 115,274, after a peak of 117,999 in July. That is more than three times the pre-pandemic peak of 36,771 in October 2019.
It just goes on like that. The figures on the scale of the sanctions being imposed at the moment are quite staggering. According to the report by Dr David Webster, which I believe was produced for the Work and Pensions Committee, the average sanction is about 11 weeks. For most of my constituents, surviving beyond 11 weeks becomes almost impossible—even just getting by.
Margaret Ferrier
In response to a written question, the Minister said that data on the average length of sanctions
“is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.”
The length of a sanction is directly associated with the level of hardship faced by claimants. Does the right hon. Member share my concern that the Department is seemingly not tracking essential data that should inform policy making?
John McDonnell
I fully concur and agree. That is the main question that I will come on to. I will add that, although there was an increase in sanctions in the recent period, a lot of this concerns people being sanctioned for not seeking or being unable to increase their hours. We are now going into a recession—well, we are in a recession at the moment. Based on the Government’s figures, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the number of unemployed people will increase by half a million, and the Bank of England suggests that it will most probably go above 2 million. It becomes much more difficult to find or secure work overall or to increase hours. That will increase the pressure on those who are already on the edge of being sanctioned.
My fear, which has consistently been identified as a problem, is that the system is not working; it is not dealing effectively with people who have chaotic lives. There are some conditions attached and criteria that work coaches take into account, but in no way do they embrace fully the nature of the individuals they are dealing with. The decision maker never actually gets to see the individual either to do a proper assessment. When the individual comes to me in my constituency surgery and I get a fuller understanding of their life, I can understand why they have slipped up at some stage and why the system is not working to give them the support they need to get back into work and earn a decent income.
Debbie Abrahams
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I will just pick up on what he said at the start of his speech about conditionality. There is currently no evidence that supports the efficacy—let alone the humanity—of sanctions at all. A University of York study, which was published in 2018, showed absolutely that they had no effect on out-of-work conditionality or on in-work conditionality. What is the purpose of this programme?
John McDonnell
I was going to come on to that. My question to the Minister is: what is his understanding of how this increase has taken place? What are the factors behind it, because it does then lead on to questions about the efficacy of the whole process? Looking at the excellent House of Commons Library briefing, we can see that there was a Work and Pensions Committee report in 2015, a National Audit Office report in 2016, a Public Accounts Committee report in 2017, the welfare conditionality project in 2018 and another Work and Pensions Committee report in 2018. All of them reached the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams): there is no connection between this programme and effectiveness in supporting people getting into work. There is a bizarre situation: the raison d’être of this whole process has been challenged consistently—almost annually—by independent and objective reports, yet the Government have not moved. What does the Minister believe are the reasons for this increase?
I would also like to ask another question. If the Minister cannot answer it today, I would like him to write to us with an answer. I am really worried about the impact that the sanctions and the whole process of conditionality has on the mental health of the constituents I deal with. I am anxious that the Government should at least assure us that they have in process a mechanism for monitoring that, learning lessons from that monitoring, then coming back to the House to explain what improvements will be made. I am worried about the mental health consequences because, as we go into recession and we have a cost of living crisis, people have a fear of sanctions being levelled against them, which pushes some over the edge. To be frank, we have seen too many people lose their lives, unfortunately sometimes as a result of suicide because of the pressures that they have been under as a result of these types of measures that have been introduced over this period. I would welcome the Government’s reassurance that there is monitoring of the mental health consequences and that there will be a report to the House about how that is being addressed and any lessons that can be learned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I call Grahame Morris, I note that there are a few speakers left. I do not want to set a time limit. If we could have an informal time limit of around seven minutes, that will allow everyone to get in. We will see how we get on.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I will endeavour to heed your advice about the timings. I thank my good and honourable friend and comrade, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), for securing this important debate. I also congratulate him on his assiduous work in questioning Ministers, both in the Chamber and with the use of written questions. I also thank him for sharing the figures that he has discovered—the constituency-based figures—with other Members.
In my remarks, I will first go over the purpose of universal credit and look at the level of sanctions. I also want to stress the human cost of sanctions. Universal credit is the last line of the social security safety net. It is set at a level no one should fall below. By any standard, it is set at a very low level. Let us just remind ourselves that for a single person under 25 the standard allowance—this is a monthly allowance not a weekly allowance—is £265.31. There are additional premiums for disability and so on, but the standard allowance is intended to cover council tax, utilities, food, clothing and other bills. Sometimes the housing element does not meet the full rent, so there is a top-up element for rent as well.
For a couple over 25, the standard allowance is £525.27. In a functioning economy, housing, heat and food should not be scarce commodities. They should be readily available, whether an individual is retired, employed —many people are in low-paid, insecure employment—or in receipt of social security. Universal credit should alleviate poverty. Instead, sanctions are entrenching hardship and destitution. It is a terrible shame that the Government do not put the same effort into hunting down tax evasion and apply sanctions against the very wealthy individuals who evade payment of many millions of pounds in the tax that they owe.
The level of sanctions is excessive. I thank again the hon. Member for Glasgow South West for highlighting the figures and sharing them. He mentioned that throughout the whole country the figures are as follows: in June 2020, there was over £34 million in sanctions; in July 2022, a little under £35 million; and in August 2022, £36,397,000—£36.5 million basically. If we total those together, sanctions at that level is almost half a billion pounds a year.
Where is the one-nation, caring and compassionate Conservative party, if the Government force people into poverty and destitution, particularly those who are vulnerable? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quoted the figures for his constituency, but the figures are worse for my constituency of Easington. Deductions amount to roughly £75,000 a month from people who are in the direst hardship before the deductions for advance payments, for bedroom tax, or overpayments caused by administrative error or neglect.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West made a great point about digital exclusion and the number of people who simply cannot access the system because they do not have even a basic smartphone or the wi-fi connectivity to be able to do that. The consequence is rising poverty, growing queues at food banks, and now the need for the voluntary and community sector to create warm spaces to accommodate people and at least give them a hot drink and some shelter, particularly in this terrible cold weather that we are experiencing. Sanctions harm society and can have tragic consequences.
I want to quote a BBC article dated 10 May 2021. It is a moving piece entitled “Deaths of people on benefits prompt inquiry call”. The article states:
“Cases where people claiming benefits died or came to serious harm have led to more than 150 government reviews since 2012”.
It highlights cases, including this one:
“Ms Day, 27, who had been diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder, had previously said her benefit claim left her feeling ‘inhuman’, her sister told the BBC.”
After Ms Day’s death, the inquest concluded that the authorities made 28 errors in managing her case.
In another case:
“Errol Graham starved to death in 2018 while seriously mentally ill. His benefits were stopped when he failed to attend a work capability assessment and did not respond to calls, letters or home visits from the DWP. When his body was found, Mr Graham weighed four-and-a-half stone (30kg) and his family said he had used pliers to pull out his teeth.”
We need to end the sanctions culture. It harms society, leaves the poorest in destitution and places the sick, the ill and the disabled in extreme circumstances in which they can often see no way out. The Minister can act by introducing a moratorium on sanctions. Sanctions should not be used routinely; they should instead be reserved as a last resort for the most extreme circumstances and cases. This is a matter of life and death. The Minister has an immense responsibility to safeguard those in need and the vulnerable. I urge him not to fail them as his predecessors have failed them, and to end the sanctions culture we have today.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this important debate and on all the amazing work he does on this issue. As we know, inflation is at a 40-year high, energy bills are rising, real wages have fallen for the last 13 months, the number of people living in deep poverty is increasing and we are living through a cost of living emergency. It is in that context that sanctions are being applied to people in receipt of social security benefits.
I have to start by reiterating the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). Sanctions are by their nature punitive, but continuing to operate them in such an aggressive manner in the worst cost of living crisis for a generation is actively harmful to the individuals who suffer, as my hon. Friend illustrated with horrific examples of people who have lost their lives as a result, but also to the wider economy and society. The scale of sanctions is totally unacceptable. They simply drive people into far greater debt and greater poverty, and punish people for things that are no fault of their own. People are in these situations because they may have lost their job or fallen on difficult times, and they are being punished for that. We should be supporting people in those circumstances.
It is little wonder that the Public Law Project has said that sanctions “do not work” and has referred to them as “a presumption of guilt”, or that the Welfare Conditionality project has found:
“Benefit sanctions do little to enhance people’s motivation to prepare for, seek, or enter paid work. They routinely trigger profoundly negative personal, financial, health and behavioural outcomes”.
Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that sanctions do not work, the DWP is using them more and more. Statistics from November show that more than 320,000 adverse sanctions decisions were made across the UK this year alone, up to July. The number of people subject to sanctions continues to grow. In August 2022, 115,000 people—6.5% of all recipients—were subject to them in one month. We can compare that with August 2021, when the figure was only 18,000. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I would be particularly interested to hear the Minister explain why there has been such an astronomical increase in the use of sanctions. Why that has happened is just beyond me.
The latest sanctions were worth, on average, £262 a month. That is nearly a third of the average UC payment. This is a full-frontal attack on universal credit recipients that must end.
In my opinion, the Government should end completely the sanctions regime, especially during this inflation and cost of living crisis, just as they did during the covid pandemic. They need to conduct a review of the impact on poverty, ill health and employment. They can also look to improve the application of easements and allow decision makers to cancel sanctions—the list goes on of measures that the Government could and should introduce.
I want to take this opportunity to say something about the deductions that are taken from almost 2.1 million claimants to repay debts. I recently submitted a written question on the issue to the DWP, which responded that 3,300 universal credit recipients in my constituency of Cynon Valley are subject to deductions for debts and overpayments. That is 52% of all recipients. A majority of those who use universal credit as a lifeline are having some taken away. People cannot afford those deductions. I back campaigners’ calls to convert them into grants or to write off the debts completely, which would be a much better solution. The Government must seriously consider those proposals, and at least adopt the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendation that debt repayments be paused.
From the contributions today and the overwhelming evidence, it is clear that the sanctions system is ineffectual and extremely cruel to the most vulnerable people in our society, whom we should be supporting and helping. Prior to entering this place, I worked for many years as an advice worker, and I worked with lots of people who were suffering from homelessness. I also volunteered in a food bank. The number of people who had to access the service because their benefits had been stopped was unbelievable. They were people who were in work or who were suffering mental health problems. There were families. A gentleman who came in with his three children had been unable to attend his benefits appointment because one of his children was ill; he was sanctioned for two weeks. In the 21st century, that is absolutely appalling. It beggars belief.
The use of decision makers who are not known to the individuals being sanctioned is completely inhumane. I worked with a lot of older people who are digitally excluded and unable to navigate the system. People are penalised because they are excluded from a system that is, quite frankly, designed to prevent people from accessing an entitlement. That is what benefits are: they are an entitlement that people should be allowed to access.
The sanctions system completely fails to achieve its stated objective, which is to encourage compliance and people’s return to employment. It has the opposite effect, and I talk from experience: it alienates, unfairly punishes and stigmatises people. All of that has a serious detrimental impact on people’s health and wellbeing. Instead of punishing people, the Government should overhaul the social security system, so that it provides people with an adequate payment that prevents poverty—rather than pushing people into poverty, as the current system does—encourages and enables people to find employment, and treats people with dignity. The current system does not treat people with dignity.
Other measures might include the reinstatement of the £20 UC uplift and its extension to those on legacy benefits, the ending of the five-week waiting period and the removal of the two-child limit. Lots of changes could and should be made to the social security benefit system. With 40% of UC claimants in work, it is clear that wages in this country are insufficient, which is why I and many others here support the campaign for a £15 minimum wage.
The crisis that the Government’s approach is causing is the reason for the increasing calls in Wales, for instance from the Bevan Foundation, for a Welsh benefits system. The Welsh Affairs Committee has said that the Government should assess the merits of devolving the administration of benefits to Wales, as happened in Scotland. In yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on pensions, I said that £1.7 billion of pension credit is unclaimed. The figure for unclaimed means-tested benefits is £15 billion. Some 7 million people in this country are not claiming what they are entitled to. I really wish the Government would spend more time ensuring that those people who are not claiming get what they are entitled to than punishing people in dire straits.
There are many problems with the Government’s approach, but very little interest in a solution. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why there has been such a significant increase in sanctions and what evidence the Government have that they work. All the evidence that I have seen is to the contrary. Can the Minister respond on the suspension of punitive sanctions, debt and overpayment deductions, the role of the decision maker and the question of devolution in Wales? Let me finish by congratulating again the hon. Member for Glasgow South West on securing this debate. I fear that we will revisit this issue if things do not change.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on introducing this important issue that it is very appropriate to debate at this time. I will start by saying what this debate is not about. It is not about benefit fraud, in case the Daily Mail or others thought it was. That is rare—far rarer than tax avoidance—but it is dealt with by criminal prosecution, and rightly so because it is about public funds.
Equally, I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that there should be no sanctions. What is required is an appropriate form of sanctions in every walk of life, whether in a social club or a political party. If someone transgresses, there have to be repercussions. If we breach the rules here, we can rightly face sanctions. I am a former chair of the judicial panel of the Scottish Football Association; even in sport, if someone breaks the laws through misconduct on or off the park, they will rightly face some challenge. The issue is that the extent of it is far too great, certainly at a time of huge austerity.
More importantly, it is about the reasonableness and proportionality of sanctions. Players do not get banned sine die for two minor yellow cards in a football match, yet people are facing something that would almost bring them to the end of their life. Equally, it is about the circumstances in which these sanctions are being imposed. There has to be some understanding of the individual we are dealing with and the circumstances in which they are living, as opposed to having draconian measures.
It is well over 40 years since I graduated in law. I did welfare law as part of my law degree. At that stage, it was national insurance and supplementary benefit. Even then, when supplementary benefit was brought in in the Beveridge plan, it was set at a level that was the very minimum upon which someone could live. But our circumstances have changed since then. Not simply have we gone through mass unemployment; we have moved towards a gig economy and people in vulnerable occupations. We have moved away from the national insurance supplementary benefit scheme to universal credit. That has caused challenges and difficulties, but it seems that the moral compass has been lost. We have lost any element of compassion. Looking back, sanctions did apply to national insurance and supplementary benefit, but they were proportional, reasonable and certainly not to the extent that we have today.
Three issues follow from that. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and others, punishment is being exacted upon those who work in the Department for Work and Pensions. They are threatened with punishment, and potentially with dismissal, if they do not get their number of sanctions up. That is simply unacceptable. This should be not a target-driven system, but a welfare state and a welfare system. It should be about the individual and the circumstances, not any spurious targets.
We know from PCS and other whistleblowers that many people worry that if they do not enforce a sanction against an individual, they will face consequences. That is simply unacceptable. That is not simply from the PCS; we know it from welfare rights officers. Any welfare rights officer in any constituency will tell a similar tale. It even goes beyond that. We see it in fiction on television and cinema screens. It is a few years now since “I, Daniel Blake” came out—an award-winning movie that highlighted the difficulties and, indeed, tragedy of the sanctions scheme. It is a few years past now, but the circumstances remain. I am fortunate to have been a friend of that film’s writer for over 40 years, and I know that although the movie was fictional, it was based on fact. As we would meet and discuss, he would tell me about the meetings he had had with people at food banks, trade union representatives and welfare representatives. He told me stories, such as that of the woman who had a miscarriage, who was unable to get to her appointment with the DWP and who was sanctioned, or the young father who rushed to the hospital to be at the birth of his child, whose sister phoned the DWP to say, “He cannot come; he’s gone to see the birth of his child. Surely that will be okay.” No, it wasn’t, because when he next turned up, he found himself sanctioned.
Those stories are not fiction: they are fact, and that is simply unacceptable. That is why it was not Paul Laverty but Ken Loach, who filmed the movie, who described our benefits system as “institutionalised cruelty”. The sanctions system is institutionalised cruelty, because we are taking the most vulnerable people—those who have the least income at a time of inclement weather, rising costs and enforced austerity, when work can be hard to find as unemployment figures are going up—and treating them harshly.
It is not even as if it works. As other Members have mentioned, many of these people, if not most of them, have significant challenges, whether with mental health, educational difficulties, or—as shown in “I, Daniel Blake”—simply being able to access IT. In some instances, it can be the inability to access the equipment; in other instances, it can be a generational gap. I am challenged by IT systems, and people of my age who do not have access to those systems will be even more challenged. Sanctions do not help those people; what they require is more of a mentoring scheme.
In summary, what we have to do and what the Minister must try to move towards is a system that by all means contains sanctions for those who fundamentally breach it, because that is unacceptable to those who pay their taxes and abide by the law, but where an individual is challenged, they have to be supported. Where an individual has reasonable, proportionate circumstances and an explanation, they most certainly should not be punished, and we most certainly should not see people being treated harshly as a result of a tick-box system to get the figures up. That is fundamentally wrong. It would not apply in most private businesses, and it certainly should not apply in a welfare state.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this valuable and important debate.
The Government claim that evidence clearly shows that their sanctions regime is clear, fair and effective in getting people into work, so why are they hiding data from experts who want to study that effectiveness? Benefits sanctions are an utterly inhumane blunt instrument that have not been shown to be effective in their supposed aim. Instead, almost every study that has looked at the benefit sanctions regime seems to include the word “cruel”—indeed, it is “pointlessly cruel” according to a Select Committee report, and “cruel”, “inhumane” and “degrading” according to academics. That is what the experts conducting those studies have found.
The sanctions regime is enormously disproportionate and punitive: a complete withdrawal of support for missing a single jobcentre appointment. Examples of people sanctioned because of illness, a lack of wi-fi connectivity or other reasons outside their control are easy to find. That cruelty can be imposed with little effective scrutiny for up to three years. The organisation Feeding Britain reported that in Leicester, one woman with two children was sanctioned after she missed appointments as a result of going to Iraq to look after her sick father. It left her in a terrible state, with bills and rent arrears. Another referral over the summer had his appointment with his work coach rearranged because the work coach was not in. He was then sanctioned because whoever was standing in for the work coach rearranged the appointment to be earlier, and he missed it.
The UK is an international outlier in this cruelty. Indeed, the UK is unique among OECD nations in using sanctions to punish claimants. A Bristol University Press publication on the impact of sanctions shows that they are largely ineffective and often make people more likely to remain out of work. This consciously cruel regime is operating at record levels—more than double its pre-pandemic numbers—in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and a huge number of working people in my constituency of Leicester East are being sanctioned for not accepting zero-hours contracts to top up their incomes.
Of course, the more vulnerable a claimant, the greater the impact of this conscious cruelty. The Government cannot claim to be unaware of this, as they have been repeatedly warned by MPs, academics and advocate groups about the huge damage being done. Rethink Mental Illness recently called for an immediate halt to sanctions, with the group’s chief executive officer describing them as
“incredibly damaging to people’s mental health”
because of
“the massive financial and psychological impact”
of sanctions and of the fear that they might be imposed.
Speaking of the more than doubling of the number of sanctions, David Webster of the University of Glasgow said:
“A Universal Credit claimant is now more likely”—
in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory—
“to be under a sanction than to have Covid”,
which is a truly horrifying illustration. Dr Webster also accused the Government of withholding information about the scale of the crisis they have created. That is not a new phenomenon. As we have heard, in February the Government blocked access to data for academics who simply wanted simply to study whether benefit sanctions were driving up suicide rates, bringing a vital study that was already under way to an immediate halt. Even for the Conservative party, this is an astonishing level of disregard for people’s mental health and, indeed, for their lives. It is institutional cruelty.
It is time to end the culture of secrecy about the impacts and effectiveness of the Government’s benefit sanctions policy. Will the Minister commit the Government to releasing this data? It is an open secret that information already in the public domain showed that a staggering 43% of unemployed disability benefit claimants had attempted to take their own lives because of the horrors inflicted on them, and that was in 2018—long before the sanctions reached their current appalling high level.
Sanctions are indeed pointlessly cruel, inhumane and degrading. If the Government think that the facts show otherwise, why are they hiding them?
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Benchers, who have 10 minutes each. If the Minister is so minded, he might leave a minute for Chris Stephens to wind up.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he does in fighting poverty and in his role as a trustee of Feeding Britain. I am very much looking forward to joining the Work and Pensions Committee in the new year, and I sincerely thank him for the work that he has done on the Committee. I wish him well as he takes on his new Front-Bench responsibilities.
This has been a good, albeit one sided, debate. I often find myself questioning the point of having such debates, because while Opposition Members have showed up to talk about what happens in our constituency surgeries, the only reason the two Conservative Members are present is that they are compelled to be here. The Conservative party has some new red wall MPs. Surely people visit their surgeries to discuss the punitive sanctions regime. It ill behoves any of those Members intending to stand for re-election that they do not bother their backside to turn up and talk about the very thing that we know has an impact on many of our constituents.
This debate is certainly timely, not least because recent data produced by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that benefit sanctions for young Scots have nearly doubled since 2019, which is the last comparable year for such statistics. The British Government certainly like to talk ad nauseum about their rather underwhelming kickstart programme. However, those statistics show that the DWP is only seeking to kick young people when they are down. I shall return to that slightly later when I discuss the wider context of the debate.
My hon. Friend has already referred to the figures that he has uncovered via parliamentary questions. In my constituency of Glasgow East, £55,000 was deducted from universal credit payments in August alone, simply as a result of benefit sanctions. At a time when businesses are struggling and we have all just celebrated small business Saturday over the last week or two, I remind the House that that cash could have been spent at small businesses in the likes of Parkhead, Barrowfield and Lilybank. If the Conservative party does not get that from a compassionate point of view, it should consider it purely from the point of view of economics. Instead, the DWP has pressed ahead with a regime of conditionality that pushes people into destitution. To be frank, that is something for which the state ultimately bears the cost anyway, so it is also short sighted in that respect.
The Scotland-wide figure for deductions from UC deductions by way of sanctions is even more eye-watering, at £2.3 million in August this year. Destitution is not cost-free for the state, and there is already a rich body of evidence out there from the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that shows the true cost of, for example, homelessness as people are pushed into destitution by a failing social security system. While 85% of welfare spending in Scotland is reserved to this institution, the Scottish Government are doing their level best to mitigate the very worst effects of Westminster’s assault on benefits.
Whether hon. Members are Unionists or nationalists, surely we can all agree that devolution, be it in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, cannot simply be a sticking plaster for inadequate social security policies designed in Whitehall. For example, the Government in Edinburgh spend £80 million a year of their devolved budget on discretionary housing payments, purely to nullify Westminster’s bedroom tax. To be blunt, that is £80 million that could be spent on health and education, but the Scottish Government are having to spend it trying to clean up the mess that has been caused by Westminster. Indeed, using our limited social security powers, next year the Scottish Government will spend an extra £311 million on the game-changing Scottish child payment of £25 a week. That is in stark contrast to the British Government’s outrageous two-child policy and associated rape clause.
We can begin to see a pattern emerging. In essence, DWP policy means that devolved Peter is being robbed to pay the price of reserved Paul. The same is true with the sanctions regime that my hon. Friend has highlighted today. Sanctions combined with deductions from universal credit mean that almost £2 billion per annum is snatched away from the very poorest people on these islands. As they face going hungry, that is when the third sector, which is already close to breaking point, needs to step in and pick up the pieces. To illustrate that, I will provide an example from my constituency.
The Halliday Foundation helps people in poverty with free meals and furniture as they seek to rebuild their lives. It is funded by local government, which, in turn, is funded by central Government. So all that happens is that central Government sanction a constituent and then the Halliday Foundation has to step in to support them with the financial resources that have been provided by local government. Put simply, that is a total mess and a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, and it shows that moving people into destitution is something that the Government bears the cost of anyway.
There is also an additional negative dimension to sanctions, which is very relevant just now and which I want to highlight to the Minister, backing up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Data shows that almost 700 Scottish households were denied the first £326 cost of living payment in September, simply as a result of sanctions. Let me make clear to the Minister that the freezing temperatures we are experiencing do not bypass houses and say, “Oh well, we’ll not go to minus 7° because that house has been sanctioned.” The decision to exempt sanctioned individuals from the cost of living payment is wrong and should be put right without delay.
In my five years as a Member of this House, it has become clear that Whitehall does not know best when it comes to designing a strong, robust and compassionate social security net. Indeed, Ministers and senior officials who preside over this disastrous sanctions regime clearly do not understand what it is like to sit in a cold library in Glasgow’s east end on a Friday morning speaking to constituents who literally have nothing to live on. On Friday, I met a constituent from Greenfield who is a kinship carer for his grandson. We have had debates in this Chamber about the importance of kinship carers and the vast amounts of money they save the Government. However, our failing social security means that state support is so low that my constituent told me that he has rationed his primary school-age grandson to just two baths a week because he cannot afford the energy bills.
The very fact that my constituent told me it costs 70p to run a hot bath shows just how close to the breadline that man is living and how much our social security system is failing the people who need it most. Indeed, he told me that he cannot afford to turn on the Christmas tree lights for fear of running up an energy bill that he simply cannot afford, not least because he is on a prepayment meter. These are the sorts of people who are impacted by the actions of a Department for Work and Pensions that day after day plunges the most vulnerable people in our constituencies into abject poverty—something that should shame the fifth richest economy in the world. This Government have the absolute temerity to prance around the world in their Brit-branded ministerial plane preaching about global Britain, when all the while my constituent cannot afford to run a hot bath the night before sending his grandson to school. It is utterly shameful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West outlined a better way of doing things, perhaps via the yellow card warning system, and Ministers would do well to engage with us on ameliorating a system that is currently doing so much harm. Indeed, it is no wonder that the Glasgow Centre for Population Health has attributed over 330,000 excess deaths in the UK to austerity since 2010. It has long been the case that Governments of both colours in this House have talked a tough game on welfare—I certainly prefer to call it social security—but the cat is now well and truly out of the bag. For too many people who had no understanding or experience of benefits, the pandemic lifted a veil on a social security system that has been found to be utterly inadequate. We know from polling that the public will no longer buy into the lazy picture painted by politicians in London of this being a fight of strivers versus skivers; this is now firmly the fight of abject poverty versus fairness and decency.
The only way to ensure that fairness and decency win is to end the punitive benefit sanctions regime and build a proper, robust social security system, underpinned by dignity, human rights and respect. In Scotland, we have already started that journey, but in truth most Scots know that it can only be completed with the full powers of independence. Nothing I have heard in this debate or, indeed, in my time in this House has convinced me that, with Westminster, the sanctions regime would end. That is why Scotland can, should and must make its own decisions on all social security, as with other policies, because Westminster is not working for us, and we all know that that is why Labour and the Conservatives are petrified of Scottish democracy prevailing.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition to this short and important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on introducing the debate and making a powerful speech. We have heard powerful contributions, and many who spoke drew on their own experiences of cases as well as cases brought to them by advice agencies in their constituencies.
Before the debate, I asked my local citizens advice bureau about the changes it had experienced in terms of clients with concerns about sanctions. It told me that there has been an increase in calls for help, including appeals from clients who were bedbound when the sanction was imposed because they had covid and were quarantining. I was told about someone who was sanctioned for attending a funeral and about a young woman who was forced to leave her home because she became pregnant outside marriage and feared for her safety. She was sanctioned for not wishing to return to a jobcentre near her family home in order to attend an appointment.
What has come through all of the speeches is the strong theme—it is a theme that has come up time and again whenever we have debated social security issues over recent months and years—of the impact on mental health. So many of the clients who come to us asking for help with sanctions and other aspects of social security problems are highly vulnerable and sometimes chaotic in their vulnerability, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) stated. Sometimes they have significant mental health concerns that should have been a red flag.
As we have heard, this debate is well timed because over the last few months it has become increasingly clear that the DWP’s approach to sanctions has changed in ways that Ministers have so far been unwilling to explain or justify. The evidence lies in the sheer volume of sanctions that the Department has been handing out. Let us not be distracted by the suspension of most forms of conditionality during the pandemic. That was, of course, the right thing to do, and obviously that meant there was bound to be some degree of a resurgence in sanctions once things opened up again. But that does not explain—and this point has been made several times this afternoon—why sanction levels and rates are so much higher now than they were before the pandemic.
Several Members have referred to the work of Dr David Webster, whose regular briefings on sanctions for the Child Poverty Action Group have served to bring the issue to the fore. He finds that the number of sanctions handed out per month in May to July of this year was on average 45,000, equivalent to 2.5% of people on universal credit subject to conditionality, compared with 1.4% in the three months before the pandemic. That increase in the number of adverse sanction decisions is reflected in the cumulative number of people on universal credit serving a sanction at any point in time. Dr Webster writes:
“The number of universal credit claimants who were serving a sanction in August was 115,274…more than three times the pre-pandemic peak of 36,771 in October 2019.”
Of course, there were more people on universal credit in August 2022 than in October 2019, but as Dr Webster shows, the percentage of universal credit claimants subject to conditionality serving a sanction was 6.4% in August, more than double the pre-pandemic peak of 3.1% in October 2019. And for unemployed people—those in the searching for work group—Dr Webster estimates that nearly 8% were under sanction in August 2022. My first question to the Minister is: how have we arrived at a situation where one in 13 unemployed universal credit claimants are currently under sanction?
We should be under no illusion that sanctions are just a slap on the wrist for claimants. Typically, sanctions involve the withdrawal of 100% of the universal credit standard allowance, and even the reduced rate for the lowest level of sanction is 40% of the standard allowance. And except for the lowest level sanctions, the penalties continue after the person sanctioned has complied with the rules—for seven days rising to 28 days for low level sanctions, while higher level sanctions apply for 28 days and 91 days rising to 182 days, depending on whether there have been previous failures to comply in the same year.
An increase in the sanction rate is not just a technical matter. People on universal credit do not have a margin of income that they can fall back on to weather an interruption to benefit payments—all the less as the four-year benefit freeze has permanently eroded the real-term value of benefits.
There is an urgent need to understand what lies behind the increase. Has there been a revolution in people’s behaviour or attitudes since 2019? If so, what is the evidence for that? Has the level of non-compliance with conditionality really doubled since the pandemic? Have there been operational changes leading to more sanctions being issued without any change in the level of compliance? Has there been a change in the Department’s policy on sanctions? Or is the increase an unintended consequence of other factors? in other words, is the sanctions regime out of control?
The purpose of sanctions has been well described by Professor Paul Gregg as a backstop to the system of benefit conditionality. The point is that while sanctions set at a reasonable level serve an important function, they are not an end in themselves. A sudden increase in the number of sanctions such as we have seen should be seen by any responsible Government as a cause for concern rather than for self-congratulation. It raises the fear that the sanctions tail is wagging the conditionality dog, that the Government are more concerned with signalling toughness than with improving employment outcomes, and that the purpose of conditionality has been twisted towards catching people out rather than maintaining contact with the labour market. Or, no less worryingly, it raises the fear that the number of sanctions has shot up because the Government have lost control of the sanctions regime and no longer know what they are doing.
The fact that the Government have suppressed their own research into the effectiveness of the universal credit sanctions regime is hardly reassuring. In 2018, in response to a Work and Pensions Committee report, the Department agreed to
“evaluate the effectiveness of reforms to welfare conditionality and sanctions,”
and said that this would focus
“on whether the sanctions regime within Universal Credit (UC) is effective at supporting claimants to search for work.”
It said that it would publish the results in spring 2019, but we know what happened. The research was undertaken, but earlier this year the last Secretary of State but one—the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)— reneged on the commitment to publish the results. That is the behaviour of a Government who are uninterested in learning lessons, and evasive of public scrutiny.
Chris Stephens
I thank the shadow Minister for making that important point. The same applies to the drivers of food bank use, which include sanctions.
Ms Buck
Sanctions are indeed an important driver of the increase in food banks, which is another symptom of widespread structural failure in the system.
It would be refreshing if the new Secretary of State took a different view of the matter. A doubling in the rate of sanctions in the context of a cost of living crisis and permanent reductions in the value of benefits is a serious matter. I hope that the Minister can give a suitably serious response.
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In the limited time that I have, I will endeavour to answer the various points raised. I start by briefly addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)—that there is a reduction in the value of benefits. She will be acutely aware that UK Government welfare spending has increased from £151 billion in 2010 to £245 billion in 2022-23, and that there have been significant increases in Scotland, which I will come to. I wholeheartedly reject the suggestion that there has been a reduction in the value of benefits, not least given the fact that this Government increased welfare support for the most vulnerable by 10.1% at the autumn statement.
Let me address the original points raised by my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I hesitate to call him an hon. Friend, because I realise that he will receive an SNP pile-on as a result. I was not aware that he is standing down from the Work and Pensions Committee after many years of distinguished service, and I congratulate him on that. As always with promotions, one never knows whether to congratulate or commiserate. I also welcome back the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) to his Front-Bench position. I believe I have held my position for 47 days, after my personal sacking over the summer and the sabbatical that I enjoyed on the Back Benches courtesy of the previous Prime Minister.
Guy Opperman
Plus one. The long and short of it is that, in that time, I have engaged at length with multiple employers, Jobcentre Plus and individual work coaches at the Department for Work and Pensions.
I will endeavour particularly to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, given that this is very much his debate. He has engaged with the Department on a number of individual cases, and I will endeavour to write to him on the specifics of the particular case that he raised most recently. I am advised that we have responded to the case that he raised today, but I undertake to write to him with more detail before Christmas. Given the circumstances that we face, the letter will obviously have to be communicated by email as well as post.
I turn to the second point. With no disrespect to the hon. Member and other colleagues who have raised this issue, I do not recognise the comments against individual DWP members of staff. Where there are particular examples of named individuals who people genuinely feel have transgressed and behaved in an inappropriate way, clearly there is a process that must be entered into.
It is certainly not the case, in any way whatsoever, that there has been a change of policy by individual Ministers—either by myself in the 47 days that I have held this post, or by previous Ministers. I cannot speak for colleagues who have held these positions.
Grahame Morris
I am sure the Minister gives that assurance in good faith, but how does he explain the rapid increase in the level of sanctions in recent months? Can he rebut the allegation that there is a sanctions regime that incentivises DWP staff to apply sanctions?
Guy Opperman
On the second point, I am not aware of any such policy or any such incentivisation in any way whatsoever. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of such incentivisation, he should publish it and name it individually, because there is no such evidence as far as I am aware.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rise in the numbers. It is right to have a legitimate discussion about what is a fair and effective welfare system that supports people into work and provides value for money for taxpayers. Our work coaches support claimants by setting out the activities to move them into work or to progress in work and work more. Activities are set out in the claimant commitment, which is surely the start or base of all the discussions. They are tailored to reflect individual circumstances and take into account health conditions, caring responsibilities, current work and opportunities for training.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the rise in the number of sanctions. Some 98.2% of sanctions are for missing a meeting with a work coach. Such sanctions can be quickly and simply resolved by attending another appointment. The evidence is that approximately 50% of such sanctions are resolved with mandatory reconsideration.
I wish to address in particular the issue in relation to the most vulnerable. It is right that the most vulnerable in society receive extra support. The Government have clearly shown a commitment to that by adding a further £26 billion in the cost of living support in the autumn statement, on top of the £37 billion for 2022-23 that we announced earlier this year, in May.
Where benefit claimants have vulnerabilities, safeguards exist to ensure that they are not sanctioned inappropriately. Those with severe health and mental health conditions, those with full-time caring responsibilities and those with children under the age of one are not required to look for work and cannot be sanctioned. Many of the most vulnerable receive other elements of universal credit in payment, such as housing, child or disability support. Those payments are not affected by a sanction.
Finally, when people experience particular challenges, such as childcare difficulties, accommodation issues or bereavement, work coaches have the discretion to switch off work-related activities for a period of time. Such measures enable us to support vulnerable claimants and provide tailored support. To answer the follow-on question, we have a well-established system of hardship payments, which are available as a safeguard if a claimant demonstrates that they cannot meet their immediate and most essential needs—including for accommodation, heating, food and hygiene—as a result of sanctions. I am advised that the relevant percentage is 1.987%.
Various colleagues made specific points. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the hon. Member for Slough made the point that work is hard to find. I will address that point in two particular ways. First, the evidence from the labour market statistics shows that the employment rate is up 0.2 percentage points on the quarter; the number of payroll employees is up on pre-covid levels by 932,000 to a record high; and the inactivity rate has fallen. On the vacancies rate, which surely relates to the point that work is hard to find, there were 1.2 million vacancies. Although obviously it remains high, the rate has fallen for the fifth consecutive month, to 1.187 million. Inactivity, which is a long-term issue, has fallen by 0.2 percentage points on the quarter, to 21.5%.
Scotland was raised specifically, so let me give the Scottish figures. The number of people employed is at 2.725 million, up 22,000 on the quarter and up 61,000 on the year. The employment rate is at 75.9%, up 0.7 percentage points on the quarter and 1.4 percentage points on the year. Unemployment is at 93,000, down 21,000 on the year and 12,000 against February to December 2020. The number of people in workless households has fallen by 113,000 since April to June 2010.
John McDonnell
I do not want to stop the Minister’s flow, other than to correct him: there is no Member here from Slough. I may have missed his answer to this question, but why has there been an increase in the number of sanctions on such a scale, even compared with pre-pandemic levels? Could he answer the question that we have all asked?
Guy Opperman
The answer has already been given to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). The figure in respect of persons failing to attend an individual appointment is at approximately 98%. That 98% is for failing to attend a specific appointment.
Guy Opperman
No. I have one minute left to address this debate. In November 2018 the Work and Pensions Committee specifically said that the Committee agreed with the Government that the principles of conditionality and sanctions were an important part of the welfare system.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West on securing the debate. The Government have been utterly clear that we are fully supportive of all people who are on benefits.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced in this place and should know better. If the Minister is not giving way, he should not be speaking.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. We are running out of time. Minister, I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South West would like to hear replies to his questions at least.
Guy Opperman
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s debate and set out how the Government are helping to get people into work. We have intensified our support for jobseekers. We have made great efforts on in-work progression. Employment figures are up. There is more to do, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics.
Chris Stephens
I thank everybody who participated in the debate. A number of outstanding questions remain; I look forward to the Minister’s response with the specifics.
We are in a recession. There are far too many people being sanctioned. There is an impact on people’s mental health. There is a social and financial impact, and I do think we need an answer to the question of why cost of living payments have been taken off people who have been sanctioned. It is bad economics. I am offering the Minister a meeting with me and reps from the Public and Commercial Services Union. They will explain the concerns that staff have about the sanctions regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered DWP’s policy on benefit sanctions.
Marine Management Organisation
(1 year, 11 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
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I will call Giles Watling to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as he will know is the convention for these shorter, 30-minute debates.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Marine Management Organisation.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am thrilled to have this opportunity to stand up for coastal communities, particularly my own in Clacton—a place that I have been a part of and lived in for over 55 years and have represented both locally and nationally since 2007. I have seen at first hand what works in our environment and what does not. Our extraordinary coastline has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. It is home to a Ramsar site and is a site of special scientific interest; it is a salt marsh, with superb beaches, cliffs and backwaters.
Recently, I tabled a private Member’s Bill that seeks to put in place a pilot to devolve many functions of the Marine Management Organisation to local authorities. The MMO is a group that I have increasingly come to see as not fit for purpose. It lacks experience and is flippant in respect of the needs of local communities. Indeed, I have been told that we once had turn up to look at a marine development in the backwaters two officials from the MMO who seemed to be surprised about tidal range and direction.
More recently, the Naze Protection Society waited 13 weeks for a licence from the MMO to undertake vital coastal works that involved protecting a sewage farm from incursion by the sea. Every tide that came and went and every storm that happened made those works more difficult and more expensive. The Naze Protection Society contacted me in desperation, as it had the money, the materials and the contractors standing by but was held up for want of a simple licence from the MMO. I made a couple of calls to the Minister and the Secretary of State, and the licence was issued almost immediately. It should not take a call to an MP to get this simple stuff done.
In my opinion, the MMO is failing. For that reason, I have worked with my excellent local authority, Tendring District Council, which has offered to put in place a pilot that it will run, absorbing and discharging the licensing and management duties. I want to see that happen for three core reasons, which also illustrate why I felt this debate was needed. First, it seems rather odd to me that we allow the MMO so much centralised power. We have seen planning and licensing become core parts of local authorities’ action plans. Councils are accountable and, by their very nature, have a deep understanding of local issues and the local scene. We need to look to a slimmer MMO, more devolution and a non-executive directors board of experts with real-life experience, holding the MMO to account.
Secondly, we should really be moving past all these organisations with people who just seem to collect non-executive directorships. We have spoken a lot in this place about how expensive distant and unaccountable quangos can be.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I share the same Marine Management Organisation group as my hon. Friend and have not found them as problematic as he has, but his assertion that we should move closer to local government is quite compelling. I was surprised that some relatively small works on a café on Southend pier had to go via the MMO, which is very centralised. It would be much more appropriate for Southend-on-Sea City Council to look at those issues, and I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend’s local authority could look into Southend also being involved in the pilot to bring those functions closer to the public and democratic accountability.
Giles Watling
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is wise to mention that we should devolve those powers. In the end, that is exactly what this is all about. I am suggesting certain pilots, and my own local authority is happy to pilot them. I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that he should go to see his local authority and get it to agree to do a similar project. I think he might get some success.
The MMO is an example of the fact that His Majesty’s Government are sometimes happier going after lower-hanging fruit. For example, we scrapped the dreaded development corporations in 2010, because everybody saw them as bodies that did not care about local feelings towards development while still not achieving the revolution in house building the nation needed. It was a bloated public body that was ripe for the plucking, but just because the Marine Management Organisation’s offences are against fewer people and therefore less easily seen, they do not seem any less egregious. If local government can take on such duties, why should such an accountable body as Tendring District Council not do it? That is the correct argument that the Government executed in respect of development corporations.
Finally, and most pertinently, the MMO has displayed a flippant and unaccountable culture. When Members do things in this House, it should matter. If we criticise a public body for how it treats our constituents, that body should reach out and seek to offer reassurance on what it is doing in our communities. After all, nobody has a God-given right to spend taxpayer cash or to public power and authority. Sadly, since I tabled and spoke to my private Member’s Bill, I have not heard from the chief executive officer or chairman of the MMO—not a dicky bird.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I want to make two points before my hon. Friend concludes. First, I hope he recognises that although local authorities are good at making local decisions, some decisions on the management of seas and oceans can have an impact on other local authorities down the coastline, particularly in respect of coastal erosion. Does he agree that there needs to be an authority to oversee the multitude of decisions that are made?
On his second point, I will organise a meeting with the chief executive officer directly with my hon. Friend and myself, so that he can speak to him directly.
Giles Watling
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There should of course be a central overseeing body to oversee all this. I am seeking to devolve some of the powers to the local authorities because it makes sense: they understand exactly what is happening on the local scene.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of the whole of East Anglia, working right down the coast from Great Yarmouth to his constituency, is that our local authorities —the county councils and the district authorities—work together closely on the issue of the East Anglian coastline? They face challenges in dealing with the MMO. For example, Great Yarmouth Borough Council has been frustrated in developing the operations and maintenance hub, a new area for renewable energy. It has seen delays of six months and eight and a half months to its progress because of the MMO’s slow decision making. Speeding that up—or, indeed, allowing the local authority to have more authority to get on with the works, given their knowledge from working with enabling authorities—would give us a faster and better way to deliver more jobs and a better coastal community.
Giles Watling
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we get decisions much more quickly, before more damage happens to our coastline. I have heard nothing from the MMO and have not had any comment from it about how it proposes to devolve its functions to local government. This debate is publicly on the Order Paper, yet the MMO has not reached out to discuss it. That suggests that it either thinks that a House debate on its performance is irrelevant or does not even check to see what is happening in this place and whether it needs to keep abreast of debate. Either way, it shows an arrogance that is not becoming in a public body.
What I find so sinister is that there is a private Member’s Bill to possibly radically alter how the MMO functions, and it feels that warrants no action. It is so seemingly content that it has the unrestricted right to gobble up taxpayer cash and play judge and jury in our communities that it has not bothered to articulate publicly why it should not be broken up. It clearly thinks that it is above reproach; well, no public body, including the MMO, is above this House. We often speak of the bonfire of quangos, and I think I have found another log for that fire.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the debate and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for securing it. I sense his frustrations and I am sympathetic to them; I will try to assist and alleviate some of them. My hon. Friend said that he has not heard from the MMO and that it has not engaged in the debate; it has sent a rather brilliant Minister to respond on its behalf. [Interruption.] Yes, unfortunately he could not be here so I have taken his place.
This is a timely debate: the MMO is due to publish its annual report next week. It comes ahead of the Second Reading of my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, which is due in February. Alongside its marine licensing duties, the MMO covers a broad range of activities, including fisheries management and the management and regulation of marine protected sites. Many of these also interact with the MMO’s responsibilities as the marine planning authority for English waters, which my hon. Friend referenced. It has teams based in 15 locations around the English coast. It is responsible for engaging with the full range of local stakeholders, signposting to relevant MMO guidance and, where relevant, making introductions to other parts of the MMO in relation to specific activities.
When it comes to marine licensing and the process, the MMO is the appropriate marine licensing authority for English waters. The scope of responsibility and function held by the MMO ensures not only that marine licensing applications are assessed on an individual basis, but that marine planning activities are placed in a wider context so that conservation work on protected sites and species and compliance, monitoring and inspections are taken into consideration.
The MMO aims to determine 90% of marine licence applications within 13 weeks. Some cases are more complex and take longer because of the detailed technical and complex environmental assessments that may be required. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton referred to an individual case that he was working on and the fact that when he engaged with Ministers, he got a response very quickly. It is my understanding that that was purely coincidence—that a lot of work was going on in the background to gain access to that information, and the intervention of the Minister at the time coincided with the MMO pulling the information together and it being ready within a matter of hours.
I am aware of the circumstances around the licence application made for the sea defences at Naze. My understanding is that this licence has not been straightforward to determine. Supplementary information and assessments had to be sought from the applicant after the initial application was received in July 2021. This included a required water framework assessment and further information from the applicant to update the methodology of the works. The MMO also had some difficulty ascertaining whether Tendring District Council’s planning department was dealing with the planning application for the works as an environmental impact assessment application, and whether there was scope for working through the coastal concordat on the case. The potential for coastal concordat working was raised with the council on 2 August 2021, but it took seven weeks for the council’s planning department to reply, confirming its position. There was also a 28-day consultation period for interested parties and stakeholders to express their views on the licence application. I hope that my hon. Friend has some sympathy with the fact that there is a process to go through. Whether it was with the MMO or the local authority, there would be hoops and challenges to get through to ensure that we get to the right decisions.
Following the consultation period, the MMO identified that a habitats regulations assessment would also be required. Agreement was reached with the applicant on the fees only on 22 March, ahead of the MMO progressing the final determination and issuing that on 14 April. I am aware that an application for a licence variation was then received in July this year and I understand that it has been held up while the MMO has awaited the submission of an environmental impact assessment screening request from the applicant. That was received by the MMO on 3 November, and the MMO will move to consider the licence variation as soon as possible.
I understand that the time taken to determine some marine licence applications is sometimes frustrating. This case is an example of the complexity of some marine licences and of how careful consideration is paramount.
Giles Watling
We are talking here about potential flooding—flood risk. The area around Jaywick in my constituency flooded in 1953, with the loss of some 90 lives, so when we see floods no one hangs around; people have to be fleet of foot. That is what I am asking for: fleetness of foot. The case that I identified earlier was one where, with every succeeding tide, the damage worsened, threatening to flood a sewage farm and poison the backwaters
Mark Spencer
I wholly acknowledge the necessity of speed to save his constituents and to ensure that no environmental damage is caused around Clacton. What we must not do, though, is introduce a scheme that might cause damage in another community six or seven miles down the coast. It is important to determine whether an action is required—it clearly was required—to protect an area or piece of infrastructure and that it does not impact on another piece of infrastructure that could cause even more damage. To do so, there needs to be an overarching authority that looks at all the facts in the light of day and, after all due consideration, says whether something is the right or wrong thing to do—whether the impacts of the decision made will be felt further down the coastline. My hon. Friend would be distressed if an application in—to pick a constituency at random—Southend were to have a huge impact on Clacton. He would be distressed if Southend-on-Sea City Council made that decision unilaterally without considering the impact on the community of Clacton.
As the debate has highlighted, the MMO has responsibilities in the marine space, all of which are crucial. We must not forget the adaptability of the MMO in its delivery of the important objectives that support the growth of our local communities, the trade in fish, and the marine environment. The MMO is the primary responder to marine emergency situations and is key to supporting evidence-based decisions that touch a range of Government Departments. I think that is the right outcome and an outcome that we can all agree on. We may disagree on whether the MMO performs to a level that we appreciate, but there has to be a regulator. We need to continue to support the MMO’s performance.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Who regulates the regulator? Who is marking the homework of this organisation?
Mark Spencer
Ultimately, I think that falls under the umbrella of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I have regular meetings with the MMO—in fact, I met its chief executive this week. I asked him to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, and he confirmed to me that he would be willing to meet; I will make sure that meeting happens. Let me say again that if other colleagues want to engage directly with the MMO, I am more than happy to facilitate meetings and to ensure that MMO is delivering for their constituents. We have had an interesting debate. I sense the frustration of some colleagues around the Chamber, but, as the Minister, I am more than happy to try to facilitate those discussions and to work with the MMO to deliver outcomes that hon. Members and their constituents want.
Question put and agreed to.
Aortic Dissection: Patient Pathways and Research Funding
(1 year, 11 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
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered patient pathways and research funding for aortic dissection.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. After many applications, I am delighted to have secured an opportunity to have this very important debate. Hon. Members may be aware that this is an extremely difficult and personal topic for me, but I hope that sharing my experiences will prompt action that could save lives in the future.
I will begin with a case study, which happens to be my personal story, then move on to what we do in this place to improve patient pathways and research funding for aortic dissection. Before I do so, I must draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee of the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust, a charity that I helped to set up.
In the early hours of 11 December 2018, I received a phone call that no mother would ever want. I was told that our son Ben had died. Four years later, we all still feel numb. It seems implausible that Ben, a gregarious 44-year-old with two children and a loving wife, will not simply walk back into our lives. Ben died after suffering an aortic dissection. He had been feeling unwell the previous day, but was sent home after spending four hours in A&E and told to return the next day if he did not feel better. Tragically, the emergency doctors had not understood his symptoms and had not come up with a diagnosis.
Aortic dissection is a tear in the aorta, the body’s largest artery, which carries blood from the heart to the brain, limbs and vital organs. It is a condition that affects approximately 4,000 people a year in the UK and, like Ben, almost all of them are unaware that they have it. Half of them—almost 2,000 people—die soon after the dissection occurs, which is more than die from road traffic accidents in this country. Five hundred of those who die reach hospital, but sadly, as in Ben’s case, their condition is not diagnosed quickly enough, or at all. The other 1,500 die almost immediately after the acute event.
Many of these deaths are preventable. With proactive genetic screening for family members of those who have suffered an aortic dissection and with better treatment of high blood pressure, many of these deaths could be avoided. I am delighted to learn today that the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), has announced a fund of £175 million for cutting-edge genomics. As a charity, we would be happy to work with the Department on this issue.
I have to admit that, like most people, I knew nothing about aortic dissection before Ben died, but knowing what a gap his death has left in our family I have immersed myself in efforts to prevent other tragedies. In late 2020, with the eminent cardiac surgeon Graham Cooper and the long-time aortic dissection campaigner, patient and public voice co-ordinator of the NHS cardiac clinical reference group, Catherine Fowler, whose father died in Ireland from this condition, I helped to set up the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust. I am delighted that Graham and Catherine are in the Gallery and listening to the debate. The trust is now a leading UK-registered charity that aims to unite patients, families and the medical community. Our mission is to improve diagnosis, increase survival rates and reduce disability caused by aortic dissection.
Our work encompasses the whole patient pathway, from prevention to diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and support for all those living with aortic dissection. So far, the charity has designed and delivered accredited education events reaching over 3,000 medical professionals, and produced a fantastic set of patient resource videos to support those living with aortic dissection and their families. Instrumental in creating the videos was “Whispering” Bob Harris, who has suffered an aortic dissection and given up a huge amount of time to be an ambassador for the charity. I am delighted that Bob is also in the Gallery today.
The charity has created an online learning portal for the medical community, with learning modules that cover all the multidisciplinary aspects, in order to improve education on aortic dissection in the medical community, and ultimately to improve patient experiences and outcomes. The free and accessible learning portal, produced with experts in the field of aortic dissection, will be launched this week. We have also attended a number of medical conferences and presented to cardiac specialists and emergency medicine doctors, most recently in October at the European Emergency Medicine Congress 2022 in Berlin. We have designed and delivered national all-day education symposiums to establish learning communities and to increase knowledge and education for paramedics, emergency medics and surgeons in Scotland, Ireland and England, with many more such events planned. I have to say that the “we” are mainly the other trustees, because I am very much the junior and more silent trustee of the partnership.
The charity has also worked with NHS England and a group of clinical experts on the design of the aortic dissection toolkit. Seven key principles have now been established, setting out best practice for the patient pathways from the point of treatment through to diagnosis. We are delighted that the toolkit has reached the implementation phase, and the charity is actively supporting this critical phase by working with the regions that have reached out to the charity for support.
The charity has also launched research grants to fund research into how we can better diagnose and treat aortic dissection. For my part, I have sought to raise the issue in the House of Commons, including at Prime Minister’s questions in March and since then in meetings with Ministers. I thank the Minister responding to the debate for her commitment to aortic dissection and for having taken the time to meet the charity trustees last month.
In almost two years, the charity has had a big impact, but there is much more that we can do to save 2,000 lives a year in this country. I would like to set out some of the important changes we would like to see. So far, I have spoken about 2,000 deaths a year and 4,000 cases of aortic dissection, but a worrying statistic is that as our population ages, we expect to see about 7,000 cases of aortic dissection every year by 2050. It is crucial that we take steps now to improve the patient pathway, to ensure that as few of these cases as possible are fatal.
It is surprising but true that there is a lack of detailed and accurate data regarding the incidence, treatment and patient outcomes for acute aortic dissection in England. That is particularly true for patients like Ben, who do not reach a specialist treatment centre alive. Such data would assist in understanding the true scale of the problem and where any interventions might be directed. Of course our family understands that, even if he had been diagnosed, Ben might not have survived the catastrophic event, which happened in the middle of the night, but our passion to learn more about why he died seems to have highlighted gaps in the system, which, if filled, will help others. The least we can do is to press for that to be so. No child deserves to have their mother or father taken away, no wife should be bereft at the sudden loss of a husband, and no parents should have to bury their son.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly passionate and personal contribution to the House. We all recognise that this is a subject very close to her heart, and we recognise her passion and commitment.
Mrs Latham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that all parties work together to make this better.
First, I encourage the Minister to see what more can be done to increase and improve data collection around aortic dissection, to make as much of the data as possible publicly available to assist with clinical research. Secondly, I would like to focus on improvements that we can make to the patient pathway. The single most important improvement is in diagnosis. For those accurately diagnosed, more than 80% survive.
I will come back to how we can focus research funding. For now, I would like to emphasise that increased research funding for diagnosis is required. The other improvement on diagnosis that the Government can make is to ensure that doctors in emergency departments receive adequate training and advice on the symptoms of aortic dissection and how to spot a potential case. A freedom of information request recently showed that only half of NHS trusts had a policy or procedure concerning the diagnosis of aortic dissection in the emergency department and that only a small proportion used the guidelines from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine or from the Royal College of Radiologists. The charity is doing a huge amount to educate medical professionals. Can the Minister comment on what central guidance has been made available from the NHS for emergency departments?
The launch of the NHS aortic dissection toolkit, which I mentioned, is incredibly important, but it only covers the patient pathway from the point of diagnosis to treatment and does not cover diagnosis itself. Can the Minister commit to considering extending that toolkit or working with experts and the charity to design and develop a new toolkit for diagnosis of aortic dissection, which can be rolled out in all emergency medicine settings around the country?
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s bravery in bringing this debate to the Chamber. I know that she has been through a lot personally. As she says, no parent would want to experience the death of a child as a result of aortic dissection and her subsequent and recent work to bring this debate here and her work with the charity is commendable. I am sure that it will lead to many lives being saved in future.
On the point about diagnosis, I remember from my days in the emergency department that fast scanning, which is a simple technique that uses an ultrasound scan to check for free fluid in the abdomen, was a very important tool that we could use to detect aortic dissection. It is a simple thing to train ED doctors to do, but that training is not available in the way that it should be. Will my hon. Friend join me in pressing the Minister to ensure that the focus is not always on service delivery in ED? If we are going to have good clinicians, we need to have the right training for them and this is an area that would save lives. Can the Minister put some funding aside specifically for that purpose?
Mrs Latham
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, knowing as he does what it is like to work in an emergency department. A lot of people come through the department, but the study he refers to about the abdominal aortic aneurysm was only for men of a certain age. This affects people from 17, or even younger, to 90. Although that sounds like a good idea, I am not sure that it would work in practice. We need more CT scanners used more frequently in emergency departments, and that is what is missing in part from emergency medicine settings.
The next phase in the patient pathway for those who have been correctly and speedily diagnosed is treatment. As I mentioned, 80% of those diagnosed survive. That is not enough and research is ongoing into better methods of treatment. However, one area where we can certainly improve is long-term treatments that do not require further medical interventions. There is currently a call for research proposals into that from the National Institute for Health and Care Research. That is excellent news and I encourage the Minister to make as much money as possible available for this area of research.
After treatment, it is imperative that the follow-up treatment for aortic dissection patients and their families is of the highest quality. Two thirds of survivors of aortic dissections have some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. They need specialist treatment by somebody who understands their conditions. Furthermore, aortic dissection survivors have a long-term condition that places them at risk of future complications. They need to be monitored by specialist teams and currently, that provision is highly variable. Teams exist in some specialist hospitals, but not all patients are reliably followed up, and too often that is a failure to take a holistic approach to follow up. The employment of specialist nurses in every aortic centre, similar to those in cancer and palliative care, would greatly strengthen follow-up.
The massive improvement in the patient pathway would not be expensive. Although I understand that every penny is being counted in the current situation, to provide a specialist nurse in each of the 29 NHS centres in the country that deal with aortic dissection, for two days a week, would cost less than £400,000 in total per year. The charity has explored the replication of the Macmillan nursing model for aortic nurses and, with funding, would be well positioned to support the design and roll-out of that initiative. Given the enormity of the NHS budget, I hope that is something that the Minister will confirm that she will look into.
The final stage of the patient pathway is genetic screening. About a third of patients who suffer an aortic dissection have some sort of genetic predisposition to the condition. That is why I welcome funding. Screening relatives of sufferers can detect those at risk and proactive treatment can significantly reduce their risk. However, that requires specialised clinical genetics input, access to which is, again, very variable. The technology exists to do that, and it would certainly save lives every single year.
There are two steps the Minister could take to improve this stage of the patient pathway. First, the employment of the specialist nurses I mentioned would be of great assistance. They would lead on the patient’s follow-up plan, part of which would include screening for their relatives. The second step would be for the Minister to facilitate a series of meetings between the relevant professional societies and appropriate NHS staff, to agree and implement a set of NHS guidelines for genetic screening for those suffering aortic dissection and for their relatives.
As I have set out, there are improvements to be made all along the patient pathway, which would go a long way towards saving many of the 2,000 patients every year who would otherwise die from aortic dissections. If nothing is done, that number will only increase in the coming years, so it is crucial that we act now.
Turning to the opportunities for investment in research, which would make a huge difference to the diagnosis and treatment of aortic dissection.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
On the point about genetics and screening, the Health and Social Care Committee, which I chair, will be doing a big inquiry next year on prevention, and one of the things we will be looking at is upstream prevention for cancers and some of the other big killers. I extend the offer to my hon. Friend and the charity to get in touch with us when we launch that inquiry to give evidence on the screening that they are proposing. We would be interested in looking at that and to take evidence in written or oral form. That inquiry is all about saving lives. What she has said makes a lot of sense to me—it could do just that.
Mrs Latham
I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure the charity would be delighted to come and give evidence. This is a condition that nobody has ever heard of; it is not just about raising awareness, but changing outcomes, and I hope that the Committee’s inquiry into saving lives can help to save some of those 2,000 people. Obviously, they will not all be saved, but 2,000 is a huge number—it is not a very rare condition, but nobody knows about it until it devastates their family. I am delighted to accept that offer on behalf the charity.
Two studies that the charity is supporting known as DAShED—diagnosis of aortic syndrome in the emergency department—and ASES, the aortic syndrome evidence synthesis, are looking at the development of decision tools for use in emergency medicine to ensure that aortic dissections are diagnosed as quickly as possible and can then be effectively treated. These studies are designed to look at the available evidence to improve diagnosis of aortic dissection. Once concluded, there will need to be a second round of funding to measure the impact of implementing those recommendations. Studies that focus on improved diagnosis, while important, are just the first step. The critical breakthrough will be made by the identification of biomarkers and artificial intelligence to detect unusual patterns of presentation of aortic dissection. This research has the potential to save 10 lives a week according to the charity, and I hope that the Minister will comment on what her Department is doing to increase the funding available for research into better diagnosis for aortic dissection.
As I mentioned, this is not just about diagnosis but about treatment. The NIHR has issued a call for research proposals into methods of treatment that would reduce the need for further medical intervention down the line. I know that budgets are likely to remain tight for some time, given the current economic conditions, but I repeat my plea for the Minister to find some money and recommit to the importance of research funding. We must improve how we diagnose and treat these conditions. Of course, the better we diagnose and treat aortic dissection, the less money we will spend in future on treating so many cases. Some 45% of people who have an aortic dissection are under the age of 60, so being diagnosed and treated early allows them to live a life with their family and continue to contribute economically to society.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the improvements I set out both in the patient pathway and on research funding have the potential to save hundreds of lives a year. As I have explained, the number of aortic dissections will only increase with our ageing population, so it would be wise to act now. The charity is partnering in the implementation roll-out of the NHS aortic dissection toolkit across the country, and it has already received a positive and enthusiastic response, but there is more to be done. As I mentioned, there is an opportunity for the Minister to endorse the design and implementation of further toolkits to address the current challenges with diagnosis, elective surgery follow-up and aftercare, covering those aspects of the patient pathway that are not included in the existing toolkit. Improvements in the patient pathway and research funding, such as those that I have set out, are greatly needed, and I hope that the Minister can carefully consider all the recommendations.
Too often in government and in this place, we speak about tragedies in terms of scale—of the numbers of lives lost or numbers of people affected by a catastrophe—but it is all too easy to forget that behind every single statistic there is a family whose lives have been upended by these terrible events. While 4,000 aortic dissection patients a year is a huge number, we must remember that it is much more than that: it is 4,000 people with a family—parents, children, husbands, wives, siblings, relatives and friends. None of them are likely to be aware of aortic dissection before it happens. In Ben Latham’s case, the family was mine, and every single one of us is still feeling the effects of this awful condition that we did not know existed. It has been important for me, as for the other trustees and ambassadors of the charity, to do everything we can to improve the survival rates and treatment of future sufferers, so that other families do not have to go through what we have been through.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham). It is never easy coming to Westminster Hall to lead a debate; it is even harder to come and tell a personal story—one that is so heartbreaking for the hon. Lady. She has made us more aware of the condition. We sympathise greatly with her on the loss of her son Ben. We support her and what she asks for.
No parent should have to go through the horror of losing a child. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady for coming here today and talking about it, which is often the hardest thing to do. As my party’s spokesperson on health, it is great to be here to support wholeheartedly her call for better patient pathways and more funding for aortic dissections. She set out a really good case and has asked for a number of things. I endorse what she has asked for and will give some factual background to the debate.
Aortic dissection kills over 2,000 people a year. The UK statistics are clear: three to four people per 100,000 are diagnosed with aortic dissection each year. It typically presents with abrupt onset chest, back or abdominal pain that is severe in its intensity, or is described as ripping or tearing, particularly in the patient with a high-risk condition such as Marfan syndrome or a family history of aortic disease.
The hon. Lady was right to refer to diagnosis. We often refer to diagnosis in these debates, and she has asked for work on that. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), has taken her thoughts on board, and I know that next year, or whenever the inquiry is done, when the hon. Lady makes her contribution, we can expect a fairly good response from him. He will never be found wanting in that regard. It is good to have him here to hear the story.
By improving diagnosis of aortic dissection in terms of familial connection, we can improve patient pathways to get better treatment and easier maintenance of the disease. Aortic Dissection Awareness UK & Ireland is the national patient charity for aortic dissection in the UK. It was founded by a small group of people who were diagnosed with aortic dissection in 2016. The charity provides vital information and support for patients and families affected by the condition, which the hon. Lady outlined so well, including the families who are left to deal with what happens. The charity works with healthcare providers to improve diagnosis and treatment and reduce healthcare inequalities. It partners with researchers to bring forward new insights that will improve future care for aortic dissection patients. In addition, the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust research advisory group has been actively promoting research in the field of aortic dissection, aiming to save lives and improve the quality of life for those suffering from the condition now and in the future.
The hon. Lady asked very clearly for more to be done. The Minister and all of us were listening intently to her contribution. It would be very hard for anyone in this House not to respond in a positive fashion to her requests. More needs to be done across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, especially in co-operation with the devolved nations. This is something we should all work together on. We can always exchange ideas in these debates. The hon. Lady and I have both participated in debates in the past 24 hours. There was an Adjournment debate last night and a debate this morning at 11 am—the Minister has been kept extremely busy. We always have a helpful response from her and I look forward to something similar this afternoon. We owe a duty of care to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, and I am sure the Minister will respond in a positive fashion.
We also need to produce a research strategy that is developed and implemented as a support network for all. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has made the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome and dissection one of its top 10 priorities, and we must do the same across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I encourage the Minister to engage with her counterparts in Northern Ireland and other devolved Administrations to ensure that we approach this in collaboration, with all of us asking for the same thing and all working together to achieve the same goal and ensure the correct patient pathways and sustainable funding for aortic dissections.
Again, I commend the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire; I think we were all particularly moved by her contribution. This debate would be suitably concluded with the support that the Minister can give us. I very much look forward to hearing from the two shadow Ministers: the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) and the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Benchers, who will have five minutes each, and then the Minister will have 10 minutes.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Pritchard.
I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), not only for securing this debate, but for the strength and courage she has shown in leading it. My thoughts and those of all in my party are with her and her family after the tragic loss of her son, Ben. May he rest in eternal peace.
No parent should witness the loss of their child, and I welcome the positive and heartfelt contributions from across the House today about taking more effective action in preventing this disease. As we have heard, 2,000 people a year in the United Kingdom lose their lives from aortic dissection. It is a treatable condition; indeed, it has a better than 80% survival rate when it is diagnosed and treated in time. Yet today, in the year 2022, 50% of people who are struck by this condition ultimately lose their life.
The British Heart Foundation has done a tremendous amount of work in this particular area, and I thank it for its dedication. In Scotland, the BHF has worked alongside the Scottish Government, Members of the Scottish Parliament and local NHS boards to champion all those who are working to beat heart and circulatory disease. Through their record-high health funding, the Scottish Government have supported and will continue to support health research and innovation, as a vital part of pandemic recovery and their wider aims to improve the health of our populations.
In 2020, the Scottish Government announced a one-off £75 million increase in funding for Scottish universities to ensure that they can protect their world-leading research programmes against the financial impact of covid-19 and the other crises that we are having to live through, whether it be the food crisis, the energy crisis or everything else. That significant intervention helped to secure the jobs and training needed to support ongoing and future research work.
Dr Alex Fletcher is leading a study on behalf of the University of Edinburgh that is monitoring around 60 patients at risk of dissection, which aims to develop a more effective screening tool. That study could not have been conducted without the SNP Scottish Government recognising the important work and impact of medical research charities, and I urge the UK Government to uplift support for medical research to ensure that vital studies can continue and more positive breakthroughs can be made.
However, research is not enough. The strategic direction of the UK Government must change if they are truly committed to supporting those with aortic dissection. This is particularly the case when the covid-19 pandemic has brought an even greater need for action into sharp focus. The pandemic had a significant impact on people with heart disease and on the services that support them.
In recognising that material societal change, the Scottish Government have published their heart disease action plan, supported with an investment of £2.2 million. The four priorities of that plan are prevention, timely diagnosis, treatment and care, and workforce.
The Scottish Government have outlined the importance of providing appropriate support to enable people with heart disease to live well with their condition. That means identifying ways to support people experiencing the emotional and psychological impacts of heart disease, and giving as many of them as possible access to specialist support, including vital rehabilitation services and, wherever necessary, supporting access to palliative care.
These measures may seem simple, but they are fundamental to helping minimise the presence of heart disease within our communities. I encourage the Minister to follow the Scottish Government’s footsteps, and to learn and share best practice methods to ensure that aortic dissection cannot continue to blight people’s lives, and have a difficult and lasting impact on their families.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard.
I want to take a moment to sincerely thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this debate and for sharing her very personal story. I offer my profound condolences to her for the loss of her son, Ben, and I recognise her extraordinarily brave work in campaigning to improve the patient pathway for aortic dissection, and to increase research and screening.
As we have heard, aortic dissection occurs because of a partial tear in the wall of the aorta. The tear then spreads, and can rupture or interrupt the blood supply to vital organs. There are two distinct types of aortic dissection: type A, which occurs in the front of the chest, and type B, which occurs in the back of the chest. Type A is far more dangerous; if untreated, it is sadly almost always fatal. We have also heard today that over 2,000 people per year lose their lives from aortic dissection. Some 11% of maternal deaths from cardiovascular causes are due to aortic dissections. Worryingly, the Oxford Vascular Study projects that those figures will almost double by 2050. It is crucial, then, that we engage with experts and give this life-threatening condition the attention that it deserves.
As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said, there have been some positive advances in aortic dissection care over the last year—notably, the launch of the acute aortic dissection toolkit—but we cannot afford to take our foot off the pedal. Deaths from aortic dissection are avoidable, and with timely treatment the survival rate is good, as we have heard. It is therefore crucial that we do everything we can to drive up diagnosis rates. The Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust estimates that one in three of those who have aortic dissection are misdiagnosed. I would be grateful, then, if the Minister will update colleagues on the steps her Department is taking to improve diagnosis rates for aortic dissection.
The ADCT has made the case for a review of A&E triage processes, imaging, diagnosis and transfer for surgery. Notably, it also advocates diagnosis being made pre-hospital, which bypasses emergency departments and saves vital time. That work already happens with acute coronary syndrome and acute heart attacks. The ADCT states:
“The current pathways are ineffective… There are problems transferring images… Medical management, blood pressure control, imaging protocols, investigation of genetics…and long-term follow-ups are all sporadic and often not addressed well.”
The AAD toolkit has made a positive difference to some of those problems, but there is still much work to do. Has the Minister met with ADCT recently to review pathway processes? In addition, what work is taking place to eliminate regional variations in aortic dissection care, and to streamline aortic care so that patients can be seen before it is too late?
I also wish to highlight preventive interventions and why it is important that the Government support diagnostics to enable clinicians to save lives. Genetic screening, functional imaging and biomarker analysis are now possible, and if used efficiently, they enable clinicians to provide treatment before an aortic dissection occurs. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire highlighted, once a patient is identified as having a family history of the disease, there is scope for potentially life-saving genetic screening. The ADCT estimates that 20% to 30% of families with dissections have an identified gene. Work is ongoing to identify the remaining 70% to 80% of genetic causes, but if we can screen that 20% to 30%, potentially thousands of lives could be saved over the next few years. I am sure that both sides of the House will agree that that is a worthy endeavour. Will the Minister therefore clarify what steps she is taking to support those exciting and potentially life-saving diagnostic tools?
Finally, let me touch on the workforce. We know that the NHS has the facilities to treat those suffering from aortic dissection. The problem lies in diagnostics. The reality, however, is that system-wide pressure on the NHS exacerbates misdiagnosis and compounds issues in patient pathways. It is therefore essential that targeted aortic dissection strategies come alongside whole-system workforce overhaul.
The next Labour Government will oversee the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in history, doubling the number of medical school places, training 15,000 new doctors, creating 10,000 new nursing placements, and recruiting 5,000 new health visitors. That will be paid for by abolishing the immoral non-dom tax status. I encourage the Minister to nick Labour’s idea and commit to implementing that workforce strategy as soon as possible. Unless we solve the systemic workforce shortages, we will not be able to robustly tackle conditions such as aortic dissection.
In conclusion, I want to see a future where aortic dissection is diagnosed quickly, treated rapidly, and receives appropriate long-term care and management.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Helen Whately)
What we heard from the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) was a shame, but I will focus on what we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), which was one of the most powerful speeches I have ever heard in Parliament. It was also one of the most painful to hear, but I know that is not a patch on what she will have experienced in losing her son, Ben, so tragically, aged just 44. As she told us, he went to A&E to get help and was sent home, and then he died. How awful that was for her as his mother and for his whole family, including the loving wife he leaves behind and his two children. I am so sorry that she and all his family have had to go through that.
I cannot commend my hon. Friend enough on coming to the House and talking about her experience; on doing so in the Chamber, as she has done; on coming to meet me and other Health Ministers; and on drawing on her experience, her son’s experience and her whole family’s experience to try to make things better for other people who are at risk of aortic dissection—to prevent others from going through what she has gone through, and to try to save the lives of others so that some good can come out of what she has been through. I have a huge amount of respect for my hon. Friend for doing that, and I know that many people across the country, including those who will not necessarily even know what she has done, will be grateful to her for it. I thank her myself for that.
My hon. Friend helped to set up the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust. She has been working with that trust very effectively to raise awareness of aortic dissection, improve diagnosis, and prevent aortic dissection in the first place, saving lives in doing so. She made several specific requests and asked several questions during her speech, which I will come to in a moment. We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always so thoughtful in what he says and how he says it. He makes such valuable contributions to debates in this place, and it is so good to see him again—I think it is the third time in less than 24 hours that we have talked about healthcare.
Helen Whately
The third welcome I want to give is to Bob Harris, who is here today. He himself has suffered aortic dissection, and is working as an ambassador on this issue. It is very good to have him here with us.
We have heard during this debate about the sudden and heartbreaking impact that aortic dissection can have on families. That is why it is absolutely right that we should be talking about this issue today: we should be talking about how to raise awareness of the condition among medical professionals, about how to improve diagnosis so that aortic dissection is detected as quickly as possible, and about the research we need to make sure that more people survive. Sadly, around 4,000 people suffer from an aortic dissection in the UK each year, yet still many people have never heard of the condition. It is crucial that it is diagnosed and treated urgently, otherwise very sadly, it can be fatal. It need not be.
As we have heard today, diagnosing aortic dissection promptly is, unfortunately, not straightforward. The condition is relatively rare, which means medical professionals may be less familiar with its presentation. The symptoms of aortic dissection, such as chest pain, can be similar to other more common conditions, making it harder to accurately diagnose. Care pathways for aortic dissection vary across the country, meaning different patients often get different treatments.
I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and other hon. Members here today that I am determined to improve the way the condition is diagnosed and treated. Earlier this year, NHS England launched its aortic dissection toolkit, which sets out the steps that commissioners, providers and clinicians should take to improve the care of patients with acute aortic dissection. The toolkit covers the pathway for aortic dissection, from recognition and diagnosis to treatment.
NHS England’s regional teams are currently implementing the toolkit within their local services, and we expect those improvements to significantly reduce delays to diagnosis and improve patient outcomes following treatment. NHS Digital has also made changes to NHS Pathways, which is a triage system used by NHS 111 and 999, to improve the recognition of chest pain likely to be associated with aortic dissection. However, I heard my hon. Friend say that the toolkit does not cover all the challenges that she is aware of in the pathway, so I will take that away and see how we can go further to make sure the toolkit is comprehensive or supplement it as necessary.
We have also heard today about the importance of raising awareness of aortic dissection among medical professionals. The Royal Colleges of Radiologists and Emergency Medicine published a best-practice guideline last year on the diagnosis of aortic dissection in the emergency department, in response to a report published by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch in 2021. I expect that to have a major impact on the prompt diagnosis of aortic dissection. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine, which sets standards of care in all emergency departments in the UK, has also developed guidance to support the timely diagnosis of aortic dissection. However, my hon. Friend told us that a freedom of information request showed that only some EDs are using the guidelines. Again, I will look into that, as guidance should be followed consistently across emergency departments.
Research is the piece of the puzzle that will drive forward progress and find the treatments of tomorrow. We need to understand better who is at risk of aortic dissection and how we should monitor them, we need to know how to most effectively detect and diagnose aortic dissection in emergency settings and how to improve treatment to make sure patients recover successfully. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care brought together a multidisciplinary group of experts and patient representatives in 2020 to consider research priorities for aortic dissection. That significant event identified research questions in diagnosis, treatment, care, awareness and education and, crucially, what matters most to people with aortic dissection and their families. In response to that event, the Department of Health and Social Care-funded National Institute for Health and Care Research launched a call for research on surgical treatment for aortic dissection. We await the outcome of the commissioning pool early in the new year.
The NIHR invests around £50 million a year on research into cardiovascular disease, including aortic dissection and other heart conditions. For example, the NIHR funded a major programme of work at Barts Health NHS Trust to develop and test a novel surgical treatment for aortic dissection, which is less invasive than routine care, allowing quicker procedure times and shorter hospital stays. It is also vital that we harness our understanding of risk to help prevent aortic dissection. UK Research and Innovation, which is funded by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, is supporting a study on how we can use genetic and other factors to predict aortic dissection and identify people at greater risk. That will pave the way for more preventive measures, such as blood pressure control, to be prescribed.
We know that there is interest in the academic community for a pipeline of research to improve outcomes for people at risk of and who have survived aortic dissection. I encourage researchers working in the field to harness the momentum building around aortic dissection research and to please come forward and make applications for funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire also asked about data and called for more data on aortic dissection to be collected and made public. I will take that request away and raise it with NHS England, because she makes a really important point: the more data we collect, the more we know. Again, making it available more widely is one of the best things that we can do to improve understanding and support research into prevention, diagnosis and treatment. My hon. Friend also requested that we meet to discuss guidelines for genetic screening, which is another thing that I will take away and look into. I will get back to her on that.
This debate has made us all stop and reflect, and I will pause for a moment as well, because I think the hon. Member for Strangford is waiting to intervene on me.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her very helpful response. I always ask these questions, because it is important that we share the issues. In my contribution, I asked whether we could share information with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, because we can all learn from it. We need to collaborate on research, because we can all benefit from it, wherever it may be—in Northern Ireland in my case, and in Scotland in the case of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar). That might be helpful for us all.
Helen Whately
I completely agree with the hon. Member, and we can only do better if we share information across the whole United Kingdom and internationally, as work on this condition will be going on across the world.
This has been a really powerful debate, but it is not a patch on the pain that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has been through. As she said so powerfully, each life lost to aortic dissection is not just one life affected. The condition affects the lives of all those around the person who is lost, be they mothers like her, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, grandchildren or friends—everyone who is affected when somebody is sadly lost too soon. I thank her again for her tireless work in raising awareness and campaigning, and I assure her that I will, in turn, do what I can in Government to support her efforts and to improve outcomes for all those affected by aortic dissection across the country.
Mrs Latham
First, I thank everyone who has contributed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is obviously a prolific contributor to all kinds of debates, but he always has an interesting perspective and works very hard.
I particularly thank the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), for his intervention, because he can take evidence and work with the charity to find out more about prevention and saving lives. I also thank the Minister for taking on board all the requests that I made during my speech, which will make so much difference to so many people and so many families. I thank her for embracing the whole issue of aortic dissection.
I guess that many of the people in this room had never heard of the condition until they took part in this debate, so it is important to ensure that people know about it and that doctors—from GPs right the way through the patient pathway—understand it, understand how to treat it and understand how best to save as many lives as we possibly can. To lose 2,000 people a year—more than the number who die on the roads—is criminal, and the condition is preventable. We have reduced the number of deaths on the roads over many years, not least by putting on seatbelts, and we need to do a similar thing with aortic dissection. I thank the Minister very much for taking it all on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered patient pathways and research funding for aortic dissection.
Written Statements
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Genome UK: England Implementation Plan
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Will Quince)
This is a joint statement with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
In 2020, the Government published Genome UK, the UK’s genomic healthcare strategy, setting out a vision to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world, underpinned by the latest scientific advances, to deliver better health outcomes at lower costs. The strategy made 45 commitments to be delivered over 10 years to achieve this vision. Delivering this vision will help people to live longer, healthier lives, reduce the burden of illness on the NHS and make the UK a world leader in data-driven healthcare research and innovation.
I am delighted to inform the House that we are today publishing the “Genome UK—England Implementation Plan 2022 to 2025”, which sets out how we will further progress delivery of Genome UK in England during the current spending review period, taking us to the halfway mark of our ambitious 10-year strategy. In order to allow us to reflect advances in this fast-moving field, we have adopted a phased approach to implementing the strategy, with implementation plans published in line with spending review periods.
This publication follows the previous “Genome UK: 2021 to 2022 Implementation Plan” in May 2021, and “Genome UK: shared commitments for UK-wide implementation 2022 to 2025” in March 2022. Through extensive collaboration with partners across the genomics community we have set out our priority actions, showcasing the outstanding research and policy work that will take place across England to develop, evaluate and implement new genomic technologies across the health and care system and life sciences sector. As part of this, I am pleased to announce:
The £105 million of Government funding for a landmark research programme, led by Genomics England in partnership with the NHS, to study the effectiveness of using whole genome sequencing to speed up diagnosis and treatment of rare genetic diseases in newborn babies, potentially leading to life-saving interventions for thousands of babies.
The £22 million of Government funding for Genomics England to tackle health inequalities in genomic medicine through tailored sequencing of 15,000 to 25,000 participants from diverse backgrounds by 2024-25, as well as extensive community engagement work to build trusting relationships with traditionally excluded groups of people.
The £26 million of Government funding for an innovative cancer programme, led by Genomics England in partnership with NHS England and the National Pathology Imaging Co-operative, to evaluate cutting-edge genomic sequencing technology and use artificial intelligence to analyse genomic data alongside digital histopathology and radiology images to improve the accuracy and speed of diagnosis for cancer patients.
Up to £25 million Medical Research Council-led funding for a four-year functional genomics initiative, working across UK Research and Innovation and other stakeholders to establish an industry-partnered world-class offer on functional genomics, building on already existing infrastructure and UK research expertise
These are just a few of the many actions that are set out in the implementation plan, which also covers how we will engage with patients and the public; develop the genomics workforce; support industrial growth and explore a possible UK model for how to apply ethical standards in genomic healthcare and research.
Together, these actions will pave the way to bringing improved approaches to disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to people and patients, transforming healthcare and improving the health of the nation. Through these actions we will also increase private sector investment, by ensuring that the UK is the best location globally to conduct genomic research and grow new genomic healthcare companies.
Patients and the diverse UK population are at the heart of our journey to the world’s most advanced genomic healthcare system. Equally, this vision cannot be achieved without the support our talented healthcare workforce. I therefore want to emphasise that open engagement with the public, patients and workforce will continue to be central in the delivery of our 10-year vision.
This implementation plan has been agreed with the Genome UK Implementation Co-ordination Group and the National Genomics Board, which are made up of senior life sciences stakeholders and delivery partners from across the NHS, the charity sector, research, and industry. The devolved Governments will be publishing their own implementation plans, to ensure that genomic healthcare is able to flourish across the UK. Over the next three years we will continue to work with our partners, including the devolved Governments, via the Genome UK Implementation Co-ordination Group and the National Genomics Board, to ensure that we can continue to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world.
[HCWS439]
Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
On 10 February 2022 Lord Stewart of Dirleton KC updated the House of Lords that potential victims of modern slavery would be provided with at least a 45-day recovery period, or until a conclusive grounds decision is made, whichever comes later. When Lord Stewart made this statement, this was the Government’s intention.
However, since becoming Minister for Immigration, I have made clear the Government’s renewed commitment to reviewing and reforming the national referral mechanism (NRM) to ensure that opportunities for abuse and inefficiencies, which have contributed to decision making and processing taking far too long, are addressed.
Given this necessity for NRM reform and in line with our obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Government will, effective immediately—13 December 2022—be amending guidance to make clear the minimum recovery period will be 30 days rather than 45. The 30 days is the amount of time requested by the convention and is the standard recovery period for many ECAT-signatory states.
The Government remain committed to ensuring potential victims of modern slavery can access appropriate needs-based support during the recovery period in line with international and domestic legal obligations.
Today I am also updating Parliament on forthcoming changes to the guidance for modern slavery reasonable grounds decision making, which will go live operationally in January 2023. In January, the guidance will be included in “Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland” and published on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk.
The updated guidance will mean decision makers now base their assessments on objective factors to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a person is a victim. This will ensure that decision makers can make timely and robust evidence-backed decisions and that assistance and support are focused on those who most need it.
A copy of the draft statutory guidance will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be made available on www.gov.uk when it becomes operational.
[HCWS441]
Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2021-22
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has today laid before Parliament a report covering the work of the Committee between August 2021 and March 2022. The 2021-22 annual report demonstrates the wide-ranging work of the Committee across a number of important issues. While there have been changes in Government between the final drafting and publication of this report, I reiterate the Government’s gratitude to the Committee for its continued independent oversight and scrutiny of the UK Intelligence Community, and I look forward to working together.
The membership of the Committee has changed during the period covered by the report, and I would like to thank the right hon. Dame Diana Johnson MP and the right hon. Mark Pritchard MP for their work on the Committee, and welcome the new Members, Maria Eagle MP and the right hon. Sir Jeremy Wright MP into the role.
The Government continue to support the Committee on its ongoing inquiries on international partnerships, China, cloud technologies, and Iran, and look forward to seeing the conclusions of the Committee’s subsequent reports. The Government reiterate their thanks to the Committee for its thorough inquiry and detailed report, “Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism”, published on 13 July 2022, and will respond formally in due course.
The Government value the scrutiny the Committee provides through its inquiries, and this oversight is vital in ensuring the public can have confidence that our agencies are operating in full accordance with the law. Protecting the operational capabilities of the agencies and wider intelligence community to ensure the safety and security of our nation remains a critical priority for the Government. We will continue to engage constructively with the Committee to ensure its effective public oversight, in line with its powers as set out in statute, while balancing scrutiny and accountability with the need to protect our operating capabilities.
The Government consider the current memorandum of understanding with the Committee to be sufficient to enable the Committee to conduct its statutory oversight duties to provide effective scrutiny and robust oversight of the agencies and wider intelligence community. The Government note the Committee’s comments regarding the provision of sensitive information to parliamentary Select Committees. There is existing guidance establishing that classification is not a reason for Government to withhold information from parliamentary Committees and there is an agreed process in place to provide sensitive information to any Committee as required.
I would like to again thank the Committee for its work, and I look forward to working with it as it continues its vital oversight duties.
[HCWS440]
Rail Services: North of England
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
Members will be aware that, in July 2022, Avanti West Coast experienced an immediate and near total cessation of drivers volunteering to work on passenger trains on rest days. In response, it has had to reduce its timetable to provide greater certainty for passengers.
Similarly, TransPennine Express services continue to be impacted by the loss of rest day working, higher than average staff sickness levels, and historically high levels of drivers leaving the business.
The current rail services in the north have therefore been unacceptable, and on November 30 I met with the northern Mayors in Manchester. In that meeting, we agreed that the rail industry is not set up to deliver a modern, reliable service, and that we need both short-term and long-term measures to address this.
As a short-term measure, Avanti West Coast and TransPennine Express have both been rapidly increasing the number of drivers they employ. This is helping Avanti restore the services that it was forced to withdraw. Services increased in September, and have now increased to 7 trains per hour, restoring the full Manchester-London service. It is therefore disappointing that passengers will not see the full benefit of these changes until the current wave of industrial action is over. I was pleased to see the RMT call off the strike action scheduled for Avanti West Coast on 11 and 12 December, as sustaining this level of service will require the support of the trade unions.
I have also given TransPennine Express and Northern the scope they need to put a meaningful and generous rest day working offer to ASLEF. However, giving operators a mandate is only the first step. ASLEF needs to enter negotiations, and put any new deal to its members and, if accepted, do all it can to make that deal work. TransPennine has made a generous revised offer to ASLEF and it was almost immediately rejected without being put to members. It is up to the unions to decide if they want to improve services, for the good of passengers and the wider economy in the north.
Today, the RMT is on strike across the country again, disrupting services and driving passengers away from the railway. In my meeting with the Mayors, we all agreed on the need for a reliable railway seven days a week. That means not having fragile rest day working agreements and breaking the railway’s dependence on rest day working altogether. No modern and successful business relies on the good will of its staff to deliver for its customers in the evening and at the weekend. I want a railway with rewarding jobs, contracted to deliver every service promised to the public. I want to encourage passengers back to a financially sustainable railway.
[HCWS442]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 22 November and, if agreed, will give legal effect to the decision of both Houses, taken in July of this year, to pass Motions endorsing the House commissions’ report for a revised mandate for the restoration and renewal programme.
Since the sponsor body was established by the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, concerns have been raised about the conclusions reached in the initial assessment of the emerging costs and timescales. The House of Lords Commission, alongside the House of Commons Commission, expressed concern about the costs and timescales presented by the sponsor body, and I shared some of these concerns. That is why the Government, with the commissions in both Houses, have supported the development of a revised mandate. I am grateful for the collaborative way in which Speaker’s Counsel in the House of Commons has worked with officials in both Houses, including the deputy counsel to the Chairman of Committees, to draft these regulations and for the ongoing advice we have received from the R&R directors.
The new approach to the parliamentary building works will continue to ensure that, as provided for in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, Members of both Houses will be consulted. Peers and all those who work in this place will have a chance to express their views on the works. When making critical strategic choices relating to restoration and renewal, the R&R client board will keep in mind the principles agreed by both Houses to deliver a new value-for-money approach that prioritises safety.
The commissions, in a March 2022 meeting, agreed a new approach to the restoration and renewal programme, guided by the principles of prioritising health and safety, ensuring maximum value for money and integration with other critical works on the estate. It is important that all members of the parliamentary community feel that they are engaged on the parliamentary building works, and I am confident that these new arrangements will deliver the required step change in engagement.
In 2018, both Houses agreed that major works to the Palace of Westminster would be essential in order to ensure that this historic and iconic building remains for generations to come. It was decided that the project should be undertaken by a delivery authority and overseen by a sponsor body. The Parliamentary Building Works (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 set out the governance arrangements for the project by creating these bodies and conferring particular functions on them. However, earlier this year, the two House commissions recommended a new approach to the programme whereby a new two-tier in-house governance structure would be established.
These regulations, which are made under Section 10 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, will abolish the sponsor body, which will be replaced with an in-house governance structure. The statutory responsibilities and other functions of the sponsor body will transfer to the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—in other words, the clerks of each House.
The Leader of the House of Commons and I have consulted the corporate officers and the commissions of both Houses, in accordance with Section 10(8)(a) of the Act, and both corporate officers have consented to the transfers to them effected by this instrument, in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Act. Ultimately, both corporate officers will have joint responsibility for the parliamentary building works and will, at least once a year, prepare and lay a report before Parliament about the carrying out of the parliamentary building works and the progress that has been made towards completion of those works.
I am aware that Peers have previously raised concerns that without the sponsor body in place, the project may not have sufficient expertise. First, the Houses will not lose the expertise gained by the sponsor body, and the team of staff with that expertise will be brought in-house, as a joint department, and be accountable to the corporate officers. I also emphasise that the delivery authority will not be affected by the regulations; its role is unchanged, although it will now be closer to the Houses. This ensures that the programme retains its valuable experience and expertise. These regulations will allow for greater co-ordination and engagement between the Houses and the delivery authority, which could in turn allow for the delivery of restoration works much sooner. Similarly, the regulations will not alter the role of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission; it will remain in place and will scrutinise the delivery authority’s estimates.
This statutory instrument is vital to ensuring that this historic building is restored, while making sure that we deliver for the British taxpayer. Our commitment to ensuring good value for money is reflected in Section 2(5) of the restoration and renewal Act, and it is an approach that I will prioritise.
I would like to reassure colleagues that the House’s important role in this project is not diminished by the regulations. Under Section 7 of the 2019 Act, no restoration works, other than preparatory works, can be carried out until Parliament has approved the delivery authority proposals for those works. In addition, further approval is required for any proposals that would significantly affect the design, timing or duration of the parliamentary building works. Bringing this project in-house is an opportunity, as an in-house governance structure should improve accountability and engagement with Parliament by allowing a close interaction with and accountability to the commissions of the two Houses. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his opening remarks. Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Deighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I am a member of the board of the restoration and renewal sponsor body, which is now to be abolished under the terms of this statutory instrument. We were charged with implementing the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, and I have been acting as the spokesperson responsible for reporting to your Lordships’ House on behalf of the board.
Before we go, the board has bequeathed to its successors a synopsis of the lessons we have learned from our experience over the last two and a half years. Our letter to the chairs of the new client board and new programme board will be publicly available on Monday. Perhaps I can draw out that letter’s three interconnected conclusions. First, the governance structure devised by the R&R Act was flawed. The theory was that creating an autonomous arm’s-length sponsor body would mean freedom from political interference and would expedite swift progress after years of delay. This was naive. The reality was that the relevant parliamentarians retained a controlling role. The work of the sponsor body was constantly held back and confused by the views of parliamentarians, particularly those on the House of Commons Commission who were not committed to the large-scale R&R programme envisaged by the 2019 Act.
In particular, there was antipathy towards a full decant of the Palace. We believed this to be necessary if the essential works, most notably to sort out the horrendous underground labyrinth of pipes and cables in the basement, were to be carried out expeditiously and safely. Indeed, a decant was part of the legislative framework we were obliged to follow. Lack of agreement on this fundamental part of the R&R process high- lighted the inherent conflict built into the governance arrangements for a supposedly independent sponsor body.
Under the new arrangements, the work of the sponsor body, with its oversight of the delivery authority, is to be taken in-house, with its functions transferred to the corporate officers: the clerks of the two Houses. Hopefully, this means that an in-built source of disagreement and crossed wires will now be removed. Our successors will be able to act as a single, united client speaking with one voice in championing the programme and progressing the works—I hope.
However, this leads to a second conclusion. There has never been clarity on the budget, timescale or scope of the R&R exercise. That clarity is now needed if our successors are to avoid endless delays and a waste of public funds, with the delivery authority instructed to undertake unnecessary work. If there are maximum or minimum levels, for example of accessibility in the Palace or of its energy efficiency and sustainability, these need to be stipulated. If Parliament is never going to accept a total cost for the whole project of more than X pounds or a decant period of more than Y years, that needs to be crystal clear up front and as soon as possible.
Thirdly, and finally, the outgoing board accepts with the wisdom of hindsight that we should have recognised that the sudden changes to the country’s fortunes meant a course correction was inevitable. It is obvious in retrospect that when the Covid pandemic struck, followed by turmoil in the economy, a retreat from the measures envisaged by the 2019 Act was going to be called for. Our successors and our colleagues in the delivery authority need to be ready for changes of direction and be prepared for fresh thinking as external circumstances alter.
At the end of this frustrating experience, I remain of the view that, although it will cost a fortune and will need everyone to move out of the building for a prolonged period sooner or later, none the less, the restoration and renewal of Parliament is an incredibly worthwhile initiative. Research shows that the wider public hope for and expect a full refurbishment of this much-loved building. Investment in this great endeavour will support skills, crafts and businesses throughout the UK. A proper R&R programme would not only render the building safe from fire, asbestos, the breakdown of services, falling masonry and the rest but actually save money, and possibly save lives, over the years ahead.
However, I recognise the constraints for elected Members of Parliament. I do not face constituents who may well say, “While we’re struggling through a cost of living crisis, Parliament is spending billions on its own comfort”. Also, the dark cloud of moving out for several years to a less amenable base elsewhere colours everybody’s judgment. Nevertheless, although the process may have lost two or three years, I hope that our successors will have the courage and determination to see it through.
What has been achieved will provide a solid basis for the next stages. Most of the excellent staff in the sponsor body and the development authority will carry on, and their work to date, despite operating throughout the Covid pandemic and through times of political and economic turmoil, has produced a vast quantity of data and physical survey work that will now make possible a clear plan. This plan may mean a succession of more modest mini-programmes stretching into the indefinite future, rather than the single major programme that we pursued, but, if the big issue of the basement renewal can be sorted, all is not lost.
In concluding our work today, we all wish our successors well. We hope that, despite the failure of the 2019 Act, progress will now be made in restoring this internationally recognised and iconic Palace for which the nation is right to feel huge pride and affection.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, this is not an area that I have looked at very carefully but, when I looked at these regulations, I was rather puzzled by what we hope to achieve by them. The Lord Privy Seal, in his opening remarks, told us that we would not lose the existing expertise and that the delivery authority would be unchanged. So it is not clear to me why transferring responsibility to a corporate body, which is undefined but I assume is the two clerks of the respective Houses, will alter the proposal that was going to cost £13 billion or £14 billion—whichever it was—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, just pointed out, is pretty unaffordable in the current climate. Whether you need to be elected or not, spending that kind of money is simply not possible in the current climate. The money is not there. I am worried by exactly what the benefit of this will be, because it looks like the same people are confronted with the same problem, which they have to take forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about the belief, which he described as “naive”, that it would be possible to do this without political interference. The reason I want to speak on these regulations is to express frustration at the way projects are carried out in this place, without proper consultation with the Members. In the other place, Members are responsible for voting the means of supply. In this place, to some degree, we are responsible for explaining why these sums of money are being spent.
I can give a more recent example. The decision to alter the security arrangements at Carriage Gates results in traffic going in a one-way system along what is called Chorus Avenue at the front of the House of Lords. That will cost £70 million and, in the process, will put pedestrians at considerable risk. A number of colleagues have argued that there should be a perimeter fence around the House and that that area should be closed to pedestrians. It is very dangerous, and one person lost their life crossing the road. When colleagues make these remarks and talk to the authorities—the corporate body, as it exists—they are ignored.
There is huge opposition to the creation of a new front door to this House. The cost was £2.5 million and it is now £3 million—for a front door. One worries about value for money. The argument put forward is security but, at the end of the day, it is up to Members to discuss these ideas instead of them being imposed on us. We are told that the changes to Carriage Gates and their effect on us are going to happen, that we have no say in the matter and that considerable sums are being spent.
I want to ask my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal a number of questions. First, how much have we already spent on deciding what to do? I understand it runs to hundreds of millions of pounds. Secondly, why is it going to be any different and where is the accountability? The only thing I can see in these regulations is that there is going to be an annual report:
“At least once in every calendar year, the Corporate Officers must prepare and lay before Parliament a report about the carrying out of the Parliamentary building works and the progress that has been made towards completion of those works.”
There is nothing about the expense, estimates or accountability. I find it difficult to accept the idea that an annual report will provide accountability to Members of this House or the other place.
In short, I look at these regulations and it seems to me that nothing is actually going to change and that the fundamental, systemic, strategic problem remains. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said he thought that we might end up doing a series of small projects, perhaps concentrating on the problems in the basement, if indeed that is practical. I may be a Peer, but I do not have a stately home. However, if I imagine for a moment that I have a huge stately home on the scale of this place and I have to be involved in restoration and renewal, if a bunch of consultants came to me and said, “The cheapest way to do this is for you to move out and for the whole thing to be done in one go”, if I were spending my own money I would almost certainly say, “Not on your life.” I would say, “Why don’t we do it a bit at a time over the next 30 years, because that way I might be able to afford it?” To try to do everything in one go is unaffordable. Of course it is always possible to argue that the costs will be less if you do it all in one go, although the experience of building this place in the 1850s was that it did not quite work out that like.
I say to my noble friend that I worry about these regulations. I understand what they do, but I am not sure that they will deliver for the taxpayer what the taxpayer might expect or what the Members of this place might expect in carrying out their duties.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this building is like a patient held together with bandages and sticking plasters when only serious surgery can restore it to health. Advice from a range of experts makes it clear that the best way forward is for Members to move to temporary accommodation while the intrusive and very disruptive work is carried out.
It was precisely because making this happen would be so difficult and controversial that Parliament put into statute a sponsor body for the project to act independently and supposedly free from political interference. However, ever since the ink was dry on the Act of Parliament, the sponsor body’s work has been sabotaged by powerful Members of the Commons who want the Palace to be restored and made safe only so long as it causes no inconvenience to them personally and they can remain in the Palace while the work is carried out. Meanwhile, the functions of the delivery authority, which needed to undertake extensive surveys, have also persistently been held back by restrictions on access. So short-term expediency and convenience have won, while the longer-term interests of this Parliament have lost.
So what now? We now have to examine the new arrangements and ensure that they are fit for purpose. If we are no longer to have an independent sponsor body and the project is to become the province of Parliament, it follows that the new arrangements should at the very least be more accountable, but I worry that the new structure will not live up to that ambition. There is to be a programme board with day-to-day responsibility for the project. It is to be
“as small, as senior and as stable as possible to support its effectiveness, but as large as necessary to reflect the range of key stakeholders that need to be represented.”
Meanwhile, the client, in theory replacing the sponsor body and instructing the programme board, will be the two commissions of the Commons and the Lords sitting together. Having been a member of the commission in this House for four years, I say with great respect to its individual members that I am not confident that those arrangements will result in accountability either. Each commission is a large, opaque body and is noted for neither its transparency nor its swift decision-making. So I worry that this structure loses the independence the sponsor body set up but gains us nothing in accountability.
This is important, because Parliament’s in-house record of managing very large- scale projects on time and on budget is dismal. Every very large project, from Westminster Hall to the Elizabeth Tower, has run vastly over budget and miles behind the original timescale. Unless there is very careful oversight, there is no reason to believe that the limited restoration and renewal now on offer will not suffer the same fate.
We have to ask whether the commissions as client of the programme board will really devote the necessary time and be sufficiently independent to scrutinise this project. Of course, the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons will do its best to keep an eye on progress, but it already has an incredible workload. The National Audit Office will likewise continue to conduct its in-depth analysis of whether what has been spent provides value for money for the taxpayer, but both bodies have the whole gamut of public spending to look at, and their accountability mechanisms rely entirely on very busy Members of the Commons. Meanwhile, they both act retrospectively, blowing the whistle after vast sums of money have been spent rather than identifying problems coming down the track and raising the alarm.
I wish the commissions, the programme board and the delivery authority well, but I have very serious reservations about whether today’s SI really leads us to a better, more robust and more accountable means to achieve restoration and renewal. Regrettably, I fear that we are setting up overlapping echo chambers that, despite the best of intentions, will result in less transparency, less accountability and ultimately less chance of delivering a successful project. I very much hope that events will prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the very fact that we have to contemplate a new structure for undertaking this work shows what a dismal period we have been through, lasting many years, with huge amounts of work, vast expenditure and virtually no output. Although everybody agrees that major works are indeed essential, we just cannot carry on as if things will carry on.
The three issues that this proposal attempts to deal with have been aired by a number of speakers. Until the structures are set up and operating, the jury will necessarily be out as to whether they will be successful.
The first issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised, is: what is the prospect of this body being any better than its predecessor in actually taking any decisions? The answer is that the previous structure was prey to the whims of one or two powerful people in the Commons. The decision-making structure here, being vested as it is in both commissions sitting jointly, at least means that we will not be subject to whimsical decision-making. That might be a modest expectation and aim, but frankly, given the history of this project, if we can avoid that it will be a major step forward.
The second issue relates to the cost and scope of the project. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, there has been a lack of clarity on budget, scope and timescale. In asking for a prospectus that is crystal clear on all those fronts, he is slightly crying for the moon, because, as anyone who has ever done anything in an old building knows, once you start you find that there are problems that you did not know existed. Saying, “We know this is going to cost £X billion and that’s the cash limit”, would be a rather unsatisfactory way of proceeding. We need to know what we want to achieve and the process for getting there, because everything else flows from that. That is what the current process seeks to achieve.
On cost, I completely agree that the original approach is unsustainable in the current climate. The original approach, which we saw in most detail in the plans for decanting your Lordships’ House, was almost on the basis that money was no object. It was terrific: in some of the options we would have had a roof terrace and all these wonderful things, and offices for everybody—far more than there are now. That was unaffordable then in reality, but it is doubly unaffordable now.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with all the comments so far, but I repeat the words of my noble friend Lady Smith when we debated the report the SI has come out of, to end the previous structure. She emphasised that this
“is not our building. It belongs to the nation as the home of Parliament, and we have a responsibility as custodians of this building for future generations.”—[Official Report, 13/7/22; col. 1542.]
It is not about what we want but about protecting something that has been the symbol of democracy for hundreds of years. That is my starting point.
Whenever I hear the phrase “we want to avoid political interference”, I know that it will lead to political interference, as opposed to what this project needs more than anything: political buy-in. How do we ensure that when decisions are made, those with the responsibility for funding will support it? There is no point having grand plans if, at the end of it, people say that it is not affordable. We must have political buy-in—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Lord said that it is not our building. Who, then, is the client? Who is responsible for deciding what happens if it is not the Members of this House and the other place? Who is the client?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We clearly are. I am not saying that we are not. I was hoping to make the case that our responsibility is not limited simply to what we want for now. Our responsibility is to look to future generations as custodians of this place and not simply managers. Even more importantly, we talk about accountability, but I want to keep using the words “political buy-in”, because at every stage of this project we have to ensure that there is consensus and political buy-in. When we start making party-political points, we will fail.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was Chair of the Finance Committee and I was a member of it, we had regular discussions about this. There is perhaps a wider assumption in the world outside that this building needs restoration and that we are planning a restoration programme, but this building is like the Forth Road Bridge: we have not stopped restoring it. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds a year to restore the fabric of this building. The problem, as we all know, is that when this building was built by the Victorians it was full of shortcuts and making do. Since then, we too have been making shortcuts and making do, which has added to the problem. A lot of the difficulties we face are from periods when we have made this innovation here and developed something else there. The mechanical and engineering problems we face downstairs did not start with the Victorians; they have been going on since the place was built. How do we address that?
I agree that we can all be frustrated by decisions being made without proper consultation. When I was on the Finance Committee, what I found most frustrating was trying to pin down the people making the decisions and make them responsible for those decisions. We do not make them accountable by taking responsibility away from them; we have to do the opposite. Making them responsible and accountable means that we, as the custodians, should set clear objectives and policies, so that when they are managing the programme, we can ask whether they have met those objectives and whether they have been successful. Those objectives may be cost objectives or other objectives.
The Clerk of the Parliaments has heard me say many times that I want to ensure that he can measure his activity against the clear policies we set. The arguments against decanting are about the big costs and that, in decanting, we are being too extravagant. Actually, one can make the case that decanting could save money. The QEII Centre was built some time ago and its own mechanics and electrics are in desperate need of renewal. That has been postponed, because we may move in and help it to do the work, so the process that we immediately think could cost a lot of money could save the public and the taxpayer a substantial amount of money. The issue is how we define those objectives and look at what we are doing as a whole.
One other thing that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said was absolutely right. When we look at R&R, we must integrate properly what we are doing now in restoring this building. When I was on the Finance Committee, I thought, “Do we delay that to fit it in with R&R? Do we move forward on it? Is it taken into account in R&R?” All these issues have not been properly addressed.
We all have a responsibility—in particular, for the new governance structure, which I support. I should declare an interest, because I am going to be a member of the programme board; hopefully, I will be able to keep expressing the opinions I am expressing today. I will not be saying, “Tell me to make this decision”. I will be saying, “I want you to make the decision, but based on the clear policy objectives set by both the programme board and the two commissions”. That is what I hope to see but I am not fixed, by the way. If someone can persuade me that not decanting fully could work, I will go with it, but I like the idea that setting clear objectives, budgeting properly for them and having proper buy-in is a better way of doing this.
I support the regulations. We have made the decision anyway; we have already had a debate. I think that we will make this project more transparent with more accountability. I support that.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. I must say, as a fairly recent tenant of the office of Leader of the House of Lords—it is a tenancy—I am finding it interesting trying to find out why and where things happen. Having experienced the horror of a powerful earthquake, as I have in my life, I sometimes feel like the little boy trying to find the butterfly that flapped its wings to cause all these things to happen in the first place.
However, we are where we are. As all those who have spoken in the debate have said, this is an extraordinarily important building. It is a palace of the people. As Leader of your Lordships’ House, I submit that its most fundamental importance is that it provides a place, and should provide an environment, in which Members of Parliament can carry out their fundamental democratic duties to hold Governments to account, consider legislation and discuss both between themselves and across the two Houses how things should be accomplished in the best place and in the best way. However we take this project forward—having listened to this debate, I know that an enormous amount of expertise and thought has been and will be given to this, and I pay tribute to the members of the sponsor body—we must never forget that this is a House of Parliament, and one that cannot simply say, “We can send these people away”.
I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose work on this and contribution to our House have been outstanding. We cannot avoid interference in a House of Parliament, as it was put by parliamentarians. That is why we are here: to make judgments and choose priorities. It may well be true that talk of a decant—the noble Lord was right in what he said on this—did cause some people to be troubled by what was proposed. But I assure your Lordships that the commissions have asked for a wider range of options to decant as we go forward, with Members and staff from areas of the building affected by the works being considered. The House will have future opportunities to take decisions, and it will be informed by full analysis and wide consultation and engagement. As someone said—perhaps it was my noble friend Lord Forsyth—it is important that Members feel engaged and informed as we go forward. The word “transparency” was also used by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I am very pleased that the Minister said that there will be more transparency. That is very welcome. I wonder whether he would consider how the figures could be more transparent, because the whole of the spending on both the delivery authority and the sponsor body has been shrouded in secrecy—not for those of us on those bodies, but for everyone else. It would be much better if there was a process—I am not suggesting what it should be—whereby vast expenses are much more open and transparent, so that we can see what the money is being spent on before it is spent.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is an important challenge. On the local authority that I once had the honour to lead, one of the first things I did was ensure that items of spending over a certain level were put on the web immediately, which was not then current practice. I am sympathetic to the aspiration. I am only Leader of the House of Lords; I am not commanding this process. As Leader of the House of Lords I will try to ensure that matters are as clear as they should be.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
On the point about my noble friend not commanding the process—in many ways, I wish he was—there is a real problem, to pick up on what he said about the most recent project. It is a cultural thing. It is a culture of, “We are here to be done unto by people who know what’s best”, and consultation consists of telling us, “This is what is going to be done.” When you say that it is not such a good idea, the response is that it is all decided. If my noble friend can change that culture, it would make it so much easier to make progress.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fear that I have trodden too widely. This is not a debate about me personally—God forbid. Nor is it about the wider culture that my noble friend asserts exists. I have heard that said by others and I am conscious of it, and as a relatively new Leader of your Lordships’ House, as I said, I am extremely concerned that every Member of this House feels involved and engaged with all that is happening. To repeat my opening remarks, which were personal rather than from my draft, this before all else is a place where democratic work has to be done. Therefore, the role of Peers and Members should be pre-eminent in that.
On accountability, the process is being directed not by me but by the new in-house client team, in which I will have a part as a member of the commission on the client board, and it will be required to hold the delivery authority to account for the costs it presents. As I have said, the new head of the team is aware of the need to increase capability. The costs will be presented to the programme board in the way I have described. There will be extra expertise on it. All costs will be presented to the client board composed of the two commissions. I have described the process and will not go over it again. I am conscious of the noble Baroness’s challenge, and I am sure that those who read the debate will be too.
At this point, and with these regulations, we are simply seeking to wind up the sponsor body and launch the new ship, which I hope, despite the scepticism of noble Lord, Lord Best, who also expressed hope, will take us forward in an effective way, allowing Peers and Members to feel involved when considering options that will be presented next summer and which will come before both Houses for decision at the end of the year. We are just starting this process. I submit that we should allow and support it going forward. For all the proper scepticism that some noble Lords have expressed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to say that, ultimately, we have to do our duty to make sure that this building is fit for purpose and for future generations. That is the challenge.
It is clear that most who have spoken and others I have spoken to are committed to ensuring that this remarkable building, which we can proudly call our place of work, is protected for future generations. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations, which will come into force on 1 January 2023, as well as in supporting the delivery authority and those involved in programme going forward. All parties are represented on the boards involved, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that there should not be politicisation of the process. It is important that those from all parts of both Houses should come together to ask challenging questions and to put themselves in a position to make decisions next year.
Motion agreed.
Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 8 November, have two functions. First, they amend the domestic public procurement regulations to ensure that changes in calculation of VAT in the valuation of contracts do not place undue burdens on contracting authorities. Secondly, they will ensure that NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are treated consistently for the purpose of applying certain obligations which promote transparency.
Public procurement in the UK above certain financial thresholds is currently regulated by the procedures laid down in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, known as the PCRs. These financial thresholds are set down in the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement, known as the GPA, and are revised at international level every two years to take account of currency fluctuations. Those revisions are subsequently implemented domestically, by amendment of the PCRs, to ensure that the UK complies with its obligations under the GPA. These thresholds for regulated public procurement are not altered by this SI.
The PCRs also outline specific, less prescriptive procedures for public procurement carried out below these thresholds in order to facilitate access to public procurement for SMEs. This takes place by requiring opportunities to be advertised on a portal called Contracts Finder and by prohibiting assessments of suitability where they are used to narrow the field, rather than as part of the assessment of bids. Below-threshold regulation also improves transparency by requiring the publication of details of the contract published. The thresholds are currently £10,000 for central government bodies, known as central government authorities, and £25,000 for wider public sector bodies, known as subcentral authorities.
This SI will implement changes only to the lower-value thresholds in the PCRs and therefore only impact on the regulation of lower-value contracts. The amendments are necessary in order to address the impact of the new requirement to include VAT in the assessment of contract value. The change to how VAT is considered in estimating the value of a contract is a result of the UK joining the GPA as an independent member following EU exit. When the UK was a member state of the EU, it was obliged to adopt the EU’s methodology for calculating the estimated value of contracts. The EU’s thresholds included a 13% unilateral VAT reduction agreed upon in 1987 as a solution to a dispute with the United States. As such, contract values were to be calculated exclusive of VAT. This was, and remains, an internal EU measure which it is no longer appropriate to apply in the UK now we are an independent member of the GPA. Last year, we therefore amended the 2015 regulations, such that contracting authorities are now required to include VAT in the estimation of contract values for the purposes of establishing whether a contract is above or below the threshold.
To ensure a consistent approach, this change was applied to all thresholds in domestic procurement regulations, including the lower thresholds. While the upper thresholds were increased to make allowance for this, the lower thresholds were not, which in effect has resulted in a reduction to those thresholds. This instrument will rectify this discrepancy by raising the lower thresholds for central government authorities from £10,000 to £12,000 and for subcentral authorities from £25,000 to £30,000. This will ensure the thresholds effectively remain the same once contract values are calculated inclusive of VAT, thus avoiding bringing additional low-value contracts within scope of the below- threshold regime.
Turning to the second function, this instrument also provides that NHS foundation trusts are to be treated consistently with NHS trusts and be regarded as subcentral authorities. By way of background, for the purpose of the below-threshold regime, subcentral contracting authorities, such as local authorities, are subject to the higher of the two contract value limits for the purposes of publishing notices on Contracts Finder. NHS trusts are considered central government authorities, being listed on Schedule 1 to the PCRs; however, following consultation it was agreed that NHS trusts would sit alongside subcentral authorities in applying the higher value limit to below-threshold procurement and this is reflected in these regulations. At the time, the term “NHS trusts” was taken to mean all NHS trusts, including foundation trusts.
NHS foundation trusts were added to Schedule 1 to the PCRs last year as a category distinct from other NHS trusts. The unintended consequence was that NHS foundation trusts must now follow the lower contract value limit of £10,000 in respect of publishing notices on Contracts Finder.
This has caused confusion within the NHS, particularly because NHS foundation trusts, being semi-autonomous organisational units within the NHS, were established to have more financial and managerial freedom than classic NHS trusts. It is therefore seen as inappropriate that they should be held to the central government threshold for publication when NHS trusts are not. This amendment will rectify that by applying the same threshold to NHS foundation trusts as is currently observed by NHS trusts.
There is no impact on the Procurement Bill; having just seen that Bill through its Third Reading, I am pleased to be able to say that. This SI simply amends the existing legislation. The regulation of below-threshold procurement in the Procurement Bill is intended to continue the position that will be reached by this SI and will set the lower value limits at £12,000 and £30,000 respectively.
I commend these regulations to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to raise an issue that arose during the passage of the Procurement Bill through the House. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the regulations before us, which I support.
All I seek is an assurance and confirmation from my noble friend that, with these limits being lower than the limit to which we are subscribed under our independent membership of the GPA, produce from local growers, farmers and agricultural producers will be accepted in preference to those coming from the EU or other countries. Basically, it is about trying to support home-grown food and our farmers as they embark on a more sustainable way of farming.
I understand that, because the Procurement Bill is very specific, we are signed up in the same way as we were to the EU’s thresholds when we were part of it and cannot bid for such contracts over $136,000. Can my noble friend commit to the fact that we will be able to encourage our farmers to supply local hospitals, as in this case, but also military defence establishments, schools, prisons and all other public procurement contracts to ensure that we source more of our food for these establishments locally than has previously been the case?
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this set of regulations in such a clear, concise and understandable way to try to make sense of the existing situation post the situation that she talked about.
These Benches support the thrust of and details in the statutory instrument but I want to ask a couple of questions. First, I am somebody who is not an expert in statutory instruments, but the dates on which the SI is to be made and come into force have three asterisks next to them. Is that normal? When is this statutory instrument intended to come into force?
The second issue is to do with the thresholds and the use of VAT. Some goods are exempt from VAT while some have a VAT level of 5%. The effect of putting in the statutory instrument the figures of £12,000 and £30,000 will be that some contracts, for example in printing, will by default have a slightly different total value than those with a 20% rate of VAT because they are exempt from VAT. Would it not be more sensible to use the figures of £10,000 and £25,000 and include a provision that the threshold for the contract will be at the rate of VAT for the goods and services being procured, rather than having a blanket rule when some goods and services do not have a VAT rate of 20%?
With those questions, as I say, these Benches support the thrust of and reasoning for this statutory instrument.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is really just about making a change in order to keep things the same. We certainly agree with the decision about NHS trusts and foundation trusts but I have a question about services or goods that are VAT-exempt and the Government’s thinking on them. There also seems to be a delay in this issue coming about and it being rectified. I wonder whether that may has disadvantaged some businesses, particularly small businesses, over that period.
I notice that, when consideration of this instrument was raised in another place, my colleague, Flo Eshalomi, asked specifically why it has taken the Government nearly a year between introducing the new regulatory scheme on 1 January 2021 and attempting to fix this inconsistency. When the Minister responded, he did not answer that at all. I am concerned, as it is troubling that something so straightforward and uncontentious was allowed to drift for so long. What does the Minister make of that? Does she have an assessment of what the impact of that might have been?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I will answer the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, first. I do not have a satisfactory response to her question about why this instrument was not laid sooner. We simply laid it as soon as parliamentary time allowed. I recognise that, as that was almost a year, this is not entirely satisfactory.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about farmers. I applaud her commitment to the farming community. I assure her that the principles of non-discrimination still apply to below-threshold contracts. This does not have a bearing on procurement from the farming community, as such. She raised those issues very effectively during the debates on the Procurement Bill; I am sure that they will continue to be discussed as that Bill goes through the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about exemptions from VAT and about asterisks. I am told that asterisks are typical and that the SI will come into force in line with the articles in it—basically, as soon as it has been signed.
On the question about VAT from both the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, there are two reasons why we use 20% as standard. It aligns the methodology for estimating contract values for the purpose of applying thresholds with GPA parties, such as Japan and the USA, which are not part of the EU and therefore do not have the EU 13% VAT reduction that was agreed in 1987. Also, when contracting authorities are estimating their contract values, the £10,000 threshold will no longer be reduced to £8,333.33, assuming a 20% VAT rate is applied. That is why we are raising the thresholds to £12,000 and £30,000 respectively: it maintains the lower threshold at £10,000 before 20% VAT is added, taking the value to £12,000; and similarly £25,000, before 20% VAT is added, taking the value to £30,000. We are aware that VAT is not always set at £20,000 but it will not be less than this figure, hence why we assume this rate.
In short, as I have said, the instrument makes two brief but important corrections to the regulations governing the below-threshold regime. It will adjust the lower-value procurement thresholds upwards to reduce the burden on contracting authorities and ensure that NHS foundation trusts are placed on an equal footing with NHS trusts in respect of the application of these thresholds. The changes to the lower thresholds will be made under the affirmative procedure using the powers in Section 39 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act. This regulation-making power permits the Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State to
“impose on a contracting authority duties in respect of the exercise of its functions relating to procurement.”
I am grateful for noble Lords’ support for this statutory instrument; I commend it to the Committee.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, this draft order was laid before Parliament on 8 November. It is solely concerned with the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, and has been laid at the original request of the former Mayor of South Yorkshire, Dan Jarvis MP, with the full support of the current Mayor of South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard.
The order is being made under Section 85 of the Transport Act 1985, which allows the Secretary of State for Transport to make provisions for the dissolution of PTEs and the transfer of their functions, property, rights and liabilities to the relevant integrated transport area. This order will dissolve the South Yorkshire PTE and transfer its functions, property, rights and liabilities to the South Yorkshire MCA.
PTEs are delivery bodies responsible for implementing the strategic transport plans in their area. They are responsible for securing the provision of local public transport across their area as they consider appropriate, including commissioning socially necessary bus services and administering travel concession schemes. PTEs have existed in many of our largest city regions for many years, predating combined authorities, which are now responsible for transport planning in their areas.
The South Yorkshire PTE was established by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Area (Establishment of Executive) Order 1973 and was variously accountable to the metropolitan county council, the passenger transport authority and the integrated transport authority in South Yorkshire until the South Yorkshire integrated transport authority was dissolved and its functions transferred to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority by the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014. As well as its responsibilities in relation to buses, the South Yorkshire PTE also owns Supertram in Sheffield and is responsible for the arrangements for its operation.
The South Yorkshire MCA’s 2019 review of bus services in its area, chaired by Clive Betts MP, recommended among other things that the PTE cease to exist as a separate organisation and instead become part of the combined authority. The review concluded that a separate arm’s-length transport authority was no longer the right model and that a single entity responsible for bus transport strategy and delivery in South Yorkshire would provide a clearer focus on passenger needs and user-centred transport design and delivery.
As the review notes, this is already the case in other city regions—for example, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire—while other city regions, including Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City region, have chosen to retain their PTEs as executive bodies of their combined authorities. The Government recognise that a single entity may support the alignment of transport priorities with economic growth and decarbonisation objectives. However, providing that there are clear lines of accountability and sound governance in place, it is right that combined authorities determine which arrangements are best for their area. In this case, South Yorkshire has also identified scope for efficiency savings that could be reinvested in the local bus network.
Following the bus review, the then Mayor of South Yorkshire asked the Department for Transport to take the necessary steps to transfer the functions of the PTE to the combined authority. The Secretary of State agreed to do so and my officials have worked closely with the mayor’s team to bring forward this order. The order will make the MCA responsible for planning, delivering and managing local public transport services, bringing these functions under a single roof.
This order will make a straightforward and sensible amendment to the administration of local transport services in South Yorkshire at the request of the mayor. It is important that the Government deliver on devolution, supporting local authorities in providing services more efficiently for the people in their area. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a long-suffering passenger in South Yorkshire. I live in Sheffield, and I am well aware of the area and of the request of the former mayor and the current mayor, Oliver Coppard, for this change. However, in South Yorkshire we are bit perplexed, not because we are not bright people but because since August, as the Minister said, the functions of South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive have moved to the mayoral combined authority.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive’s website still exists. Its last post was on 31 August. It states:
“To better reflect who we are, the communities we serve and the way we work we changed our name on 17 September 2021 from ‘South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive’ (SYPTE) to ‘South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority’ (SYMCA).
SYPTE will continue to exist and retain the responsibilities of the local transport authority until the legal integration of SYPTE and SYMCA is complete”.
which is what this statutory instrument does. However, there is no reference on the mayoral combined authority’s website to its function separate from the mayoral authority. There is no way that a member of the public can work out what is happening and there does not seem to be any oversight of the functions of the passenger transport executive. It seems from a lay person’s perspective—and from my perspective, and I used to lead a city in South Yorkshire—that by default this has just happened and there is no dividing line. What assurance does the department have that there has been separation until this order goes through and that it is still there? How has the department checked that separation and that the passenger transport executive is independent?
More important for those of us living in South Yorkshire is whether this is an administrative change. We want to see an impact on our buses and trains, not just the deckchairs on the “Titanic” being shuffled as our public transport sinks. Will the Minister say exactly what difference the order will make, and what powers that do not currently exist in South Yorkshire will be brought to bear that will mean that our bus services will be better—or is it just that the existing powers are being shifted to somebody else and therefore the mayor is unable to get anything extra that the passenger transport executive could not get? That is the key issue. Administration is good, but administration for a purpose is the most important thing. Will the Minister explain to the people of South Yorkshire and to the Committee why this administrative change will have an effect on the bus and train services in South Yorkshire?
For example, 103 TransPennine Express trains were cancelled yesterday—a record for the north of England, many affecting people in South Yorkshire. Will these changes have any effect on the mayor’s ability to hold TransPennine Express to account? Will this new statutory instrument mean that the mayor will be able to do things that the passenger transport executive was not able to do to help with our buses and trains in South Yorkshire?
The reason why I ask this is really important. Mayor Coppard has a very good way of blaming others for the poor state of buses and trains. To some degree he has a point, but if he asks for these powers, what is it that he will be able to do that people in South Yorkshire—either democratically elected councillors who are on the passenger transport executive or the leaders of the council who make up the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority with the mayor—are unable to do at present? I look forward to answers from the Minister, because an administrative change is welcome if there is an effect on our buses and trains but not if it is just a shuffling of administrative posts back in South Yorkshire.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this order to merge the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive into the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. This step should lead to more effective and more accountable decision-making, but it is disappointing that it has taken this long for the order to be implemented. I begin by asking the Minister to confirm that the department is engaging with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and its constituent local authorities to ensure there are no further delays.
Powers and reform must be matched with investment, and it is clear that the Government lack ambition for the future of South Yorkshire’s transport network. Today, Ministers still spend three times per head more in London than in Yorkshire and the Humber. If the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority is to deliver a truly trans- formative agenda, then the Government must provide real support. I hope the Minister will commit to that.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I hope I was able to warn the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in my opening remarks that this is an administrative change: it is nothing more exciting than that, but it makes sure that the accountability, responsibilities and governance are clear. It also saves the MCA having both the PTE and the MCA structure, so there will be some small savings. We were asked for this, and it is not something that we would necessarily have required of all MCAs, because MCAs should be able to choose how they administrate their local transport powers. There are no changes to the powers that the mayor will have, although colleagues in DLUHC are looking at taking forward further devolution for places in due course.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister has a difficult job in defending this in terms of accountability. People understood the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, and councils were accountable at a local level for being on it. My point is that, since the transfer of the passenger transport executive to the mayoral authority, all that the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did has been lost in the myriad of what the mayoral authority does. The public are finding it harder than before to hold anyone to account for what is going on. All this does is formalise exactly the hybrid situation that has been in place since early 2021. As for accountability, if it continues as it has done since the partial incorporation, it does not make the accountability easier; it actually makes it harder.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I beg to differ with the noble Lord on this matter. The people of the constituent local authorities can of course take it up with Mayor Coppard, as the elected mayor. The local authorities that are the constituent parts of the combined authority can also take it up with that elected mayor. All this is doing is trying to take out some of what Mayor Coppard must believe to be unnecessary administration between him and his team and the operation of effective local transport systems. I literally have no further lines on that. If the noble Lord has a problem about establishing accountability, I reassure him that Mayor Coppard is accountable and he should of course raise those issues with him.
I hope the noble Lord knows—I am sure he does—that heavy rail services do not operate under these arrangements but, of course, we look to locally elected mayors to engage very robustly with train service operators in their area. It is the case that light rail services will fall under the remit of the local transport plans that Mayor Coppard will no doubt take forward for the benefit of local people.
On the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I suppose one could say that there has been a short delay in putting this administrative order in place. We got to it as soon as we could, but there is pressure on parliamentary time at the moment. I believe that the delay was not excessive and throughout all that time we have had a strong relationship with the local mayor and his team. Indeed, from a transport perspective we have a good relationship with all the local mayors. When I covered that portfolio, I would frequently have conversations with them to hear their concerns and listen to what they wanted as investments.
It is worth touching on some of the investments that we have made and are making in South Yorkshire. South Yorkshire has received £570 million from the city region sustainable transport settlement, which is just part of the £5.7 billion that is going to eight mayoral combined authorities. The South Yorkshire amount includes just over £100 million for the renewal of the Supertram in Sheffield. Prior to that, the area received £150 million as part of the transforming cities fund. The MCA has been awarded £8.3 million in ZEBRA funding to fund zero-emission buses. In addition, from the local growth fund there was £42.3 million towards the Lower Don Valley scheme in Rotherham. There was also a successful bid in round 1 of the Restoring your Railway Fund.
We always look to the mayors of our large cities and city regions to put forward investment ideas, and are grateful that they have done so. The city region sustainable transport settlement schemes are now, I think, all finalised. It is now a question of getting them delivered, and I very much look forward to seeing some of those projects come to fruition to improve transport, not only in South Yorkshire but in all the mayoral combined authority areas that have been the beneficiaries of our investment.
Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, since 1 January 2021, the post-exit UK conformity assessment—UKCA—marking has been in use alongside recognition of the EU’s CE and reversed epsilon markings. For most product sectors, recognition of the CE marking in Great Britain is due to end at 11 pm on 31 December this year. The main objective of this instrument is to reduce immediate cost increases and burdens for businesses, given the current cost of living crisis and global supply issues, by providing businesses with additional time to transition to UKCA requirements. This means that businesses will continue to have flexibility in how they can legally place products on the market in Great Britain while maintaining high levels of product safety for British consumers. Without the measures implemented by this instrument, industry will have to meet UKCA requirements from 1 January 2023 at a time of economic hardship for many businesses.
By way of background, the UKCA marking was introduced in Great Britain to replace the EU’s CE marking. As a result of Brexit, we have the autonomy to set our own product regulations and ensure that they work for businesses and consumers in this country. To place products on the market in Great Britain, manufacturers must ensure that products meet the essential safety requirements of relevant product legislation. Compliance is achieved by following a conformity assessment procedure. For lower-risk products, manufacturers can self-declare compliance; for higher-risk products, manufacturers may need to go to a conformity assessment body—a CAB—for product testing.
We have of course engaged with businesses on the challenges that they face in transitioning to UKCA. The feedback that we received from industry informed the decision to announce a range of measures in June to make it easier for businesses to use the UKCA marking. However, given the current cost of living crisis and economic challenges that businesses are facing, we need to go further in our support. The SI will not only implement the measures announced in June but provide flexibility to allow businesses to use CE marking or UKCA marking for their goods for a further two years.
Over the past 12 months, officials have delivered an extensive programme of domestic and international engagement to support businesses transitioning to the UKCA regime. Officials have also engaged with UK conformity assessment bodies and worked closely with the UK Accreditation Service to ensure that organisations that wish to become UK CABs can do so.
Despite the work we have done to support industry to transition, industry engagement has indicated that the additional costs and burdens of fulfilling UKCA requirements may be impacting UKCA business uptake. Although we recognise that a further extension to the recognition of CE marking may raise questions about the future transition timescales to the mandatory UKCA regime, we believe that the benefits of reducing immediate burdens and costs for industry in the current economic climate outweigh the potential risk of business hesitancy to prepare.
The UKCA marking remains valid when placing goods on the market in Great Britain. We will continue to engage with industry closely to provide businesses with support and to understand how to take a pragmatic approach to improving regulation to the benefit of businesses and consumers.
I turn to the key elements of the instrument. First, this instrument extends the time for existing transitional provisions allowing certain products meeting EU requirements and markings to be placed on the market, or put into service, in Great Britain. This will give businesses the option to choose to use the CE marking for a further two years until 31 December 2024.
Secondly, this instrument provides that where a manufacturer has undertaken any steps under EU conformity assessment procedures in the period up to 31 December 2024 but those goods have not been placed on the Great Britian market, those steps will be taken to have been done under the equivalent UK conformity assessment procedures. This applies for only as long as any certificate issued is valid or until 31 December 2027, whichever is sooner.
Thirdly, this instrument extends time for existing labelling easements. This will allow businesses to affix the UKCA marking and to include importer information for products imported from EEA countries, and in some cases from Switzerland, on a label affixed to the product or an accompanying document, rather than on the product itself.
The SI does not cover all product areas that require UKCA marking, and there are different rules in place for medical devices, construction products, cableways, transportable pressure equipment, unmanned aircraft systems, rail products, and marine equipment.
Without the measures implemented by this instrument, most businesses will have to meet UKCA requirements from 1 January next year for product sectors covered by this instrument, at a time of cost of living increases and global supply chain challenges. From 1 January 2023, if businesses are unable to meet UKCA requirements, most businesses will not legally be able to place their products on the Great British market. This could cause short-term market and supply chain disruption across different sectors. In turn, reduced product availability could translate into higher costs for commercial supply chains and consumers.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords will recognise that, at a time of cost of living increases and global supply chain challenges facing UK businesses, it is vital that the UK Government continue to support businesses. Without this legislation in place, recognition of the CE marking in Great Britain would end at 11 pm on 31 December 2022 for most product sectors. The main objective of the instrument is to provide businesses with additional time to transition to the post-exit independent UK conformity assessment marking by providing flexibility to use either CE marking or the UKCA marking, while maintaining high levels of product safety for UK consumers. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
While my noble friend pauses for breath, I thank him for introducing the regulations. What will their status be in the context of the EU retained law Bill? Will this be one that the department seeks to keep or to dispense with?
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction to this instrument, the main objective of which is to provide businesses with additional time to transition to the post-exit independent UK conformity assessment, the UKCA. As has been said, the UKCA is a conformity mark that indicates conformity with the applicable requirements for products sold within GB.
The purpose of the instrument, without compromising on safety or consumer and environmental protection, is to correct a deficiency arising from EU exit by preventing immediate cost increases and burdens on businesses, which the Minister set out. It will ensure that businesses continue to be provided with flexibility and choice on how they comply with product regulations. The instrument’s provisions will also prevent potential temporary and short-term market and supply chain disruption that may have occurred at the start of 2023 if the recognition of products meeting EU requirements and markings came to an end at the end of December 2022.
We support the instrument overall, but I have some questions in response to the provisions that the Minister set out. First, this is the second extension and it is significantly longer than the first one. What are the Government getting wrong? Is it entirely down to cost of living and supply chain challenges? How sure are they that this will be the last time? If they are not, what needs to change for there not to be another extension?
On the second set of provisions that the Minister set out, the instrument provides for where a manufacturer or other relevant persons has undertaken steps under EU conformity assessment procedures. This applies only as long as the certificate is valid or until 31 December 2027. This seems sensible and the benefits of reduced costs are self-evident, but does it come with any risk? If so, are the Government taking any steps to mitigate this risk? If not, why not just carry over everything? Why is that date specified?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for their forbearance and for being the only ones to turn up and talk about my regulations. They deserve special Christmas medals for that and for the valuable contributions they made to the debate.
The regulations under consideration today are essential to support businesses within the context of the rising cost of living and the many global supply chain challenges they face. As I said in my introduction, for most product sectors, recognition of the CE and reversed epsilon marking in Great Britain is due to end at 11 pm on 31 December. This legislation will therefore provide industry with additional time to transition to the UKCA regime, for most product sectors. It will give businesses continued flexibility in how they can legally place products on the market in Great Britain, by allowing them to use either the CE marking or the UKCA marking, until 31 December 2024.
If this legislation is not implemented, and businesses are therefore unable to comply with UKCA requirements by the end of this year, most businesses will not legally be able to place their products on the Great British market. Industry will also not be able to benefit from the transitional labelling and retesting measures provided by this instrument.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked how this instrument relates to the passage of the retained EU law Bill. I would remind my noble friend that the Bill is a separate piece of legislation, with its own aims. Sunsetting retained EU law will help to review and simplify our statute book, ensuring that we understand and utilise what is left and do away with any unnecessary legislation. The deadline is not about a cliff edge but about having a focused date to create the impetus for change, enabling the UK to make the most of its new-found freedom from the EU and build a domestic regime that works for the British people. We will use the additional time under this instrument to address challenges that businesses have raised regarding transition to UKCA, and consider whether we can reduce regulatory burdens in the longer term. The short answer to my noble friend’s question is that these regulations are unaffected by the REUL Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked whether there would be a further extension and what needs to change to present a further extension. This instrument shows that the Government are committed to taking a pragmatic approach to implementing post-Brexit rules. We have engaged and listened to industries’ concerns, and have responded accordingly on our approach to implementing the UKCA markings. Over the next two years, we will continue to engage with businesses to understand whether there are any further actions that we need to take to minimise burdens on them.
The noble Lord also asked whether the measure on testing would come with any safety implications and whether this could not be done for the longer term. We are confident that extending recognition of the CE marking will not impact product safety or consumer protection. We have made this decision because we want to support industry as much as possible, while maintaining high levels of consumer protection. However, it is important that we introduce our own regulatory approach. An autonomous domestic product regulation regime allows us to set our own product regulations and make them better for UK businesses and consumers, while ensuring high levels of protection from unsafe goods.
The noble Lord also asked why these changes must be made when they are effectively de minimis. We know that lots of businesses are already ready; however, it is right that we provide additional support in the current economic context. In October, 89% of UK manufacturers subject to the UKCA market were either using or planning to use UKCA. However, the risks that we outlined remain, which is why we have acted.
Lastly, the noble Lord noted the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which highlighted concerns that businesses have already spent money to prepare for the UKCA regime and may have concerns about future changes. Ultimately, the UKCA marking remains valid when placing goods on the market in Great Britain and can still be used by businesses. We will continue to engage with industry closely, and to understand and manage any implications that are flagged up to us.
I underline once more that these regulations are essential to support industry in a time of economic hardship. They will provide businesses with the flexibility to use either the CE marking or the UKCA marking to avoid potential economic impacts, supply chain disruption and the likelihood of limited product availability. We will continue to engage closely with industry to provide support to businesses, and to understand how to take a pragmatic approach to improving regulations for the benefit of businesses and consumers, while maintaining our commitment to high levels of protection for UK consumers. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before the House on 21 November 2022, be approved.
Switzerland is the UK’s 10th-largest trading partner, with bilateral trade between our two countries worth £38 billion in 2021. The UK and Switzerland have strong economic and historical ties, and both our countries have been clear about a shared commitment to maintain a strong trade and investment relationship.
In 2019, the UK and the Swiss Confederation agreed a trade agreement bringing together a number of different areas covered by the EU’s various agreements with Switzerland. Included as part of this were provisions to replicate the mutual recognition agreement between the EU and Switzerland for three sectors of UK-Swiss trade: motor vehicles, good laboratory practice and good manufacturing practice for medicinal products. It was possible to reach agreement in these sectors because many of the applicable rules were already aligned internationally. Between them, these three sectors covered 70% of the UK/Swiss trade covered by the old EU/Swiss mutual recognition agreement.
Although this covered a significant amount of trade, the UK and Switzerland committed through a memorandum of understanding to continue to work towards an agreement in the remaining chapters; the UK and the EU also agreed temporary measures to aid continuity of trade in 13 sectors until such an agreement could be reached. On 17 November this year, the UK and Switzerland successfully concluded a mutual recognition agreement in five of these remaining sectors. From hereon in, I will refer to this as the MRA.
The MRA supports trade in goods between the UK and Switzerland by reducing technical barriers to trade but, importantly, it does so in a way that protects the UK’s robust product safety system. The UK’s product safety legislation requires certain products to be assessed to ensure that they meet requirements in legislation. Sometimes this assessment must be done by third parties that are independent of the manufacturer. MRAs can reduce barriers and costs by allowing this assessment to be undertaken by a conformity assessment body—a CAB—based in the UK for export to the relevant country, in this case Switzerland. We make the same arrangements for Swiss businesses so that the agreement procedures carried out by recognised Swiss CABs are accepted for the purposes of our domestic regulations.
The SI that we are debating today implements this MRA to ensure continuity for UK businesses trading conformity-assessed goods with Switzerland. It does this by amending the earlier 2021 regulations made by my department, which implement MRAs with other countries so that they also include the Swiss MRA. I will return to this briefly when discussing the territorial scope and specifics of the regulations.
Let me now address the measures that we are taking to recognise Swiss bodies and appoint UK bodies under this MRA. This SI provides for the Secretary of State to designate CABs as competent to assess that certain goods comply with the regulatory requirements of Switzerland under the MRA as set out in the schedule to the SI. For example, this means that, where a UK- based CAB would like to be recognised by the Swiss authorities as capable to assess goods against the Swiss measuring instruments requirements, it can apply to UKAS—the United Kingdom Accreditation Service —to be accredited as fit to test against those Swiss requirements. The Secretary of State may then designate the body under the Swiss MRA to assess, for example, measuring instruments for export to Switzerland.
As a result, a UK manufacturer that uses the services of that UK CAB can now use the same body to do its accreditation for the Swiss market. It does not need to identify and start contracting with another CAB operating in Switzerland. This should reduce its costs and make it able to place products on the Swiss market more cost effectively, potentially passing savings on to consumers.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the details of the regulations for us. I note that we have lost our one Back-Bencher, so it is now a two-person show, but there we go.
This instrument makes provision to give effect to a mutual recognition agreement—an MRA—between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Swiss Confederation. It amends earlier regulations. An agreement between the UK and the Swiss Confederation came into force on 1 September 2021 and contains the conditions under which each country will accept conformity results from the other. The five areas it covers are: electrical equipment; measuring instruments; radio equipment; transportable pressure equipment; and noise emitting equipment for use outdoors. The MRA for these is a mutual testing arrangement between Switzerland and Great Britain, but is there any expectation that the sectors covered by this MRA will be expanded in the future? The Minister referred to 12 areas and we have five with us. Are the other seven going to be covered by the regulation at some point in the future?
Equally, the MRA sets out how relevant goods can be tested—Switzerland against UK regulations and UK against Swiss regulations. Are there any notable divergences or are they simply technical adjustments between one and the other? The UK has MRAs with several countries agreed as part of arrangements made under the UK’s trade continuity programme. To this extent, the assessment is the same as that performed to assess conformity with requirements in third countries. This may reduce the need to duplicate conformity assessment. This will provide continuity. It will also have the benefit of saving time for manufacturers, with products being able to be placed on the market more quickly than if they were required to undergo a separate test of conformity in the UK as well as in Switzerland before they arrive.
The instrument implements the Swiss MRA in a similar way, by amending Schedule 1 to the 2021 regulations so that it includes all the domestic regulations which the UK may recognise for Swiss CABs to test against under the Swiss MRA. Since 1 January 2021, the UK and Switzerland have granted temporary bilateral access to goods conformity, assessed against each other’s regulations. Switzerland will no longer apply these temporary measures for new conformity assessment procedures carried out by bodies based in the UK after 31 December 2022. Under reciprocal arrangements set out in the Swiss MRA, conformity assessment procedures issued before this date will still be recognised for goods placed on the market in 2023, ensuring continuity of trade between the parties.
When the Swiss MRA enters into force in 2023, conformity assessment bodies will be permitted to issue new approvals for conformity assessment procedures once they are designated under the agreement. The Swiss MRA specifies the products and sectors to which it applies, such as radio equipment. The amended 2021 regulations also set the power of the Secretary of State to designate UK CABs for the purpose of assessing against Swiss requirements. The instrument amends Schedule 2 to the 2021 regulations to include product sectors of the Swiss MRA.
The main direct impact for business associated with this new legislation will be a one-off familiarisation cost, at a central estimate of £2,300. More specifically, as of 11 October this instrument would have familiarisation impacts on only around 300 affected businesses which are involved in the manufacture and sale of the products within the scope of the instrument, and which trade those products with Switzerland but not the EU. The familiarisation costs should presumably be balanced out by the reduced bureaucracy in having to meet a single assessment conformity. Have the Government made any assessment of the value of exports made by the 300 UK businesses to Switzerland that would be required to break even in this regard?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for his comments. It is clear that this SI will maintain our robust product safety framework, at the same time as reducing barriers to trade with Switzerland. It will do this by providing for recognition in Great Britain of conformity assessment by Swiss CABs for certain products under the MRA, while Swiss bodies will be recognised in Northern Ireland under their country’s MRA with the EU; and by providing for the Secretary of State to designate UK CABs to assess against the requirements of Switzerland for certain products under an MRA.
In response to the noble Lord’s questions, I will have to get back to him in detail on the points that he raised, and in writing. In the meantime, I hope he will give us forbearance and allow me to do that, while agreeing that technical agreements such as this play an important function in the landscape of new trade agreements that the Government are negotiating with partners around the world. With these agreements, we demonstrate our commitment to free trade through a variety of means to promote growth in the UK.
With my apologies for not having a detailed answer for the noble Lord, I will get back to him. I again commend these regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Prentis of Leeds
Death of a Member: Baroness Couttie
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Couttie, yesterday. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to her family and friends.
Renewable Energy: Generation Licences
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of renewable energy generation licences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the acceleration in renewable deployment will be supported by the UK’s main renewable energy scheme, contracts for difference. The latest round delivered almost 11 gigawatts of new renewable projects, almost double that achieved in the previous round. The next CfD round will be brought forward to March 2023, and future rounds will run annually to further drive deployment of renewable power. The majority of CfD applicants are exempt from the requirement to hold a generation licence.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
So far, it has been much more difficult to get renewable licences. One thing that might help, as well as the Government’s investment, is if the Minister could go back to his government colleagues and ask them to stop taking party donations from fossil fuel companies. That might give renewables a fair chance.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that, which is totally unrelated to the Question she tabled. There have been almost 1,000 generation licences issued. It is a demand-driven process. All generators below 50 megawatts are exempt from having a licence in the first place.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister indicate what has happened in recent days, as temperatures have fallen so low and there being no wind, to the cost of electricity as a result?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. I suspect that he knows the answer to his own question: because it has been relatively still, there have been relatively small amounts of wind in the power sector, so the other sources of power—nuclear, imports, gas, et cetera—have moved in to fill the gap. That is how a diverse system should work.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, getting a grid connection, never mind a generation licence, for any kind of generation is increasingly difficult, and indeed is even beginning to restrict housing developments. Will the Government instruct Ofgem to increase the pace of grid investment to avoid a literal energy gridlock?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a good point. We are seeing a total reconfiguration of the grid away from large nodes, such as coal-fired power stations, to a much more diversified system of generators. That requires massive configuration of the grid, which is extremely expensive and, I might add, politically controversial. Many people do not want new pylons, et cetera, going through their neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, work is ongoing to reconfigure it. Considerable sums are being invested, but clearly we need to do more in that area.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I have asked my noble friend this question before, and to an extent it follows up the question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Where are we with tidal power?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Tidal power is an interesting technology. A number of schemes are being rolled out. For the first time ever, in the last CfD round a number of schemes were awarded licences. We need to continue supporting and developing it, but we must not run away with the idea that this will be a long-term, sustainable solution for large amounts of power. At the moment, it is on a relatively small scale. We need to continue supporting it, and we will.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, the biggest tidal power project is, of course, the Severn barrage. Will the Minister receive a delegation to brief him on the potential for that? It is equivalent to two nuclear power stations, and it is lunar, and therefore generates predictable baseload energy. Frankly, it is a no-brainer.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the point the noble Lord makes. A Severn barrage scheme has been talked about since I was an electrical engineering student, way back in the 1980s; it is not a new scheme. It all comes down to the cost and the environmental damage that would result from implementing it. We continue to keep all these things under review. I assure the noble Lord that both I and the department know all about the details of the scheme.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I add my comments to those made in relation to both tidal and wave power. We have the second-largest tidal range in the world. Some 40 years ago, I lobbied the Government on the Severn barrage, but there are many alternatives. They are not small power generators but potentially very substantial generating powers, particularly wave power.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The barrage schemes are potentially large-scale schemes. I meant that some of the bottom tidal schemes are on a relatively small scale. It all comes down to cost. The costs of these schemes fall on bill payers. The Government’s general approach is to support forms of renewable power that offer the best value for money for taxpayers—principally solar and wind, but we are starting to support some of the other tidal schemes as well. The barrage schemes are extremely expensive and very long term, and there are a lot of environmental implications.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, we note the increase in the frequency of contracts for difference allocation rounds every year. Can the Minister expand what impact this will have on deploying more energy regeneration? Why is the process so prescriptive? It has “lack of ambition” written all over it. Surely more flexibility is the key to encouraging more investment in zero-carbon technologies. Are any plans coming forward to make Britain the clean energy superpower it deserves to be?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I disagree with the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. We are already a renewable energy superpower. She talks about lack of ambition. In the last auction, round 4, we delivered more than 11 gigawatts and 93 renewable power projects—enough to power 12 million homes. We have the largest offshore wind capacity in the whole of Europe and the second largest in the world. We want to scale-up that ambition and deliver more, but I think the noble Baroness should give us some credit for what we have already achieved.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in the register. Now that the feed-in tariff has ended, there is not much incentive for people to install more capacity on their homes than they use themselves. The smart export guarantee pays typically between only 1p and 5p per kilowatt-hour, which is not enough to encourage people to install excess generating capacity. Does the Minister agree that a peer-to-peer trading facility that allows people to sell their excess power to their neighbours might increase returns to generators and improve the incentive, and also reduce the cost of power to neighbours?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is an interesting concept. As the noble Lord knows, the smart export guarantee is a market-driven mechanism, and it is for suppliers to determine the value of the exported electricity to them, taking account of their administrative costs. There are a number of schemes, such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord, and I am certainly very happy to look at it. However, we always have to bear in mind that any subsidy offered to certain generators is paid for by every other customer on the network.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, all this talk of tidal power makes one think of ships. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I am not going to ask a question about ships. There is going to be a huge growth in demand for electrical power. The only certain way of providing electrical power, no matter what the weather and completely green, is nuclear. What is the actual percentage that we are looking for in the provision of nuclear power, looking to the future of electrical supply within this country?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right: we need to expand our nuclear production. We have just agreed the contract for Sizewell, only a couple of weeks ago, and other developments are planned. We have not set a specific target for nuclear production, but we will need to replace a lot of the aging plants that will come offline in the next 10 or 15 years or so.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister, in reply to several questions, has said that it comes down to cost. Could he assure us that the full cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels is factored in when that equation is calculated? Fossil fuels come at a cost to the environment and certainly to our climate change ambitions. Can he assure us that this is fully taken into account when those balanced decisions are taken?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are of course no subsidies given to fossil fuel generation. In fact, it is the opposite: they are paying into the system record levels of taxation. This is a gradual transition. To all those who want to get rid of fossil fuels, I say great, but 80% of our heating is gas heating at the moment; are we going to turn off people’s gas boilers overnight? I suspect that the answer to the noble Baroness’s question is no. Of course we want to roll out renewable generation, which is what we are doing, but it is intermittent, as the question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth intimated earlier. We need back-up generation for that; that could take a number of different forms, and nuclear is one of the possible options. In the short term, as we move to a more renewable system, we will need fossil fuel generation.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about the long-term thinking in the department. Looking at the developments in technology, particularly in storage capacity and micro- generation, might there be a day when there really is no incentive for people to feed into a grid, and they can generate all their energy locally? What sort of long- term thinking has there been on the impact on the grid of more local generation and storage?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. There will be, and has been, an increasing amount of microgeneration. I am told by the suppliers that there are record demands at the moment for things such as solar panels and PV generation, as people respond to high electricity costs. Many people will want to install systems that will save them money in the long term. Of course, the higher electricity prices are, then the pay-back period for microgeneration schemes becomes less and less. It comes down to the question that was asked earlier about the reconfiguration of the grid. There would be much more small-scale generation rather than the big node operators that we are used to. A considerable investment is going into the grid to bring that about. We also have schemes such as smart metres; 50% of the country is now connected to a smart meter, and they enable better charging regimes, demand-management schemes, et cetera, all of which will contribute to what the noble Lord suggests.
Railway Station Ticket Offices
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have received from (1) rail passenger groups, and (2) other stakeholders, about the proposed closure of railway station ticket offices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government regularly hold meetings with rail passenger groups and other stakeholders, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Retail and workforce modernisation, including industry plans for ticket offices, forms part of those discussions. To propose any changes to the opening hours or the closure of ticket offices, train operating companies must follow the process set out in the ticketing and settlement agreement.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Would the Minister be relaxed about catching a late-night train—operated only by a driver with no other staff on it—from an unstaffed station and then leaving the train at an unstaffed station at her destination? Does she think that ticket machines would come to her assistance in the event of any problems? If something unfortunate happened and she had to use a wheelchair, how would she consider travelling in those circumstances? Bearing in mind that, in the Greater London area, the London Overground, the Underground and the Elizabeth line all have stations staffed from the first to the last train, why cannot the rest of the country be treated in the same way?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, driver-only operations have been around since about the 1980s. It is certainly not a new concept. Over half of passengers who use the railways are on trains where driver-only operations are in place and have been accepted by train drivers. If we are able to change arrangements at ticket offices in some locations, that will mean that more people will be out and about in stations, providing the eyes and ears that we need to keep passengers safe. The Government are very conscious of more vulnerable adults and how they travel. We work very closely with the police and the Rail Delivery Group.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that, in 2015-16, Transport for London closed all ticket offices on the Underground to free staff to be available for helping passengers and providing information? Why has it taken Network Rail all these years to get round to this particular modernisation? Indeed, what is happening with all the other modernisations? After all, this is fairly low-hanging fruit.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is up to the train operating companies, which operate the ticket offices, to think about the best way to manage their resources—including people—to serve customers better. I accept that TfL is often ahead of the game in many areas. Noble Lords will recall a time when you could pay by cash for a bus ticket in London; that is the case no longer. There are ticket offices across the country where less than one ticket an hour is sold. I put it to noble Lords that the person behind that glass screen could be doing other things.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, many of the stations that I use have not had ticket offices for years, but my main concern is not just how and where you buy the ticket but how much it costs. We already have the most expensive railway in Europe. Are the Government committed to ensuring that fare increases are frozen next year to help with the cost of living in these difficult times, and to reflect the dire service that passengers have received in recent months from many train operating companies?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
When it comes to the railway, DfT Ministers have front of mind the impact on passengers of recent disruption, and value for money for all taxpayers. The railway has lost 20% of its passengers since the pandemic, which means that it has also lost between £125 million and £175 million a month in revenues. Nobody wants to see fares go higher but the reality is that we need to ensure a good deal for taxpayers. Part of that involves being able to modernise the railways such that they can offer the sort of service, at the sort of fares, that people want.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that ticket offices are providers not just of tickets but, frequently, of essential information for travellers? Given the huge complexity of ticketing systems across the country and lack of knowledge, perhaps, about the cheapest or quickest route, does the Minister not agree that ticket offices need to remain open for that reason in addition to those pointed out by my noble friend Lord Snape?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the noble Lord sort of makes my point for me. I agree with him that people need help, but it may not just be about buying a ticket and that person does not necessarily have to be sitting behind glass. Some customers need all types of help, particularly if they have reduced mobility. Our view is that there may be circumstances where it is appropriate to make sure that people are out and about helping customers to learn to use ticket machines and answering questions on the platform and not downstairs at the ticket office. It is all about flexibility.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, am I not right in saying to my noble friend the Minister that we now have a new Minister for Railways in another place who will focus entirely on updating the so-called antiquated systems of ticketing and the way that the railways are managed and run?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. Huw Merriman MP has taken over as the new Rail Minister. If I may, I will just plug the meeting I have arranged with the Rail Minister tomorrow at 5.30 pm for any noble Lord who wishes to attend to ask him questions about current services, industrial action or, indeed, the critical modernisation that he is focused on.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about driver-only trains, but the key surely is to have people on the station who can help people who are in wheelchairs or disabled in some way—my wife uses a wheelchair all the time—to get on and off the trains. Whether they are behind a ticket barrier or in an office, it does not really matter. Can she assure the House that there will be no reduction in the number of people who are on the platforms—whether they are from the train or the platform—to help people who need mobility assistance?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on making sure that every single passenger, whether they have reduced mobility or not, gets the service that they need at the place they need it. That may not be the ticket office; it may be on the platform. I am really pleased that the Government have worked closely with the Rail Delivery Group on developing the app for passengers with reduced mobility. That has proved very successful. It is but one step and there are many more things that we can do.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday morning when there was significant snowfall, I stood on the platform at my local station and watched the person who is often behind the glass—as the noble Baroness put it—in the ticket office clearing the snow from the platform and helping people, other than me, who needed help. Why is the noble Baroness making a distinction between people who are behind the glass and people who are helping other people? They are the same people now and we need them all.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That is exactly what we want to see. We want people who are multiskilled and able to clear the platform of snow, help passengers with reduced mobility and sell tickets. I am not entirely sure that I understand that there is such a differentiation.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister take back to her department that it is extremely difficult ever to find anyone on any platform in the West Country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
A voice behind me said, “Including passengers”, but let us not go there. I will take that back to my department.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, the person who sold me my ticket yesterday certainly made her views clear. She said, “What’s all this nonsense about doing away with the House of Lords? They can’t do that, can they?”
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Maybe we are headed towards the ways of ticket office workers. Who knows? I very much hope not.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, at the Conservative Party conference in October, the previous Transport Secretary, when saying that she was asking industry to launch consultations on reforming ticket office provision, suggested the move was about putting passengers first. Have the Government set out the terms of those consultations and can the Minister confirm that it will include thorough consideration of the impact on passengers with accessibility needs?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I can absolutely confirm all those things. This is not one central consultation. The train operating company that operates a ticket office will engage with passenger groups and, indeed, with passengers at the ticket office where they propose to make changes. It is all set out in the ticketing and settlement agreement, which all train operating companies must abide by. If there are any concerns, they should be registered and notified to the relevant body, which is either Transport Focus or London TravelWatch. They will then raise it with the Secretary of State, who will take that into consideration, plus various other elements, if there are concerns.
School Meals: Funding
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D’Souza
To ask His Majesty’s Government which government departments share responsibility for (1) the funding of, and (2) and decisions about, school meals in (a) term times, and (b) vacations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, free school meals are intended to support children in term time while they are being educated in school. They are funded by the Department for Education. The department also provides the holiday activities and food programme during the longer school holidays. The policy regarding eligibility for free school meals is also set by the Department for Education. School food standards are set in secondary legislation and are the responsibility of schools to implement.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Given the depth and spread of need in a whole generation of our children, does the Minister agree that a senior Minister—preferably at Cabinet level—should be appointed to oversee, co-ordinate, prioritise and extend free school meals for children immediately, thereby also providing a powerful voice for children at the heart of government?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that this Government have extended the reach of free school meals in many important ways, including the provision of universal infant free school meals and further education free school meals. In relation to a Cabinet-level position, the House will be aware that in his independent review of children’s social care, Josh MacAlister recommended a Cabinet-level post of Minister for Children and his recommendations are currently under consideration.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that during a cost of living crisis, free school meals are essential during term time. However, at short notice during the cold weather there can be the closure of schools or a failure in the building. So can my noble friend confirm that there is resilience within the system to stand up vouchers very quickly for those children? The lack of a meal for one, two or three days can be essential.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I commend my noble friend for the work she did during the pandemic when she was standing up very flexible responses. We continue to work very closely with schools to ensure that children get the support they need.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware from reports from various charities that there are children going to school who have not had a proper breakfast. She will be aware that children do not always get proper meals. This is not acceptable. She will recall that the coalition Government brought in free meals for all children in key stage 1. When asked about this, she always says that the benefit system is the way we provide support. If that money is not going directly to provide these meals, what is the Minister’s answer?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister’s answer is the same as when the noble Lord, understandably, challenged the Government on this quite recently. There are essentially two choices one can make. One is to give multiple smaller, specific handouts for particular issues. The other is to give funding to parents and allow the parents to choose how they wish to spend it. The Government believe in the latter.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, building on the question the noble Lord has just asked, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that out of 3.9 million children living in relative poverty in the UK, only 2.3 million receive free school meals. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to extend free school meals to all children from families receiving universal credit?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said in answer to an earlier question, the percentage of children receiving free school meals is at an all-time high. If one takes benefit-related free school meals and universal infant free school meals, over one-third of all pupils in this country—37.5% of pupils in state-funded schools—receive free school meals. The Government keep this policy under review at all times, but there are no current plans to extend free school meals to all those receiving universal credit.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, to pursue the point on the advantages to children’s education of being well fed, this has been known for many years. Does that not lead inexorably to the conclusion that all children require a decent education, so we need to ensure that all children are well fed? It is not just about poverty relief; it is not just about nutritional standards; it is about ensuring that all children get a decent education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
This Government are absolutely committed to all children getting a decent education—but, as I said in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we believe that parents also understand that very well.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Can I ask the noble Baroness whether there has been any examination by the Government of the approach taken to free school meals, and particularly schemes tackling holiday hunger, of the devolved regions, particularly in Northern Ireland by the Department of Education, which have proved successful in being able to provide a much more coherent approach to being able to assist children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government obviously look at what happens in relation to these issues across all the devolved Administrations. We have a very targeted approach to supporting children during the holidays which addresses the longer school holidays when the pressure on families is greatest.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Given that we now have the world-leading position of having the earliest onset of type 2 diabetes among our children, leading all countries in the world, whether you are having a free meal or not, what is the Government going to do about the quality of the meals being served, which are abysmal?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be interested if the noble Lord has specific examples of where he thinks schools are serving abysmal meals. I would be delighted if he shared that with the department, because the regulations are very clear and specific on quality. There is an element of flexibility for schools as to how they implement that, but the responsibility is clear, and my understanding is that it is being upheld.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to concentrate on the content of these meals? In particular, could she use her influence to ensure that the meals contain the right kind of fat? When fat goes into the duodenum, it releases hormones that delay the emptying of the stomach and make one feel full earlier on, hence reducing the tendency to obesity—which is rather important in view of the fact that half the children in this country are obese.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My influence may not extend to duodenal fat levels, but I will do my best to support my noble friend. I would like to ask the House to share my impression of what is going on in many of our schools. I visited a primary school on Friday where they are bringing the kitchen into the classroom and are preparing healthy meals with children, building their awareness of both the content and cost of their meals; that is something that is very important for their futures.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, of course that is very important, but is the Minister not ashamed that more families than ever cannot afford to feed their children properly—that family incomes, even where parents are working, are no longer enough to pay the bills? The Minister referred earlier to the holiday activities and food scheme. Last summer, 27 local authorities had only between 6% and 15% of their free school meal children going to one of these programmes. So what more is she going to do to make sure that the schemes that are up and running are taken up and reaching the people who need them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Well, it is up to parents whether they want to send their children to free activities in the holidays—so, if they are not taking them up, that perhaps begs a slightly different question. Secondly—if the noble Baroness would bear with me—local authorities have the flexibility to offer the provision to up to 15% of children whom they know to be in need but may not be eligible for free school meals. But I remind the House that the Government have directed an overall package of £37 billion of support, of which £12 billion has been direct support in 2023-24 for the most vulnerable households in the UK.
Albanian Asylum Seekers
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
As of 30 September 2022, there were 19,897 Albanian asylum cases pending an initial decision. In the year ending September 2022, 334 decisions on asylum claims from Albanian nationals were grants and 318 were refusals.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for those figures. He will be aware that I tabled my Question long before I knew that the Prime Minister would make a Statement on this issue this morning. His Statement suggested to me that the Conservatives must have been in opposition for the past 12 years, but I will let that one go. I have two questions. Will the Minister confirm that, even if we are going to move to a fast-track approach for Albanians, which the Labour Party has already supported, that does not mean that an individual claimant will not have his or her claim properly considered? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that referring to asylum seekers as “illegal immigrants” is totally the wrong term? An asylum seeker cannot be illegal, even if he or she flees for safety to another country.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As ever, he is very à la mode and clearly foresaw that there would be a Statement by the Prime Minster. I will answer his two questions. First, on the fast-track removal of Albanians, as the Prime Minister made clear in the other place, the new deal with Albania will allow us to return people with confidence that necessary protections will be provided for genuine modern slavery claims, in line with our international obligations. Of course, Albania is already a scheduled safe country under the 2002 Act, passed under Mr Blair’s Administration. On the noble Lord’s second question, on the term “illegal immigrant”, that nomenclature derives from the provisions in Nationality and Borders Act, which make it an offence to enter illegally.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is reported that there has been a big rise in online advertisements offering transfers from Albania to the UK by boat or lorry for a price—in other words, smuggling. If this is openly advertised, is it not possible to track down the smugglers and prosecute them?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness is exactly right: the gangs involved in people smuggling do advertise in Albania, usually on social media platforms—I understand that TikTok is particularly favoured. The Home Office has an intelligence unit that considers all these sources and, working with the National Crime Agency, steps are taken to prevent this sort of criminal activity. As the noble Baroness will have seen, the Prime Minister’s announcement increases the NCA’s funding to tackle organised crime within Europe, which will achieve greater control of this type of criminality.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, when will the new policy announced by the Prime Minister this morning be fully implemented? Is it proposed that there be any element of retrospectivity—looking back to those who are already here—in the scheme?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Certainly, the deal with Albania will take effect as soon as it is agreed, which should be in the near future. The asylum backlogs will be dealt with by the end of next year. A new permanent small boats operational command will be set up, with more or less immediate effect, and enforcement activity will be boosted in the near future. As noble Lords will have heard the Prime Minister say, we plan to bring forward legislation in early January next year.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that people who have been involved in people smuggling or cocaine trafficking will be brought to justice, but also that a distinction will be made where women and children, for instance, are involved and are clearly victims of the criminal gangs that have been identified? Will he also update the House as to the total number of outstanding claims by refugees and asylum seekers? When I last looked it was 143,000, which was a 180% increase since 2019. What are the Government doing to ensure that those claims are processed more expeditiously?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As of the end of September, there were 117,400 cases, which related to 143,377 people awaiting an initial decision. On enforcement and the penalisation of those engaging in people smuggling, as the noble Lord will know, it is a criminal offence to be the criminal mastermind—if you like—behind a smuggling operation, and the maximum penalty for those types of offences is life. I have no doubt that a sentencing court would bear in mind, as the noble Lord anticipates, that it is an aggravating factor if women and children are involved.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, asylum seekers coming here from Hong Kong have a very different experience from British national (overseas) visa arrivals. They are not given the same freedom as BNO holders to study, work or live, and that is very impactful on their mental health. Nearly one in four Hong Kongers who fled the crackdown of the ruling Chinese Communist Party says that they still suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, linked to the violent crackdown on the 2019 protests and the subsequent fear engendered by the national security law. What assessment have the Government made to identify those suffering from PTSD?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
On the BNO Hong Kong cohort, I do not have the answer, and I will write to the noble Lord in relation to it.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased that the Government have reached an agreement with Albania about the large number of Albanians arriving in this country. However, I dispute slightly what my noble friend said about the legality or illegality of asylum seekers. Under the 1951 convention, it is perfectly clear that merely seeking asylum cannot in itself be an act of illegality. It is, however, obvious to all of us, I think, that the illegality about which we are so concerned lies with the people traffickers, smugglers and those forcing often very poor people to come to this country. I urge my noble friend that we must take further action to alleviate that problem.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend: the 1951 convention prohibits the penalisation of asylum seekers. It is the illegal entry—entry without leave—that renders it unlawful under the Act.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the Labour Party supports the fast-track approach, but I would like to ask about an appeals process. The Minister quoted the Prime Minister saying that there will be protection for modern slavery claims. What about people who are fleeing domestic violence? Will youths be treated the same way as adults through this appeals process?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Home Office is increasing the number of staff making asylum decisions in relation to these areas. We have increased the number of asylum case workers by 112%, from 597 staff in 2019 to 1,276 as of this month, and we propose to increase that again next year with a further 500 in March 2023, up to 1,800 by the summer. In terms of the appeal mechanism, as the noble Lord will be aware, Albania is a certified safe country and the mechanism for inadmissibility will apply. Plainly, there is an appeal right out of country and judicial review opportunities in relation to certification decisions.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I will step back from the subject of Albania. Is it not a fact that the large, underlining trend of asylum seekers or illegal refugees—whatever term one wants to use—still comes from Iraq and Afghanistan, countries in which we went to war, with the promise that we would make them safe parliamentary democracies? Will the Minister remind his colleagues constantly that military adventures of the sort that Mr Blair and others pursued, rather than solving the problems, have only made them very much worse?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Obviously, I agree with my noble friend that the consequences of conflict have led to greater migration. As the Prime Minister observed, that problem is not going to go away; we have to address it head-on.
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 View all Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2022 - (12 Dec 2022)
Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 6 December.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 75(a) Amendment for Third Reading - (8 Dec 2022)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, before the Procurement Bill is read a third time, I will deal with the legislative consent aspects. Most of the provisions apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only, and a few also apply to Scotland. Throughout the preparation and passage of the Bill, we have been working closely with each of the devolved Administrations. As noble Lords will know, there are provisions in the Bill which engage the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Currently, the devolved Administrations have not granted a legislative consent Motion; however, we are engaging constructively with officials and Ministers on addressing outstanding points, and I reassure noble Lords that the Government will continue with this engagement as the Bill is introduced into the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct the cross-reference so it refers to the definition of “centralised procurement authority”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will move a minor technical amendment to Clause 110 in my name. I know how keenly noble Lords have scrutinised the Bill, and I am therefore confident that they will have noticed that, in the definition of “equivalent body” in Clause 110(6), the very incongruous words, “[subsection removed]”, appear in square brackets. I am informed that this cannot be amended administratively to make the appropriate cross-reference. Therefore, in the interests of sending the Bill to the other place in a form which can be understood, I have tabled an amendment to insert the missing cross-reference, which is to Clause 1(4). I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister because I have been worrying myself to death about this issue and clearly welcome her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, having taken over this crucial Bill from the now Leader of the House, I have had the pleasure of hearing a range of informed contributions from across the House on it. Noble Lords have offered a rich and stimulating debate in Committee and on Report, and I thank them for engaging constructively with what has at times been a challenging piece of legislation. As ever, I thank noble Lords for their forbearance with what I fear may be a record number of government amendments tabled in the Lords to help the Bill function optimally.
My objective in leading this Bill has been to ensure that it encourages a more open, effective and transparent public procurement while encouraging economic growth. One in every £3 of public money—some £300 billion a year—is spent on public procurement, yet at present we must wrestle with over 350 different procurement regulations across four different regimes. Noble Lords know my passion for paring back needless bureaucracy, in particular removing barriers for SMEs, and I know they have welcomed the new provisions I instigated to require contracting authorities to think about SMEs routinely. We have also put provisions in the Bill for the new single central online platform, which will underpin the new system and achieve a real step change in transparency.
This simplification of regulations is not at the expense of stringent, well-thought-out measures ensuring that procurement is done safely and appropriately in the relevant sector. Noble Lords will be aware of the national procurement policy statement, the procurement review unit and the debarment list. All these measures will make public procurement safe and ethical and take into account wider factors that I know many noble Lords right across the House care deeply about. These reforms are intended to provide a shift towards a modern and flexible procurement regime and deliver better outcomes for taxpayers, service users and the businesses and social enterprises involved.
Before I conclude, I would like to make noble Lords aware of an error on my part during the second day of Report, which I must correct. Amid the highly technical debate, I wrongly said that the national security exclusion ground was mandatory. In fact, it is discretionary. This is because it is desirable to have flexibility for contracting authorities considering exclusion on this ground, depending on the specific circumstances involved—for example, the nature of the threat to national security and/or the risk to the contract being tendered.
In concluding, I thank my noble friends Lady Bloomfield and Lady Goldie for their support on this Bill. I also extend particular thanks to my noble friends on the Back Benches for their contributions, challenge and support. I am very grateful to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite and on the Cross Benches for their time and constructive engagement from the day I took the Bill over from my noble friend the Leader of the House. Finally, I thank the officials who have worked on the Bill, particularly Sam Rowbury, Ed Green, the previous Bill manager Phillip Dunkley and the current Bill manager Katrina Gajewska, as well as the wider official team, others supporting noble Lords across the House and my private office. I wish the Bill a safe passage through the other place.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, this is a really important Bill. It will guide an estimated £300 billion of public procurement, hopefully making it safe while driving some of the things we want to happen. I thank the Minister. She had an interesting start on this Bill; she too was a Back-Bencher and tabled several critical amendments early on, and was then suddenly propelled to the Front Bench. I think we benefited from that change of perspective—that is not to criticise her predecessor.
It is appropriate that we should bookend this Bill with another amendment, because it has been a story of amendments. We should thank the Bill team, who worked through the night at the start of this in Committee in July, explaining and setting out what the hundreds of amendments were there to do. But because there were so many amendments and clearly there was so much work to do, the Bill leaves us with still more work and scrutiny required, if it is going to achieve the things that we all want it to achieve—that is, to have a transparent process that helps our small, medium and social enterprises to flourish in the public procurement system. When it goes to the other place, I hope that those further changes can be made to make sure that it delivers that, and in an ethical way.
I thank the Minister, her predecessor and her Whips in this. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for what has been a very constructive and co-operative process. I also thank my colleagues. I will name them, because they have worked very hard: my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Humphreys, Lady Northover, Lady Parminter, Lord Purvis, Lord Scriven, Lady Smith, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Wallace. That list reflects the fact that the Bill touches so much of public life. Finally, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ office, without whom life would have been extraordinarily confusing for us on these Benches. That said, we wish the Bill well and beg that the MPs continue to work on it on our behalf.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have something to add before the thanks are completed. The Minister was good enough to express her thanks to the Cross Benches, and I draw the attention of the House to the all-party amendments which were included in the Bill. I begin by thanking her. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just said, it was unusual for a poacher to be turned gamekeeper in the course of the proceedings of the Bill and she did it with great aplomb and showed all the characteristics that we have come to associate with her, in the way that she dealt with constructive attempts to improve the Bill as it proceeded through Committee and Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the Bill has enjoyed support from around the entire House and, of course, whatever form a Bill is in, we will all always want to try to add to it, if we are able to do so. I was therefore very grateful to the House for including the cross-party amendment I moved on the removal of surveillance equipment. I also supported the all-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is here, on the use of forced organ harvesting. Those two amendments are now in the Bill as it goes to another place. Unlike on ping-pong, this is a pristine Bill going to the other place. I hope that Ministers will engage with those amendments and not simply try to remove them.
There were two other amendments. The Minister will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, moved an all-party amendment which was not taken to a vote. We had a discussion during Report about how that could be taken to the Minister who might deal with the Bill when it reached the House of Commons. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be able to draw that to the attention of the House of Commons Minister and suggest that such a meeting should now take place.
With those remarks, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his noble friends, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and her noble friends—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in particular—and those on the Cross Benches who supported the amendments that we brought forward.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think I am the sole surviving Member of the Committee here today who contributed. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team on getting the Bill thus far. I am obviously immensely disappointed not to have succeeded in my attempt to source more local food in our procurement contracts, but I hope that this can be redressed in the other place.
My noble friend alluded to something that is a source of great concern to me. I have in my possession the memorandum from the Scottish Government, which expressed their concern and inability to add their consent to the Bill. Does she not share my concern that it would be very regrettable if the Scottish Government felt obliged to carry out their own Bill in this area, because of their concern about the continued ability to carry out cross-border procurement? Could this still be addressed in the other place before the Bill reaches Royal Assent?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be very surprised to know that I thank my noble friend Lord Coaker for supporting me and sticking with the Bill all the way through. It has been a long haul, and I think we are all pleased we are at Third Reading.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord True. At the beginning of the Bill, he gave me an awful lot of time, as did his officials, when we had some serious concerns. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned, we had a bit of a sticky start. The officials worked incredibly hard to get us to a position where we could properly debate the issues in Committee; at the beginning, we were not in that position, unfortunately. We all congratulated the noble Lord, Lord True, on his promotion, but we were also delighted as a Committee when the noble Baroness took over this Bill, because she was genuinely interested in what we were debating and genuinely understood what we were trying to achieve. I think she worked very hard and brought in some important improvements to the Bill, having listened to Committee. I thank her for her time, efforts and energy in helping us all to come out with a Bill that was better than what we had at the start.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and other Members who took part for the constructive work we did going forward on the Bill. It is much appreciated. I think all Members of the Committee would agree that the Bill we have sent to the other place is in a much better state than it was when we received it. I thank everybody very much for their hard work. I hope the other place considers our amendments seriously—I think they make the Bill better—and perhaps brings some further improvements that we can look at when it arrives back. It has been a pleasure to work on the Bill, but I am pleased we are now moving on.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I would like to briefly thank all those who have spoken. I agree with them on almost everything, and I also agree that we should commend my noble friend Lord True, now the Leader of the House, perhaps partly because of his achievements in this area. It has been a great pleasure to become a gamekeeper for the Government rather than be a poacher for the Back Benches. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering raised the devolved issues; of course, we hope that these things can be amicably resolved in the other place. Procurement is a devolved issue—the Scottish Government have not joined the UK Government’s Bill and will be maintaining their own legislation. Contracting authorities in Scotland will therefore not be bound by the Bill other than to enable their use of frameworks, dynamic markets and joint procurement. They are operating their own regulations, having transposed the EU directives into their own statute book. There are some outstanding issues, particularly with the Scottish Government. We are pursuing those, and I hope they will be resolved before we see the Bill again.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (5 Dec 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, let me begin by thanking noble Lords for their important contributions during all stages of the Bill’s passage through this House. As we have debated, freedom of speech is critical to modern society and is the lifeblood of our higher education sector. This Bill will establish new mechanisms for ensuring that freedom of speech is properly protected.
The discussions we have had since the Bill was introduced in this House have resulted in important clarifications, which we debated on Report last week. For example, we discussed the very definition of freedom of speech. I am pleased that we have introduced amendments which make clearer what we mean by that term, referring to Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights as it has effect in the UK. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for spearheading the discussions on this point.
We have also addressed drafting problems to which noble Lords drew our attention. We have avoided inadvertently giving alumni the same protections as current students. We have also clarified that the new power given to the Office for Students to give guidance on supporting freedom of speech is not related to the duty on higher education providers and their constituent colleges to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Willetts for their amendments in Committee that brought these issues to light.
We have also made a breakthrough on an important issue. Building on the progress made in the other place, we have agreed to ban the use of non-disclosure agreements by providers and colleges in cases of sexual misconduct, abuse or harassment, or other forms of bullying and harassment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for tabling this amendment, which the Government supported. Significant progress has been made in this area in the last year, with many institutions signing up to the voluntary pledge not to use NDAs launched by the previous Minister for Higher and Further Education, my right honourable friend Michelle Donelan, in conjunction with Can’t Buy My Silence. I am sure this amendment will be celebrated when this Bill is brought back for consideration by Members of the other place.
I turn now to the provision which has generated the most discussion: the tort. Last week, the House decided to remove the relevant clause from the Bill. The Government will naturally reflect on this verdict and the arguments advanced to support it very carefully indeed. Of course, I am disappointed that noble Lords were not persuaded by the government amendments, which we tabled to ensure that a person could bring a claim only if they had suffered a loss and that claims could be brought only after a complaint scheme had been used. I will not repeat the arguments in favour of retaining the tort, subject to those amendments, as they have already been rehearsed at some length. However, Ministers continue to believe that those arguments have genuine force and validity.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised some remaining concerns about the new powers of the Office for Students and how they might impact on commercial partnerships of higher education institutions, in particular university presses. I hope the noble Baroness has received my letter. If it would be helpful, I would be more than happy to meet with noble Lords who remain concerned to clarify those points, as needed. The noble Baroness also asked whether the Office for Students could refuse to give evidence to, for example, the Education Select Committee. We have spoken to the Office for Students, which has reassured us that it would co-operate fully with requests from Select Committees.
As a latecomer to this Bill, I have been struck by the level of engagement with it. That means there is a long list of people to thank—perhaps too many to mention by name. There has been an extraordinary number of constructive and helpful contributions, both during our debates in the Chamber and in discussions outside it.
These have included the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton, Lady Smith of Newnham, Lady Garden, Lady Morris of Yardley, and Lady Chakrabarti; the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Triesman, and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath; my noble friends Lord Willetts, Lord Johnson, Lord Moylan, and Lord Sandhurst; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry; and, last but definitely not least, the noble, and noble and learned, Lords on the Cross Benches: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton; the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven; and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shafik, Lady Deech, Lady Falkner, and Lady Fox of Buckley.
There are many other noble Lords on all Benches whose speeches in debate have lent weight to our proceedings. While we may not have been in agreement on all these issues, I am heartened that the constructive debate heard in Committee and on Report has fostered a consensus in this House on the need for this Bill. I thank all of your Lordships for your engagement.
Lastly, I would like to express my profound gratitude to the stalwart members of the Bill team: Sophie Cahill, Jamie Burton, Vicki Stewart, Zoe Forbes, Samer Almanasfi, and last but definitely not least, Suki Lehrer. Throughout the last six months, they have provided nothing short of superlative support to me and to my ministerial colleagues, my noble friends Lord Howe and Lady Penn, and who have worked long hours, never without a smile on their faces—sometimes virtual, on Teams. Ministers, and indeed the House, are in their debt. I also express my personal thanks to my noble friend Lord Howe. In my words, he has definitely done the heavy lifting on this Bill with his professionalism, concern and extraordinary attention to detail, which are all well known in this House.
We send this Bill back to another place with, I hope, the same ambitions as when it reached your Lordships’ House. We need to support a higher education sector in which students and staff are free to speak their minds and engage in contentious debates. I believe that this Bill has the potential to make a crucial contribution to that aim, and I wish it well.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the way in which he handled Committee and Report on the Bill, and the various consultations. It was a model of how Ministers should engage. We had a very constructive process with the Bill, for which I am, and all of us are, very grateful.
This Bill was drafted by the last Secretary of State but five. It was eventually inherited by the current team in the Department for Education, with what I dare say was an element of surprise as well as interest: it was, after all, initially drafted almost entirely by Policy Exchange through a range of papers, and Policy Exchange had based its analysis very heavily on American as much as British sources. There were therefore oddities in the Bill, which I hope we have ironed out as we have gone through.
Many of us were very much concerned about the potential for this Bill to damage university autonomy and extend state authority, including Members on the Conservative Benches and others. There are a number of areas in which we have made considerable progress on the defence of freedom of speech. For many of us, there is the removal of civil tort, not simply the reduction of the weight of the civil tort on universities. That remains to be sorted out in the Commons. I hope that the current ministerial team will reflect very deeply on whether to insist on its own amendment or to accept the amendment which a substantial majority in this House produced.
There is also the outstanding issue of the appointment of the new free speech champion. I very much hope that the Government will take particular care in finding a candidate for that position who will be accepted—possibly even welcomed—by the sector he or she sets out to regulate.
Still outstanding is the question of the degree of overlap between what is set out in this Bill, the recent National Security and Investment Act and the current National Security Bill. All of them impose new duties and new reporting requirements on universities, some of which have not yet entirely been ironed out, particularly for the National Security Bill—I hope we will be able to do that as it proceeds through the House.
I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, who took the burden when I was away for part of Committee, as well as our team, including Sarah Pugh in our Whips’ Office. I know that the Bill team must have worked extremely hard throughout this. One recognises that civil servants are often not thanked enough for the criticisms they accept and the burdens they undertake.
Our universities are a huge national asset. They are an important part of our soft power in the world and a major source of our international income. We all need to be sure, as we have done in considering the Bill and as we look now at the National Security Bill, that we do not damage our universities in dealing with some of the problems and threats which they face, sometimes from their students, sometimes from visiting speakers, and sometimes from foreign powers, because they are such a large part of what makes this country very special.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and also the Bill team for their accessibility and friendliness throughout the whole of this process. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on her list of commendations of noble Lords who have participated, and wish to second that. Obviously, I need to thank my noble friend Lord Collins, who is probably on his feet in the Grand Committee, which is why he is not here. He did most of the heavy lifting around the Bill, particularly around the—for our part—unlamented Clause 4 and the non-disclosure amendment, which the Government accepted and for which we are very grateful indeed. I also thank Liz Cronin in the Lords office and our team in the Commons, Jonny Rutherford, Vicky Salt and Tim Waters, who provided us an enormous amount of support, which, as the Ministers will know, you need when you are in opposition and dealing with complex pieces of legislation. The stakeholders have also provided us with great briefings; of course, some of them are serving vice-chancellors and heads of colleges here in this Chamber.
The question at the outset was whether the Bill was necessary at all. The answer is that the jury is still out, but probably not quite as out as it was at the beginning of the process. I think we can say with some confidence that we are sending back to the Commons a piece of legislation that is much improved from the one we started out with. The reason for that is twofold. The Ministers and the Bill team engaged seriously all the way through this but this House also engaged in a non-partisan, cross-party examination of the Bill, and I congratulate noble Lords on that.
There are still some outstanding matters which will need further attention, such as the role of the students union, but also the issue that the noble Baroness referred to, which is Clause 8, previously Clause 9. I and my noble friend Lady Royall, the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Wallace, and others raised the risk of duplicating security regulations and the risk that the Bill might pose to the business community, the commercial relations and the trading futures in which our universities have been successful.
I definitely welcome the Minister’s invitation to have a meeting, because I think the Russell group and others need to further discuss this whole matter, particularly when draft statutory instruments and guidance are under consideration. I am grateful to her for saying that. We were still being approached about this as late as last night, because there are still serious concerns among some of our academic community.
I add my thanks for what has been a really interesting Bill. It is slightly outside my normal remit of health and equalities, but I have very much enjoyed being the number two to my noble friend Lord Collins and working with noble Lords on the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while I hope the Commons will look again and restore some version of Clause 4 and material remedies for victims of cancel culture on campus, I am still really glad that we have passed the Bill. I think our deliberations have been worth while and even now are having an impact, so I thank all involved.
A highlight for me was when the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, made his “confession” last week that he had originally thought the Bill “not necessary”, but
“during the process of Committee and the dialogue and discussions … I was persuaded that there is an issue to address.”—[Official Report, 7/12/22; col. 222.]
That is a win, in my book. Credit, then, to those who have spoken so articulately on threats to academic freedom, but also to those who have been open-minded and listened. Does that not remind us of the gains of hearing all sides of a debate, the importance of free speech and why it is so valuable?
In another instance, I have a confession. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, was keen to correct any impression I had given that the University of Oxford was creating a hostile environment to academics who might oppose moves to decolonise classical music. I apologise if I was too sweeping, but I am in touch with music scholars who are extremely worried about the dogmatic atmosphere surrounding the classical music canon, disparagingly dubbed
“white European music from the slave period”.
They claim that the debate on the topic is toxic and mired in accusations of racism, so I enthusiastically welcome the University of Oxford’s insistence that this is just not true. Perhaps this shows that university authorities can be sensitised to the reputational damage of not defending academic freedom or their own academic staff’s reputation if they disagree with critical theory orthodoxies. That is a shift away from worrying only about the reputational damage of being mislabelled as bigots by campus activists, and I think the Bill has helped.
A final positive note: I was shocked last week when the UCU, the trade union of Edinburgh University, shamefully demanded that the university cancel the screening of “Adult Human Female” organised by their own colleagues, Edinburgh Academics for Academic Freedom and—not a good example of collegiate atmosphere. I was nervous that Edinburgh University would succumb. After all, it had only recently given into pressure to cancel the titan of Scottish Enlightenment philosophy, David Hume. But no, the university stood firm. The documentary will be shown at the university’s theatre tomorrow night, despite transphobic accusations—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I do not know. I apologise; I am trying to be gracious.
Perhaps the debate we have had has already given authorities a bit more backbone, and therefore I congratulate and thank everyone concerned for allowing a freer spirit and discussion around academic freedom to take place, at least outside this place.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the interests of balance I will speak very briefly. It is important to say that there is not conviction in all parts of your Lordships’ House that the Bill is, in its current form, in any way necessary. Attempts to address some of the attacks on freedom of speech—including the influence of commercial sponsors and funders in universities, the impacts of casualisation, and low pay and insecurity for academics—were not allowed into the Bill, so not everyone is convinced that the Bill should go forward.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I can acknowledge that, in the spirit of free speech, we have heard different perspectives in our final remarks. I pick up on the description by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, of the collaborative spirit and cross-party working, which make us all so privileged to work in your Lordships’ House.
Voter Identification Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:54 - Division on Baroness Pinnock’s amendment - Ayes: 63 / Noes: 210 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 3 November be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is a key part of how we will implement the voter identification policy agreed in the Elections Act 2022. This area was debated extensively during the passage of the Act earlier this year. The Act was passed by both Houses and delivers on a government manifesto commitment.
Through this statutory instrument, we will be fulfilling a major manifesto commitment to
“protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations”.
Gaps in our current legislation leave open the potential for someone to cast another’s vote at a polling station. Our priority is adopting legislation that ensures the public can have absolute confidence in the integrity of our elections and certainty that their vote belongs to them and them alone.
The introduction of a voter identification policy is the best solution to this problem and has long been called for by the independent Electoral Commission, as well as by international organisations such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which regularly monitors and reports on our national polls.
The statutory instrument sets out further detail on the new processes that will be put in place to help us implement this policy. First, it sets out the updated polling station conduct rules for a range of elections and referendums. It details exactly how photographic identification documents will be checked and how data will be recorded by polling station staff.
Secondly, it sets out a series of updates to the election forms. As you would expect, a number of existing forms such as poll cards have been updated to inform electors of the new requirement to show identification and the types of document that will be accepted. On top of these changes, there are some new forms, such as those polling station staff will use to record data that will help our planned reviews of the policy.
Lastly, the policy sets out details of the new electoral identity documents which can be obtained if someone does not already have an accepted document: the voter authority certificate and/or the anonymous elector’s document. These forms of photographic identification will be available to voters free of charge from their electoral registration officer and will ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, on that specific point, can the Minister explain why younger people are treated differently to older people in terms of which documents will be accepted? Is that not a form of age discrimination?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I assume the noble Baroness is speaking about railcards, et cetera. We had that debate very clearly when the Bill went through. We have discussed it and I do not think there is any need to discuss it further.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can I move on, please? The statutory instruments also sets—
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has asked a reasonable question. Perhaps the Minister could give the House the courtesy of a reply?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have given a reply. The details of why we would not accept young people’s railcards were well discussed and debated at the time of the Bill. We are now discussing the statutory instrument to deliver that legislation that has already been discussed.
I will now move on. Showing photo identification is a part of day-to-day life for people in all walks of life and it is a perfectly reasonable and proportionate way to confirm that a person is who they say they are when it comes to voting. Indeed, it has already been a requirement to show photographic identification to vote in person since 2003 in Northern Ireland.
I must also speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock. I thank them both for having met me in the past week to share their concerns and suggestions for this statutory instrument. On the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we disagree strongly with the views that she has set out. We are aware of concerns that have been raised in the sector about the pressures that election teams may face, but the Government remain confident that the electoral administrators will be able to deliver this important measure to protect our democratic system from fraud. We have worked extensively with stakeholders across the sector to develop implementation plans, and extensive funding has been made available to local authorities to deliver the new processes and to the Electoral Commission for its national awareness campaign.
The Government also disagree with the suggestion that electors will be prevented from voting. As we have said on a number of occasions, everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so. Any elector who does not have a suitable form of photographic identification will be able to apply for a voter authority certificate from their local electoral registration officer, free of charge. It will be possible to apply online or on paper, just as for registration to vote; indeed, it will be possible to register to vote and to apply for a certificate at the same time. We are working hard to make the application system as accessible and user-friendly as possible, and testing with both electors and electoral administrators is receiving very positive feedback.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but, if everything is as well prepared and clear as she suggests, why is the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association calling for a delay?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am aware that he is calling for a delay. I have not spoken to him, and I do not know why he is doing so, because the electoral officers—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No. The electoral officers, who are independent in local government, say that they know it will be challenging, but they are confident that they will be able to deliver.
While I cannot agree with the substance of the noble Baroness’s amendment, I also note in passing my concerns about the form that it takes. It is not the usual practice of this House to decline to approve regulations giving effect to primary legislation that has already been passed—for sound constitutional reasons. It is also worth noting that the Liberal Democrats supported the introduction of photographic identification in Northern Ireland elections. The Liberal Democrat Front Bench told Parliament that
“we accept the need for a Bill ... The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an electoral identity card.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/01; cols. 705-07.]
The legislation passed Second Reading without a vote. I would therefore urge noble Lords to join me in opposing this amendment.
On the regret amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we fully support a review being held rapidly following the May 2023 elections. Scrutiny is essential to ensure that we can refine and improve the delivery of this policy for future polls. We have already committed to a review that will take place after the May elections. I can confirm our intention that the results of that review should be published no later than November 2023. Work is already under way with a research agency on gathering evidence to support the planned evaluation of voter identification after the May polls, alongside our in-house team of analytical professionals. However, to give the House comfort on the independence from government of the review, we are happy to increase the role of the external research agency to include the drafting of the final report, which we will of course publish in full. However, this is conditional on the amendment before us not being pushed.
We would also very much welcome further detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the results. However, we do not believe that a new specific Select Committee is the appropriate method to facilitate this scrutiny or to undertake the evaluation itself. It is the long-established practice of this House that the Liaison Committee considers and directs committee resource.
Baroness Pinnock
Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Voter Identification Regulations 2022 as they will prevent legitimate electors from voting in elections and disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument but point out to her that this fatal amendment in my name is not an attempt to subvert the decisions made during the passage of the Elections Bill, where the principle of photo ID for electors was approved. Furthermore, I have been advised that, in 1994, the principle of moving fatal amendments in this House was debated and agreed, and the principle was accepted on such legislation.
The amendment in my name is to demonstrate to the Government that their implementation plan is fatally flawed, for reasons on which I will elaborate. I have a direct interest, in that I am still a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have practical knowledge of the election process, having been involved in elections for the last 30 years.
This is a very major change to the way we vote. Its implementation must reflect that complexity, and currently it is being unduly rushed, which will put in jeopardy the integrity of the ballot. The first major flaw in the regulations is that the start date is the May elections next year, as the Minister has reminded us. The Electoral Commission states that six months are needed for the introduction of changes in voting practice. That is the accepted convention as well for local authorities. There will not be anything like six months before the first week in May. Time is needed to make sure that every voter knows about the change. That should mean direct communication to every elector. That is not the Government’s intention. The Electoral Commission is responsible for the communications and has an inadequate budget, and time, to make sure all voters know about this change.
Then there are the practical demands of election administrators. More polling clerks are needed to check ID. The Government are providing funding for an additional polling clerk in every polling station. This is not just to help to reduce queuing but for the security of staff, who may refuse to provide an elector with a ballot paper if they do not comply. There may well be angry and disillusioned voters as a result.
The information I have received from across the country is that regular polling clerks appear unwilling to continue, due to the additional pressures put on them. Experienced polling clerks are a huge asset. We need them, especially when there is such a major change.
There are further basic problems associated with these regulations. Some cultures and faiths require women to be very discreet and wear a face or head covering. Further, some will not enter a polling station unless a female clerk is present and will definitely not remove their face covering unless they are in a private place. Special privacy booths have to be bought, along with mirrors, to ensure that such voters feel able to vote in person.
Funding, or lack of it, is also an issue. There is some direct funding, as the Minister has pointed out, but for some essentials it is subject to a bidding process. Cash-strapped councils cannot be expected to fund government requirements.
The key issue, of course, is the list of acceptable photo ID. It is extremely restrictive. Voters who do not have a passport or driving licence will have difficulty. About 2 million voters are thought not to have access to any of the prescribed ID. The right to vote in a democracy is our birthright. The focus should be on encouraging voting, not deterring it as these measures do. Why does the list of acceptable photo ID in the regulations not include ID that young people can use, such as a railcard or an Oyster pass, both of which have photographic identification?
Electors from minority communities find it more difficult to have ID that is on the list. The Government’s own analysis shows that 13% of people who are poorer, who are often on council housing estates, will not have any of the ID on the list. Older people in care may also not have access to that sort of ID. It makes me wonder whether the list is devised to restrict rather than enable voting.
Voters, of course, can apply for a certificate from their election office. They need a national insurance number and a photo to do so, and not everyone has an NI number. One council estimates that it will have 14,000 such applications to process, and most of those will come towards the end of the period before May. It cannot guarantee to process them in time, so some of those voters would not be able to vote.
The Minister argues that compulsory photo ID will make elections more secure. Yet overseas voters do not have any checks to verify their authenticity. Further, why then is obtaining a postal vote so easy? All that is required is a date of birth and a signature. There is no check as to whether the two identifiers are from the same person. Yet postal vote fraud cases have been well documented. I know where I would look for security in the ballot.
The integrity of the ballot is important and that is precisely the reason for my opposing the regulations set out in this SI. It is about whether the inalienable right to vote can be refused because of the failure to produce an acceptable form of photo ID, especially when many voters will go the polls in May and not know about the changes, or will simply have forgotten about them.
In conclusion, this is an ill-thought set of regulations. There is insufficient time for a fair implementation, it is expensive, it will undoubtedly result in some voters being refused a ballot at polling stations, it may affect the result of an election, and it is unnecessary and divisive.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, from the moment that the Government’s plan for voter ID was first introduced, these Benches have made it clear that we see it as unnecessary. We believe that voting in Britain is both safe and secure, yet this policy is being introduced at a cost of many millions of pounds and, more importantly, could prevent millions of people exercising their right to vote.
On this basis, we opposed the proposal in the Elections Bill and, just yesterday, Labour Members of Parliament voted against these regulations in the other place. So I will not focus my contribution today on the principle of voter ID, and I will not rehash arguments already made—but I will reiterate our opposition to the policy as a whole.
I want the House to consider what happens next, if the concerns of the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators are realised. There is now a strong possibility that the lack of awareness and preparation will mean that many of the 2 million voters without the right ID will lose their right to vote. The impact of that on our democracy could be extremely dangerous.
It is on this basis that I have tabled a Motion to establish a new Select Committee to consider the impact of the regulations on the May elections. The committee would be tasked with conducting a post-implementation assessment of the policy, based on an impartial examination of evidence. An evidence-based approach to policy-making is all that we are asking for, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has now agreed to commission an independent report to consider the implementation of the policy and I extend my thanks to the Minister and her office for their approach to the negotiations we have had.
This builds on further concessions the Minister made during the passage of what became the Elections Act, which bound the Government to review the relevant sections. I am pleased that the Minister will now go further and ensure that the report is drafted independently. I welcome the further fact that the Minister has approached the Constitution Committee and that colleagues have approached the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with a view that they will consider the evidence.
However, notwithstanding these significant concessions made by the Minister, I want to reiterate the strength of feeling on these Benches, and I hope that the Minister can provide clarification on a number of further points. If she is able to offer these assurances in her response to this debate, I will consider not pressing our Motion.
On voter cards and other ID, it is now less than six months until this policy is introduced in May, when people across most of England will have the opportunity to vote. Yet there has still been no public awareness campaign launched, and there is no reason to believe that all those who do not own the necessary ID will be aware that they cannot vote without it. Just yesterday, the Financial Times reported that the Cabinet Office has found that 42% of people with no photo ID are unlikely to apply for one. Given that we are in a cost of living crisis, this is hardly surprising; after all, a passport costs £85 and a driving licence is £43. Will the Minister remain open to expanding the list of ID if the independent report provides evidence to support this?
The proposal for a free voter card was of course intended to help address this, but the application process has not materialised, and even at the best of times, many people struggle to access local authorities because of their limited opening hours. As a result, it is likely that many people who may not have the time or capacity to travel to a local authority and deal with the lengthy application process may just not bother, and therefore lose their vote. Can I therefore ask the Minister to commit to work with local authorities to ensure that the voter card is open to applications as soon as reasonably possible, and that it operates as swiftly and smoothly as possible? Can I also ask the Minister to assure me that the Government will take steps, together with local authorities, to monitor applications and any relevant issues, and also ensure that voters are aware that the document is free?
In addition, the Association of Electoral Administrators —the body that represents local authority electoral registration officers responsible for delivering elections—is now raising serious concerns about the huge administrative burden that will be placed on already overstretched local authorities. With the new responsibilities placed on the staff of polling stations, there is also a possibility of long queues and overburdened staff. Will the Minister commit to engaging with representatives of those working at polling stations to ensure they are fully prepared for the rollout? Specifically, will the Government monitor any instances of polling stations closing prematurely when there are still electors in the queue?
The Minister will recall that, when the Government piloted mandatory voter ID in a handful of local authorities during the 2018 local elections in England, more than 1,000 voters were turned away for not having the correct form of ID; of these, around 350 voters did not return to vote. Then in 2019, about 2,000 people were initially refused a ballot paper, of which roughly 750 did not return with ID and therefore did not partake in the election.
I do understand the points that the Minister has made regarding Northern Ireland, but I am sure she will also accept that the scale across England creates much more of a challenge. Without any real public awareness, guidance, and time for preparation, I am not confident that this challenge will be met before May. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to an independent report into the impact that this may have on the upcoming local elections. I hope the Minister can now provide the additional clarification necessary to avoid a Division on this Motion.
I also want to make it clear that our concerns remain over the implementation of this policy, and we will return to this during, and after, the rollout of the May elections. I look forward to seeing the independent report, and I truly hope that it will not be possible to find evidence of widespread disenfranchisement in May, but if these concerns are indeed realised, then the Minister should expect that we will be calling for the policy to then be withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, it was very interesting to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, pray in aid the Motion passed by this House in 1994 on the application of fatal Motions in this House. Of course, this House has a power to use fatal Motions, but, as with so many powers of this House, it is not used by convention. I cannot think, off the top of my head, of an occasion when it should be used. I am convinced that the noble Baroness did not really make the case for it, because all the arguments she used—which were perfectly valid arguments—should have been used, and probably were used, during the passage of the Bill earlier this year. That was the time when your Lordships’ House should have stopped that part of the legislation coming into force, rather than dealing with it now. As I understand it, it was a manifesto commitment. Even if it were not, we have been discussing it in both Houses of Parliament for the last seven or eight years, going back to when my noble friend Lord Pickles was Secretary of State; he launched a review and an investigation in 2015 into how local government held elections.
Furthermore, the regulations, while they are only coming into force now, have been discussed for many months, and good local authorities will no doubt have taken steps to organise themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, spoke very reasonably in her speech, and, if it does not embarrass her for me to say this, I agreed with much of it. However, I also felt that my noble friend the Minister had dealt with a lot of the arguments earlier, and perhaps she can go a little further now.
The point I want to raise with the noble Baroness is on the suggestion in her regret amendment to the Motion that there should be a Select Committee of this House to examine these regulations post legislation. I wanted to confirm my understanding with both the noble Baroness and my noble friend the Minister that there is nothing to stop the House from conducting such an inquiry, but, rather than putting it in a regret amendment to the Motion before the House today, it would be entirely right to make a case to the Liaison Committee, which I have no doubt would be supported by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, during the passage of the Bill, I raised the likely impact of the photo identification requirement on people living in poverty. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the word “photo” was not in the manifesto.
While I welcome the Government’s focus on those with protected characteristics, the Bill is not sufficient to assess adequately the impact on all marginalised groups, given the Government’s refusal to enact the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act. I will not repeat the arguments I made previously, but my fears, far from being allayed, are all the greater given how little time there is between the laying of the regulations and the May local elections, the inadequacy of which has been underlined by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Electoral Commission, the Local Government Association and others.
I will raise just two main issues, the first of which concerns consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Significant consultation has been carried out with … stakeholders”,
including “civil society organisations”. Both in Committee and on Report, I asked specifically about consultation with organisations working with people in poverty and with those who can bring the expertise of their experience of poverty to bear on the matter.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite—he is not a Minister, I think he used to be something in the Government—has got a real cheek to talk to this House about honouring conventions when his Government colleagues have trampled over dozens of them. They put in a masquerade of a Budget, which then tanked the economy. They have introduced a new Prime Minister every few weeks—another incompetent Prime Minister, I might point out—and have generally behaved like savages at a feast with taxpayers’ money. He should really not stand up and defend the sort of thing he just has when his Government colleagues do not do it anyway. This House, to some extent, is self-regulating and can make its own decisions.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, it might be worth saying that I was only commenting on the passage of the Motion that the House had carried in 1994 and I certainly do not oppose that position. I then explained the conventions by which we exist when we look at fatal Motions—none of the stuff mentioned by the noble Baroness.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who was in her place a moment ago, and others, this year I sat on a Select Committee of post-legislative scrutiny for the Children and Families Act 2014. One of our findings was that it was quite inadequate to be doing that review eight years after the legislation was implemented. While I support the SIs today—and I have some sympathy with the initial comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I urge the Minister and the Government to stick to the timetable of the review that was outlined in her opening statement.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this debate, which will give me the opportunity to remind him and the House of some of his experiences when he was the Leader of the Opposition in this House. I shall do so shortly, but first, I will quote his report considering the position of statutory instruments, as published in 2015. The executive summary began:
“Since 1968, a convention has existed that the House of Lords should not reject statutory instruments (or should do so only rarely).”
I suggest that this is one of those rare occasions. I will address issues of principle concerning fatal Motions, costs and practicalities. The question being asked is whether the House of Lords can be justified in approving the fatal Motion put down today by my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I accept that such a Motion should be approved only on rare occasions, but I make two points.
First, there have been several times since I joined the House in 1999 when it has carried fatal Motions. I was very involved with two of them, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was Leader of the Opposition at the time. In any event, both the fatal Motions which were carried were at the instigation of the then Conservative Opposition Front Bench while Labour was in power. It was the time when Tony Blair’s Government were criticised for introducing unfair election rules, aimed at favouring the official Labour candidate in the first London mayoral elections. This was by denying the candidates any form of election address.
As a result of the passing by this House of the fatal Motions, which I and the Conservative Benches supported, I was then involved in cross-party negotiations including senior government officials. They resulted in us agreeing new rules that were fairer, cost effective and formed the basis of all future mayoral elections. This House now, and all Members of it, should note that the Conservatives did not have a problem with fatal Motions on such issues when they faced a Labour Government allegedly manipulating election rules in their favour.
Secondly, I turn to consideration of what was in the last Conservative manifesto. Again, the noble Lord seems not to be aware of the lengthy debates we had in the early proceedings on the Bill, in which his noble friend Lord True accepted that this was not in the manifesto. That document did not prescribe “photo ID”, as distinct from “some form of voter identification”. This very important point was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, on the “Today” programme this morning.
So, even if you subscribe to the principles of the Salisbury convention, which was a gentlemen’s agreement —perhaps I should emphasise that—made to deal with the immediate circumstances following the 1945 general election, you cannot feel bound to support this statutory instrument on that basis. It is being rushed through in a costly manner, and in ways that will cause much confusion and effectively deny many people the right to vote. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee looked at the powers it gives to the Government and said in its March report that they should not be determined in this way:
“We consider that, in the absence of a convincing explanation, the powers are inappropriate in leaving it to regulations to determine the circumstances in which electoral identity documents are to be issued.”
There are very big issues facing the country, with the cost of living crisis being the most important for many people. The Government say, for example, that they cannot afford to pay more to the nurses who they urged us to clap for at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, they propose a costly and bureaucratic system with significant additional costs to the taxpayer for training and communications, new styles of poll cards and the supposedly free new forms of voter identification for the 1.9 million people currently without it.
The Government’s own impact assessment for introducing compulsory photo ID shows that they estimate they will spend £180 million or more on this over the next decade. I wonder how many of the people who think that photo ID is a good idea would spend £180 million on it. If there is a significant problem with impersonation—and this has never been shown—we can save a lot of money by using other forms of ID, at no cost to the taxpayer.
We may not all consider ourselves experts on the detail of election law. It is local authorities that have to conduct the elections, so we should consider properly the view of the chair of the Local Government Association, which represents all local authorities across England and Wales. A Conservative councillor, he said on behalf of local authorities last week:
“While we accept that voter ID has now been legislated for, electoral administrators and returning officers should be given the appropriate time, resource, clarity and detailed guidance to implement any changes to the electoral process without risking access to the vote … We are concerned that there is insufficient time to do this ahead of the May 2023 elections and for this reason are calling for the introduction of voter ID requirements to be delayed.”
I hope that full statement is of assistance to the Minister.
The Association of Electoral Administrators represents the returning officers, whom many noble Lords will have thanked for their efforts in previous elections. It says:
“It is good to see the LGA speaking out about the challenges facing Returning Officers and electoral administrators. Their concerns around voter ID reflect ours and those of the wider electoral community … The timescales to introduce voter ID in May 2023 are incredibly tight. The proposed timetable brings huge risks and jeopardises our members’ ability to ensure every elector can cast their vote without issue … We would support a government decision to delay voter ID … until after May’s elections”.
If noble Lords have ever thanked a returning officer, as many here will have done, they can do so again by supporting my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s amendment on the basis of principle, costs and practicalities.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee on the Elections Bill on this issue because I was offended then, and am still offended today, by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, saying that black and ethnic minority communities will be marginalised and will not want to be part of this process. I have spoken to lots of people from my community and not one has said that they would be offended by having a voter ID card. To be quite frank, I agree with the Opposition Benches that a review to see how it works would be great, but I take offence at the point continuously being raised in this House that minority communities will somehow feel disenfranchised. We do not. Please take that away. We are citizens of this country and we will use our right, just like every other citizen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my local politics are in Bradford, where elections are often quite boisterous affairs, and in some cases threatening. I do not entirely accept the classification that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has made of what happens in elections; we have a very large community of Kashmiri origin, now in its third or fourth generation, in Bradford. Some are now extremely prosperous and others are still marginalised. We also have a very poor and marginalised white community in Bradford in a similar position, so it is a question of not just ethnic minorities but the poorest and most marginal council tenants in our society.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I also come from a very mixed community: the city of Leicester. We have very boisterous elections there too, but that does not stop people wanting to have something that will make it easier for them not to have those boisterous discussions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I wanted briefly to make one other point. I am holding the National Security Bill, which we will discuss in Committee next week. Clause 14 and Schedule 1 are on foreign interference in British elections, and the Bill lists a number of offences that need to be considered in terms of foreign interference, including personation, proxy voting, postal voting fraud, sources of donations and others. Yet, in the Elections Act, we have extended overseas voting rights for British citizens from 15 years to a lifetime, without any serious checks on or verification of identity either for those who will give donations once they are on the register or for those who will use postal and proxy voting, which they of course have to do. I hope that, in Committee on the National Security Bill, the Minister will engage fully on the changes to the Elections Act that this will make necessary, because the gap between this emphasis on much greater verification and checks for voters who vote in person and the almost total absence of verification or checks for overseas voters is astonishing, is too wide and needs to be addressed.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, the purpose of this regulation is to prevent election fraud, and the Minister quite rightly referred to the success in a similar situation in Northern Ireland. Before 2002, there was considerable fraud in elections there, and the election Act was therefore introduced. It was a challenge at the time, but, after a lot of discussion, there was agreement between all the parties to introduce the election fraud Act, which has proved very successful.
In Northern Ireland, the law requires electors to produce one of seven photographic identifications, including, for example, passports, driving licences and senior transport passes. But, in the argument today, some people say that this will exclude many people—but, in Northern Ireland, we have the electoral identity card, which is produced free of charge by the Electoral Office. This form of identification is acceptable to a very high proportion of the electorate in Northern Ireland. It excludes no one, and it is free. Before the election, vans go out to housing estates and different parts of society in Northern Ireland, producing this so that people can get it for free. It does not exclude people, so I do not accept the argument that people, perhaps from lower sections of the community, are excluded. This has been extremely successful in Northern Ireland, and the Minister referred to this success. So we should think very carefully, and we should introduce these regulations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I doubt this was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, but he made a powerful case for the amendment to the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. He set out just how extensive the efforts are in Northern Ireland to make sure that people are aware of what is happening, and how large the education campaign is. We will not have the time to see that, and that is the whole basis of the fatal amendment, for which I offer the Green group’s support. This is a call not to go away for ever but to delay.
I ask your Lordships’ House to think back to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who is an expert both on the procedures of this House and on elections. He made the point that positions on fatal amendments tend to shift with party politics, depending on who is sitting on which side. So I will address my remarks particularly to those who do not have a party politics: the Cross-Benchers. It is greatly to their credit that their Benches are so full today; it is great to see this level of interest and concern.
I therefore refer back—we keep getting away from this—to the fact that the Electoral Commission expressed concern about the timeframe. It said that the introduction of voter ID needs to be “accessible, secure and workable” and that those important considerations
“may not be fully met”
when this new principle is operated. If we think about very cautious bureaucratic language, the official regulator saying that it is concerned that the rules it has set may not be met should be of very grave concern.
Many have referred to this. The chair of the Local Government Association, who is a Tory councillor—I should declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—has said that there is insufficient time and is calling for a delay. Again, that is clearly not someone taking a party-political position, but speaking as the chair of the Local Government Association in a non-party way to say that this is not deliverable.
I want to put two, direct, specific questions to the Minister about implementation and what the Government are planning to do. I think the Minister referred to the fact that the alternative identity card to be delivered by councils in such a tight timeframe is to be free. We all know these days that, as soon as there is some government thing that people are confused and uncertain about, there will be many fake websites on the internet. They will be paying for adverts and telling people to pay £10 or £20; criminals will take advantage of this confusion and uncertainty. Are the Government planning to watch this very closely and stamp down on it as soon as possible? I am afraid we can guarantee it will happen.
The other question is also about the publicity scheme. Most noble Lords, with very good cause, have spoken about the at least 2 million people who do not own the relevant ID needed to vote. Of course, many people will have the ID but will not necessarily have it with them on voting day. Think about the obvious example of students. At some of the universities I know, the relevant student term will start in February. People will very likely leave their passport at home because student accommodation is not necessarily the greatest place to keep a passport. In May, they will need to vote, but their passport would be at the other end of the country. Will the publicity campaign start very soon to catch those students and give them the opportunity to know that this is happening? This could also be the case with driving licences. Some people may have a driving licence but not own a car. They are not necessarily going to carry it with them regularly. We should count not just those who do not own ID but also the people who do not necessarily have it on them.
I will make one final point, particularly addressed to the noble Lords on the Cross Benches. Many Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly Cross-Benchers, go to other countries to observe elections and assist the spread of democracy around the world. Here we are trying to defend democracy at home and make sure that our elections are conducted properly. I was in Brussels last week and happened to be speaking on a panel which had a speaker from Belarus and a speaker from Hungary. The chair, who was not from any of our three countries, said “These are three countries in Europe which have problems with—or falling apart—democracy.” That is how this country is being regarded overseas. Voter ID is one more step in that process.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the Government’s position, drawing from experience of 35 years of elections in Northern Ireland. Some were prior to the 2002 legislation, and some were after that; in some I was a candidate. On each occasion I was someone involved in electoral politics. I also draw from experience as former president and vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association. I have seen this operate within a local government context.
I can understand, for those who are moving into a new situation, that there are genuine concerns and those need to be addressed. There is a point around trying to ensure that publicity is maximised in the run-up to this. Therefore, I have some sympathy for that point. It is also the case that, no matter how well thought through any scheme is—I take reassurance from what the Government have said—there will be a review of the situation after the elections. It is important that whatever lessons that arise from that are learned.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I can say the same about what is happening in Europe. In France and, as far as I know, in most European countries, you need a photo ID to vote. You have to be over 18, and I think the only instance when you do not need a photo ID is if you vote in a municipality of fewer than 1,000 people. I do not think there is a complication, and I have not seen, in France or in other European countries, people in uproar because they have to show a photo ID to prove who they are.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
They can show an ID card, or a passport, or there is a whole list of identification with a photograph that can be used.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Does the noble Baroness accept that there is a fundamental difference if, as in most of western Europe, you are issued with a national ID card and that is a legal requirement? Then everybody has it and can vote, but in the UK we do not have national ID cards, and therefore at the moment there are 2 million people without the requisite form of ID who have to apply. An extra barrier is created, unnecessarily and at great cost.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
As far as I know, in England there is a photograph on a driving licence. In France, your driving licence with a photograph is acceptable for voting. There must be a way forward. In my opinion we are complicating this rather simple issue.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up on a number of points in relation to comments made during this debate, particularly by our two Northern Ireland colleagues. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I have sat on virtually every committee, if not every committee, related to voting and voting legislation since I have been a Member of this House. At no point in any debate has any contribution we have received from any person from Northern Ireland said, “Do not go for photo ID”. There has been no such representation, nor any to say that we should revert to a position without photo ID, as was indicated previously. If there were problems in Northern Ireland, clearly we would have had representation from students, some civil community groups or whatever, saying, “Revert to the position we were at before”. But in the seven years I have served in this House—and I believe I have served on every single review of electoral law—we have never had such a submission from Northern Ireland.
I move on to the observation by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in relation to students. Oh, I feel so sorry for them. After all is said and done, we will have elections in May and there is the Easter holiday between now and then. In my former life I was chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association. Noble Lords may wonder what on earth that has to do with this debate. My members operated late-night licensed locations. All people who attended were required to produce proof of ID. Ask any pub company how many managers are holding passports, driving licences and other forms of photo ID every Monday morning because clientele in pubs and bars have left them there. The reality is that students carry their ID with them on a regular basis, because they are used to producing them in very regular circumstances.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said that the introduction was being rushed. In recent years we have moved from a rigid electoral roll system whereby the new election rolls were registered sometime between August and October to a system in which people can now register on a very rapid basis. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, will agree that I have been a regular supporter of reducing the workloads of returning officers. As an event at elections, we now get a surge in registration by people who think they are not registered. Actually, two-thirds of them are registered and that workload could be removed with read-only access. That surge is because people are suddenly conscious of the upcoming election.
If you ask the relevant organisations—the AEA, the Electoral Commission—when they are going to launch their advertising campaigns in relation to the May elections, no sane marketer would say, “We are going to launch the advertising campaign in November or December”, because people’s minds are on Christmas and other similar arrangements. You launch an advertising campaign to make people aware that they need some form of ID—whatever it may happen to be—in January or February, which is what is actually going to happen. You do not spend millions in November or December. Therefore, it is not rushed to say that you are going to launch that campaign in a few weeks’ time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted from the Electoral Commission’s comments. I would take a quote from the second paragraph rather than the first. Referring to the statutory instrument, it says:
“This detail has enabled us to start developing the guidance that electoral administrators will need.”
Start? We have had the example in Northern Ireland for 20 years, and there is barely a difference between the two in England and in Northern Ireland. Start? Even the difference of interpretation of the Tory party manifesto—whether it is an ID or a photo ID—indicates that it has been a policy of this Government for the last three years. Start? We passed the Elections Act some seven months ago, so in fact there is no reason why the vast majority of the paperwork—in preparation for distribution to everybody—to be used in the marketing campaigns that will be launched in January or February next year should not already be prepared.
This statutory instrument gives effect to something that was debated at length months ago. Many of the contributions that I have listened to this afternoon have repeated some of the arguments that were made then. In conclusion, I am going to cause embarrassment to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, by saying that I found many of her comments as constructive as some of my colleagues did. As far as I am concerned, for the reasons I have identified, on this occasion I am going to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. There is no reason for a fatal amendment at this stage; it is not justified—as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde identified—and we should be supporting the statutory instrument and vote for it this evening.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend just said. Almost every word that has been uttered during this interesting debate underlines the feeling that I have had for a long time that it would be a really sensible thing for us to go back and re-examine the case for an identity card. It would have many other uses. We are bedevilled by immigration problems. An identity card would be one document that everyone could carry, and I commend it most warmly to the House.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, may well have done his side a disservice, in view of the fact that those of us who are opposed to voter ID warned that it was a slippery slope to the bringing in of national ID cards. I personally will oppose that. I actually did oppose, throughout the whole of Committee and Report stages, the introduction of voter ID. That side lost, and the policy is as such.
The one thing that I want to pick up on is that, after I argued and spoke many times on that issue, I was castigated by a lot of people outside of the House who told me that speaking on behalf of ordinary voters who might well be excluded from the franchise by having to show voter ID was patronising and that it treated those people as hapless and hopeless. Some of the comments about poor marginalised communities not being able to get access to photo IDs and the way that we have discussed the members of the BAME communities being unable to access or being unfairly discriminated against by photo IDs is in danger of being patronising.
But the most important thing at this stage, it seems to me, is that I do not think the Government have done enough—and this is what I would like—to reassure us that there will be huge publicity so that this is known about. That seems reasonable. I liked the anecdotes from Northern Ireland of vans going round. We know that this Government are not shy when it comes to nudging, nannying and telling everybody what to do on other issues, so I would not mind them doing it on this one to mitigate any possibility that anyone anywhere in the country would not know that they need ID. Helping them get it would be a great help.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I spent probably the last 30 years organising election monitoring missions around the world. At the Brexit vote, which some noble Lords may remember, I had a group of young Europeans from right across new and old Europe come to look at how we did that vote. When I asked them afterwards what they thought could be improved, unanimously they said that they could not believe that people could go and vote without some form of identification as to who they were.
I do not think that is the problem we are trying to solve. I think we should have to produce identification; the problem to solve is how we make sure that everybody has it. The Northern Ireland example has been extremely instructive in that regard, and I hope that the Front Bench and the Government will be listening to some of the things said about the need for advertising and the need for ensuring that there is no excuse for people not having an ID card.
If I may finish, I remember many years ago saying to some students I was talking to who had come from Greece—I was a student myself—that I was not sure that I was going to bother to vote. They had grown up with the memory of the colonels, with a military dictatorship running their country, and gave me hell for saying that I was thinking of not going to vote. Now, if we can get that sort of mentality, the thing of “Oh dear, I can’t find my ID card,”—provided you had got one—would be a pretty lame excuse.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and say that I do not intend to rerun the arguments for voter identification. That argument has been won and it is now in legislation. But I will take a little time to further detail some of the points raised by noble Lords on the actual implementation, which is the important thing this evening.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for saying what it is like on the ground. These two noble Lords have lived with this over the last 20 years. They have seen it introduced. They have seen how it works for local authority and general elections and I thank them for that. I think the rest of us who are not living in Northern Ireland can never have that knowledge of how it works and how we can make it work in this country.
There was quite a lot of talk from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and others on support for local authorities to deliver this. Of course, we are aware of the pressures faced by local authorities—and the concerns that the Local Government Association brought up, I think, only yesterday—and their ability to deliver these changes. But we have been working very closely with them and, as I think my noble friend Lord Hayward said, this is not the beginning of it; this has been going on for a good seven months with the legislation there and they knew that this was coming along the line. We have been working with the sector. We have been planning the implementation of this policy and not only that we have been giving additional funds to local authorities so that they can carry out the new duties. The Government remain confident in their ability to successfully deliver these changes.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Fox, and many others, said that the Electoral Commission’s budget would be inadequate for communications. The Electoral Commission’s budget for the January communications campaign is over £5 million, which will be supplemented by £4.75 million in funding for local communications—for local authorities to communicate in their own areas.
If this legislation goes through, the Electoral Commission will start its campaign in the middle of January. It will be national and across all types of national media, but local authorities will also have the money to do local campaigns. Along with national government, they do local campaigns very well to get voters to register for voting. This will be added to those campaigns, and I have every confidence that with the money they have, local government and the Electoral Commission will be able to deliver that.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde is absolutely right. As I said, these arguments have all been had, but, as it came up again, I will repeat the point about the manifesto commitment. Voter identification was in the manifesto, and photo identification became a government discussion because it was found in our pilots to be the only approach that increased voter trust and confidence, which are key aims for this policy. We talked about it a lot during the discussions on the Bill, and I reiterate it now in case noble Lords think that we got it wrong again. We know what we said, and we know why we put in photo ID.
Lord Rennard (LD)
If it was clear what was in the Conservative manifesto and that voter identification meant photo identification, why did the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who conducted a review of election law on behalf of the Conservative Government, conclude that photo ID was unnecessary and that voter ID in different forms, such as council tax bills or utility bills, would be acceptable? He said there was no need for the photo ID.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think my noble friend is in his place, but when I next see him, I will ask him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned people in poverty finding it more difficult. I remember that discussion and I know that my noble friend Lord True wrote to her. I am afraid I do not know what the outcome was so, again, with apologies, I will write to her about that because I know that it was an important issue for her then.
Digital exclusion is a different thing. Noble Lords would be surprised how many people—even those we consider to be in poverty—have phones. You can go to many libraries in this country and get access online. We also know that it can be done over the phone and by going to your local council. Wherever you can get registered to vote, you can also get your identity. If people are managing to get registered to vote, they can get identity as well. However, I will come back to the noble Baroness on who we are consulting as we go forward.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
If registration is so important—I agree that it is—why did the Government not start this process when they started the campaigns for registration in September, rather than starting it in January?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
If the noble Lord remembers, we had the death of Her Majesty, and that put things back slightly, but we are doing it now, and people register continually, so that issue is not terribly important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also brought up the deadline for applying for the certificate. She is right that it has gone to six days before the poll; I remember that we talked about it being the day before. We have been working with stakeholders in the electoral sector. We are mindful of the impact on administrators during a busy period and, on balance, have decided that six days strikes an appropriate balance between accessibility and certainty for not only the elector but the electoral officers.
One noble Lord said that a national insurance number was required, but actually individuals do not need a national insurance number to vote. They will be able to apply using other documents or attestations where they can provide an explanation for why they do not have a national insurance number. Some people have lost it or cannot find it, so there are other ways of doing that to make sure that they can get those documents.
There was quite a lot of talk about putting it back to the next election. After May 2023, there is a possibility that the next election will be a general election. In May 2023, only about two-thirds of authorities will hold polls. That means there will be more opportunity for authorities to learn from and support each other if necessary. If we have a local authority that is not holding an election next to a local authority that is, if it needs extra help in this first period, that is a possibility. The system is not at full stretch, as it always is during a general election. This is not about testing or devaluing local politics. It is a sensible way to run any new process in a system, rather than running it when we are at full capacity.
My noble friend Lady Verma got involved in the Bill; I thank her very much for her support. Again, she is somebody who talks to people on the ground, as we all do, and who has an understanding of how people in all communities feel about the importance of a fair voting system that they can trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised overseas voters. I will take that back to the department, but if he does not mind, I do not intend to talk about that today. My noble friend Lord Cormack raised identity cards, but I will not get into that debate today either.
Publicity is absolutely critical. I do not think I have talked about this, but once the legislation goes through, we will start this in mid-January, so there will be four to five months of clear publicity. That is important.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hayward. He and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, are the ones in the House who talk and know the most about elections and associated matters. He is absolutely right about students. They will be home for Easter and, by then, they will have seen the campaign over two to three months. They will get their driving licence or passport, or will go to get the identity documents required. As he said, the launch in January is the launch of the big national campaign, but this has been going on for a long time.
I will look at Hansard, but I think I have answered most of the issues that were raised. I return to the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I have already made it clear that we disagree with its substance. We are confident of electoral administrators’ ability to deliver this important policy for the May 2023 elections. We have been working hard alongside them to refine and develop these processes and are at present conducting extensive testing of the digital systems that will support them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone for the very constructive debate we have had. I start by reminding noble Lords of my opening remarks: the fatal amendment to the Motion in my name is not about subverting or undermining photo ID; that decision, rightly or wrongly, has been made. The argument I am putting to the House today is about the implementation of those regulations.
There are 240 pages of regulations in this statutory instrument. They must have plenty of time to be introduced and understood so that, when it comes to elections, they can be done fairly. This is not just about communications to electors. It is about the training of the staff: how do you determine whether the likeness of a photo is acceptable? Those are decisions that polling staff will have to make, and they need to be trained properly so that there is consistency across the country. There is a lot more to it than communications.
I remind the House that those who do the practical delivery of elections are very anxious and concerned, and some of them are opposed to the implementation of these regulations for the May elections. The Electoral Commission has grave concerns: it wants six months and will get under four. The Association of Electoral Administrators—the returning officers and elections officers—is very anxious that it will not have time to properly prepare for delivery in May. From local councils, as we have heard, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association gave a very strongly worded statement, unusually so, expressing grave concerns about the delivery of this measure fairly and equitably across the piece.
Other options were open to the Government for the introduction of photo ID. They could have chosen to introduce it in a by-election to test it out and see whether it works, or asked local authorities to be pilots, instead of trying to introduce it across a whole set of elections.
The example and argument that we have had from Northern Ireland is instructive. However, we perhaps ought to remind ourselves that the years following the initial introduction showed a fall in the number of voters. This was because they lacked the appropriate identification documents. It took a number of years before that number rose back to the same level. That underlines the argument that I am making.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke about having a close election review. That is already in the regulations. My concern is about the election itself. Yes, I am totally in favour of reviews and learning from experience, but I and many Members across the House are concerned that no elector should be turned away and denied the ability to vote—that is their birth- right —because of the implementation of these regulations in a rushed manner. That is the point.
Unfortunately, I have not heard anything from the Minister today to assure me that every voter will be able to vote in a fair way in the May elections. I will therefore test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “but that this House (1) regrets that the draft Regulations will be implemented for the Local Elections in May 2023 despite insufficient public awareness, guidance and time for preparation, which risks electors being wrongly refused their right to vote, (2) calls on His Majesty’s Government to take an evidence-based approach to the implementation of voter identification, noting concerns raised by the Electoral Commission, Association of Electoral Administrators and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and (3) resolves that a select committee should be appointed to conduct a post implementation assessment of the impact of the Regulations on turnout in the Local Elections in May 2023.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, following the Minister’s clarifications to the questions that I asked, her constructive approach to a review and the concessions given, I do not propose to move my amendment. However, I will be keeping a close eye.
NHS Industrial Action: Government Preparations
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Royal College of Nursing and UNISON have said that they are prepared to call off strikes if the Government will negotiate with them seriously regarding pay. So the key question to the Minister is whether his Government will confirm whether they are prepared to do this in order to avoid disruption to patients in the NHS. As today’s devastating King’s Fund report on the state of the NHS, which was commissioned by the Government, so clearly shows, these strikes are not just about pay. Can the Minister give his view on the wider factors that have led to the strikes and give some commentary as to why the Government have not taken preventive action?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. On the other actions, so to speak, we have already met a couple of times with the union and are very happy to meet to talk about other things we can do on terms and conditions. As regards the main element around pay, we are following the results of the independent pay review body, which, as the House will be aware, has been in existence since 1984. Parties from each side have taken its expert advice and followed it, and that is what the Government have done in this situation.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, patients will naturally feel very anxious whenever there is disruption to services that they need, but this anxiety can be mitigated by effective communication. Many of us will have had experiences of great communication by the NHS, such as during the Covid-19 vaccination programme, but also of frustrations, where letters are lost or delayed or we are playing telephone tag with hospital administrative staff. What steps will the Government be taking to ensure that patients receive clear, timely and relevant information during the forth- coming industrial actions?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. Clearly, we want to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible, and appointments will go on as normal where possible. The general advice is that, if you have not been communicated with, you should turn up to your appointment as normal. As ever, there is a bit of fluidity in the situation, because, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, a nurse does not have to give notice of whether they are going to be attending work that day, so there needs to be some fluidity. But the expectation is that, if you have not heard from us already, you should turn up to your appointment and, in all likelihood, you will receive your planned treatment .
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, if the military personnel are going to drive ambulances, for which they are paid less than the ambulance drivers and paramedics, will my noble friend ensure that all military personnel get paid a bonus for the work they do?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I will take the opportunity to thank the Armed Forces and anyone else who will be helping at this difficult time. I appreciate that that might cut into some of their plans for Christmas and I appreciate what they are doing in the circumstances. I cannot speak beyond that in terms of any financial support that they might be given, but they will definitely have our undoubted thanks.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that many working families are much worse off because of inflation? The image given by the Government is that they have no coherent strategy. We seem to be in a sort of playground situation of shouting at each other, whereas what we need is understanding from the Government as to how they are going to tackle the inevitable fall in the standard of living caused by the excesses that happened during Covid. Will the Government try to get their act together, because the sympathy of the general public is not with the Government? It is not against the strikers. At best it is neutral and at worst it is moving the other way as we get nearer to Christmas.
Lord Markham (Con)
We appreciate of course that these are difficult times. Unprecedented circumstances have caused the current inflationary environment, which we appreciate provides challenges to many people. We are trying our best to help them navigate through that. Obviously, the energy support package was a good example of where we are trying to make sure that probably the biggest component of inflation—the increased energy bills—is covered. We will seek to act and do what we can in all circumstances to help people through the crisis.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, even prior to the strikes, agency nurses were being brought in to ensure that shifts were safely staffed. I should be grateful if the Minister would set out what assessment the Government have made of the cost to the NHS of employing agency staff, compared with that of a pay rise that would work towards an arguably better and more stable workforce?
Lord Markham (Con)
I do not have those figures to hand, but I believe there is a Question on this subject tomorrow, when we will be talking very much about the use of agency staff and bank staff. From memory—the right reverend Prelate will get the exact figures when I have done a bit more swotting up overnight—I think the cost of agency and bank staff work this year is around £3 billion. Clearly, the workforce strategy will be all about making sure we can recruit staff to minimise that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend referred to the NHS Pay Review Body. As Secretary of State, I thought it was rather important that I did not determine the pay of nurses, for example; the pay review body made recommendations and I adhered to them. Will the Government continue to explain that they are not refusing to negotiate on pay with the trade unions but adhering to a long-established principle? The trade unions appear to be seeking somehow to overturn last April’s pay award, when they should be providing evidence to the pay review body on what the pay award should be next April, with the remit letter already published.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is quite right. As mentioned before, this body was set up in 1984 and extended to other areas of the health service in 2007. Since then, Governments of all colours have followed its recommendations because, after all, it is the expert in this field. We have honoured that in full because it is right that the experts determine it. Working towards making sure that the next settlement in April—which, let us face it, is only three or four months away—covers the latest situation would be a good way ahead.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is not the total silence of all members of the pay review body since it delivered its report to the Government remarkable? Has anyone asked them, bearing in mind that they delivered their report when inflation was about 3% or 4%, whether they believe the figures in their report are still relevant today? Forget last April or next April—we are talking about today. The pay review body has been loaded up with a responsibility by the Government which in a way is not solely its responsibility. The Government do not have to accept its recommendations, as the Scottish Government have not. Has anybody asked it whether, in the present circumstances and with inflation so high, it still stands by the report it delivered in the middle of last year?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding, based on the long time that this has been in place, is that this is an annual review. April is now quite close; for that April review, it can take into account all the factors, including what happened to inflation during the year. I expect it will take all that into account, quite rightly, in what it comes up with for that next pay review. It is a long-established principle that it is there to do this. I trust it to get the right answer in time for April.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will my noble friend be very careful to stick by the case being put forward? We know that those arguing it want to hide behind some discussion of the mechanisms in order not to say what they really think about the pay rises. The Government have a responsibility to stick by the system. If we lose that, it will be the Minister who makes decisions always, which is what we have tried to avoid since the 1980s.
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree. Clearly, there are difficult choices; if we changed the position, we would have to take money away from other parts of the system, such as the elective care fund and other front-line services, which we clearly do not want to do. It is absolutely right that we let the experts guide us in this, as all Governments have done for more than 30 years.
Public Order Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (9 Dec 2022)
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, we told the Government Whips that I was going to intervene at this stage.
I wish to put on record the apology I gave in person and in writing to the Minister for suggesting at col. 1345 on 22 November that what he had said about the stop and search powers in the Bill not being exercisable unless an officer is in uniform was not true. I have read the Official Report, and it appears I became somewhat confused—probably after three hours on buffer zones.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, expressed concerns about the new offence of obstructing a police officer in the exercise of the new stop and search powers in the Bill, with reference to the Sarah Everard murder and police advice to challenge any officer who detained a lone woman, and whether such advice would amount to an offence under the Bill. In answer, the Minister said the power extends only to police officers in uniform, which I mistakenly took to mean both suspicion-led and suspicionless stop and search powers in the Bill. At that point the Minister was talking about the stop and search power without suspicion, which is restricted to uniformed officers only.
Although I was correct in my assertion that the suspicion-led power could be carried out by officers in plain clothes, the new offence of obstructing an officer applies only when the officer is exercising the proposed new suspicionless power to stop and search, for which he has to be in uniform. Nevertheless, my understanding is that Sarah Everard’s murderer was in police uniform when he detained her, so the concerns that other noble Lords had about a lone woman resisting an officer exercising the new power to stop and search without suspicion, following police advice in the wake of Sarah Everard, remains.
However, I undertook to apologise to the Committee if I had misled noble Lords by suggesting that what the Minister said about officers having to be in uniform to exercise stop and search powers under the Bill was not true. When, in relation to the power the Minister was speaking about at that moment, he said:
“This power only extends to those in uniform”,—[Official Report, 22/11/22; col. 1342.]
it was true. I therefore apologise for unintentionally misleading the Committee.
Amendment 117
Baroness Boycott
“Protection for journalists and others monitoring protestsA constable may not exercise any police power for the principal purpose of preventing a person from observing, recording, or otherwise reporting on the exercise of police powers in relation to—(a) a protest-related offence,(b) a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(c) activities related to a protest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would protect journalists, legal observers, academics, and bystanders who monitor or record the police’s use of powers related to protests.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I am delighted to move Amendment 117 and very grateful to be standing alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I will also speak to the revised Amendment 127A in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I thank the lawyers at Justice for their technical help with this speech, particularly Tyrone Steele.
These amendments seek to grant fuller protections to all those covering protests and reporting on the exercise of police powers in that context. I am completely confident that all noble Lords recognise the vital importance of journalists, legal observers and indeed the general public in being able to observe, report on and scrutinise what happens at protests and the actions of not only the protesters but, possibly, the police.
As many noble Lords will know, I have deep and vested interests in these amendments. I became a journalist more or less by accident at the age of 19. My first piece was on the left-handed shop in Beak Street for Time Out and was all of 189 words long. It was hardly earth shattering, but it did tell left-handed people where to buy a pair of scissors.
Trying to report stories and find out things that many people do not want known has been the whole obsession of my life. My second and third jobs were on an alternative newspaper and then on Spare Rib. Indeed, my second-ever piece was a report on an anti-Vietnam demonstration in the capital. I can confess quite freely that I was totally terrified to be in the middle of that demonstration, but I was not displeased to be part of it and I was very pleased to be able to go back and write about it. On Spare Rib we both marched and wrote about marching. We protested for equal pay, rights to abortion and rights to childcare, but we reported it; we were allowed to be there and to write about it.
In my long journalistic career, I have edited many magazines and written for more. I have edited three national newspapers and, again, written for many more. I have publicised protests, including many that I vehemently do not agree with, because they are not only important events; they are about people doing something that matters a great deal to them and worth taking to the streets for—or even trying to climb Nelson’s Column. People are on the streets because they do not know what else to do to make their voice heard and they have exhausted such routes as writing letters to MPs, Members of the House of Lords or, indeed, newspapers such as mine.
I have also sent reporters to countries where repressive regimes lock up journalists who are covering protests—think of the Arab spring, Myanmar and Hong Kong. As my friend and mentor, the late war reporter Martha Gellhorn, said, journalism is about bearing witness. We go to bring back the news, whether it is happening on the streets of Cairo or on the M25, to tell all of us, through words, images and sounds, what we have seen, what people are doing and what they care about. Journalists risk life and limb to do so. But, over my half-century in this profession, I have always believed that, at least in this country, we were able to go to a demonstration and then go back to our office and write about it. I also knew that, if a protest got too out of hand, plenty of laws were in place to deal with this—but never was a journalist told that they could not report on a story.
The arrest of Charlotte Lynch, the woman from LBC held for five hours for reporting on a Just Stop Oil protest —more about her later—has been referred to many times in this debate, but her story is extremely important. For me, it was as though one of the pillars of our democratic society had been kicked out from under my feet. She was held in a cell for five hours for reporting on a protest. It was peaceful, however bloody annoying people might find Just Stop Oil. Quite frankly, if a protest does not annoy someone, what is the point of it?
Sadly, I was wrong: this was not the first, and there had been previous attempts to curtail the reporting of protests. At 3.40 am on 30 November 1983, during strikes at the Messenger printers in Warrington, the police demanded that the television crews covering the dispute turned off the lights. After they complied, the police proceeded to charge at the picketers under the cover of darkness. In the words of Colin Bourne, the NUJ’s northern organiser,
“police were running up to them and kicking them and hitting them with their batons”.
It was reported that two police Range Rovers drove into the pickets. Today, with the vast majority of the public possessing smartphones equipped with high-quality cameras, it is thankfully much harder for abuse like that to go uncovered.
Last year, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport held a call for evidence on journalists’ safety, and there were masses of respondents. One said that the police themselves contributed to threats or abuse towards journalists, which included physically restricting access to spaces and arresting journalists. As I said, many noble Lords have referred to Charlotte Lynch, who was arrested while reporting on Just Stop Oil. But, that very same day, two others, Rich Felgate and Tom Bowles, were also detained. Again, they peacefully asserted their status as journalists—they had press cards—but they were held for 13 hours.
Back in August, another journalist, Peter Macdiarmid, was also arrested and taken in a police van to Redhill police station. He has notably covered several historic, monumental events, such as the Arab spring, refugees fleeing Iraq during the first Gulf War, Black Lives Matter and the London riots. The award-winning reporter told the Evening Standard:
“It’s the first time I’ve been in cuffs in the 35 years I have covered protests.”
Something is fundamentally wrong with our justice system if police feel so empowered, under the vast array of existing legislation, to arrest and detain journalists first and ask the questions—or worse—later, ignoring the fact that they are from the press. Last week, the Minister said that the issue lies with the training of the police. I am afraid that that is an inadequate solution for the current situation, and it is no remedy for what the Government propose, in terms of expanding the powers in the Bill.
The Bill contains a vast array of measures that could severely and detrimentally impact journalists just doing their jobs. The offence of being “equipped for locking on” is so broad in its ingredients that an individual would only have to be carrying an object with the intention that it may be used. Taking a photo of someone who is locking on could inadvertently fall foul of this because the camera could feasibly constitute such an object.
Journalists are no safer with respect to offences covering the obstruction of “key national infrastructure” and “transport works” or
“causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel”.
On the latter, the BBC has reported from the tunnelling sites and even filmed the equipment and protesters inside the tunnels dug to disrupt the construction of HS2. The offence is engaged if you are “reckless” as to whether your presence will have the consequence of causing serious disruption.
Moreover, there is no explicit exemption for journalists. The only protection is the reasonable excuse. But as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said in Committee, since a defence is available only after arrest, journalists
“are still faced with the possibility of being arrested and detained for five hours by the police … It seems an onerous experience for a completely innocent person to go through”—[Official Report, 16/11/22; col. 948.]
The proposed, highly expansive stop and search powers would also offer journalists no relief from obstruction in performing their work. An officer who reasonably believes that an individual is carrying a prohibited object can conduct a suspicionless search. What worries me is the number of things—cameras, clipboards, microphones —that could conceivably constitute a prohibited object for use in connection with a protest. This would stifle the legitimate work of journalists and observers who monitor police powers.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
The Committee will imagine the daunting privilege of attempting to follow that speech from one of the most senior journalists—and indeed one of the greatest environmentalists—in the Committee and your Lordships’ House. I want to speak briefly to explain why we have Amendments 117 and 127A. The reason is my poor draftsmanship when we conceived Amendment 117, for which I apologise. Amendment 127A is an improvement on Amendment 117 because of a defect that was pointed out to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Amendment 117 had protected journalists who were covering the policing of protests only, and, of course, we need to protect journalists who are covering protests as well as the policing thereof.
I would also like to take this opportunity to reassure the Minister that, notwithstanding my fundamental concerns about the Bill as a whole, and significant provisions within it, this journalistic protection in Amendment 127A—I am grateful to the other co-signatories and supporters across the House for understanding this too—notwithstanding our fundamental objections to various provisions that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred to, would not in any way wreck those provisions, objectionable though they may be for my part. All Amendment 127A would do is protect journalists where any police power, not just the police powers in this Bill but police powers more generally, are being used for the principal purpose of preventing their reporting.
I know that it is very hard in Committee to persuade a Minister to think again, but this is not a request to think again about the Bill in sum or in part; this is requesting a protection for journalists that is required in relation to even the police powers that currently stand. In the case of Charlotte Lynch, and other cases to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred, journalists were arrested and detained under public order powers as they currently stand—not even the broader, blank-cheque powers to come.
So I hope that, in this Committee, those in the Box, and noble Lords and Ministers, will take pause for thought and think about whether we need a protection against current public order powers, and any to come, to ensure that the police are not using them to arrest journalists because they think that the reporting of protests per se gives the oxygen of publicity to protest and so on. Day after day, at Question Time in particular, Foreign Office Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and—rightly and sincerely, in my view—criticise attacks on journalistic freedom across the globe. I think something like Amendment 127A would be a very important statement, putting that sincerity of Foreign Office Ministers into law in the home department.
So, I hope that noble Lords, Ministers, and Members of the whole Committee will really reflect on the noble Baroness’s speech.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. I want to ask the Government to listen very carefully to this discussion. We have a very real issue when really serious matters, which threaten all of us, do not appear to some of us to be properly addressed. That is a very serious matter for any democracy, and those of us who are democrats do have to stand up for the rule of law and do have to say that extreme actions cannot be accepted.
But it has a second effect too, and that is that we have to be extremely careful about the way in which we deal with those extreme actions. I do beg the Government to take very seriously the fact that these extreme actions will continue, because people are more and more worried about the existential threat of climate change. The Climate Change Committee spends a great deal of its time trying to ensure that there is a democratic and sensible programme to reach an end that will protect us from the immediate effects of climate change, which we cannot change, and, in the longer term, begin to turn the tables on what we as human beings have caused.
It is not always easy to do that in the light of others who are desperate that we should move faster and that we should do more; who are desperate because they are seriously frightened and are not sure that those who are in charge have really got the urgency of the situation.
It is very difficult to imagine that we are not going to have to cope with the uprising of real anger on this subject. As a democrat, I want us to cope. As a parliamentarian, I want us to be able to deal with these issues and ensure that the public are not threatened. I echo the Deputy Chancellor of Germany, a Green Member of Parliament, who makes it absolutely clear that the kinds of actions we have seen in this country from Extinction Rebellion and similar things in Germany are not acceptable in a democracy.
The other side of that argument is that we have got to be extremely careful about the way in which we enforce the law and how we deal with this issue. Journalists play the key part in this. They must be there to report on what happens. It is in our interest as democrats that that happens. If they are not there and cannot say what needs to be said without fear or favour, none of us can stand up and deal with the arguments of those who argue that democracy does not work and that somehow they have to impose their will.
I want the Government to recognise the importance of this. In this country, a journalist must have access without fear or favour. The police must not treat them in a way that has happened again and again, and which must stop happening. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, it is not happening because of what is in this Bill, which in general I do not have an objection to; it is what happens in any case. The fact that the police could hold a journalist for five hours knowing that they were a journalist is utterly unacceptable. You cannot do that in a democracy—and nor can we talk to other countries about these things if that happens here and we do not do something to enshrine in law the fact that it should not.
Earlier, I had to deal with the question of not opening coal mines in order to be able to stand up in the world and show that we too will carry out what we ask other countries to do. This is another, even more serious, case of that. We cannot talk about repression if we in this country can be shown not to have protected journalists in these circumstances.
It is a terribly simple matter. We must put on the face of the Bill, referring to all actions, that journalists should be in the position that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, suggests. It may be that her amendments could be better done; it may be that the Government have a different way of doing it. The only thing that I ask, in order to protect democracy and ourselves—those of us who are moderates and believe in the rule of law—is that we need to have this assertion.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
What great speeches; I am almost embarrassed to follow them. I support Amendments 117 and 127A. I wish I had signed Amendment 127A. I speak as the mother of a journalist and as somebody who had misfortune to be on a panel with the PCC for Herts Police—the force that arrested the journalist and the cameraman. His name is David Lloyd. He was saying “Yes, yes, yes, I’m all in favour of free speech, but the media have to be careful that they are not inciting these protests”. I pointed out that that was free speech on his terms, which is not actually free speech.
These amendments are crucial. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that if the Government do not want to accept any of them, they could probably accept Amendment 127A without too much pain. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that you cannot do this in a democracy, but actually the police did do it. They thought that perhaps they could get away with it, and that has happened before. So we really have to send out a signal that this must not happen.
It is crucial for people to be able to observe protests and see that the police and protesters are behaving properly and not inciting violence. Legal observers from organisations such as Green and Black Cross document police actions against protesters and provide support during any legal proceedings that follow. That is an incredibly important role. We need statutory protections to prevent police from harassing and arresting journalists, legal observers and others. This is extremely important.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, if I had to choose between the two amendments, I would choose Amendment 127A. It is quite important to understand why it is the better version. It is because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, it not only covers the way the police exercise their powers, which is the main target of Amendment 117, but extends to people who are observing the protest itself. That is a very important and significant extension. The way the protest is proceeding is all part of the background against which the other part of the amendment has to be judged, so the broadening in Amendment 127A is rather important.
Another point worth noting is that neither of these amendments uses the word “journalist” in the main text. That is important too: protection is extended to allow other people, for whatever reason, to carry out the exercises referred to. To narrow this down to journalists, which neither amendment seeks to do, would be a mistake. It has to broadened out in the way that both do.
As I have said, however, my main reason for intervening was to explain why I would choose Amendment 127A if I had to choose between the two amendments.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer making a television series on Ukraine.
I was very moved by the speech of my noble friend Lady Boycott and the dedication to journalism that she has shown. I support both Amendment 117 and Amendment 127A. As a television journalist who has reported on protests across the country and the world, I have experienced protesters being suspicious of journalists for fear that their footage would be used by the police to identify and arrest people at a later date. As a result, I have been attacked by protesters and my cameramen have had their cameras grabbed and attempts made to take the tapes or cards.
In many of these cases, particularly in this country, the police have been there to protect us journalists and allow us to do our work reporting on demonstrations, so I am appalled and surprised to hear from my noble friend Lady Boycott that, in recent years, the police in this country have been arresting journalists for doing their job: filming protests. I thought that ECHR Article 10 on the right to freedom of speech would be incentive enough for the police to leave them alone, but clearly not.
This amendment therefore seems necessary to protect journalists going about their business, reporting on protests and the disruptions that they may cause. The problem is that the powers in Clause 2 on locking on seem to be so broadly drawn. It is one thing to arrest people for locking on, but to arrest someone for carrying an object
“with the intention that it may be used”
in connection with that offence seems to give the police power that cannot be right in a democracy. I fear that the words will give them leeway to stop a journalist who is carrying a camera to film the lock-on. Surely even the threat of this happening cannot be allowed. It will have a chilling effect on free speech.
I understand that the police want to be able to arrest protesters who are locking on and filming themselves while doing it, but the wording in this amendment, that
“A constable may not exercise any police power for the principal purpose of preventing … reporting”,
may be an important protection for camera people and journalists covering protests. It protects bona fide journalists.
Clause 11, allowing
“stop and search without suspicion”
in an area near a protest seems to stand against everything I thought Conservatives represented. I always thought it was a driving force behind Conservatism that they wanted to take the state off the backs of individuals. This clause does the opposite. When I talk to people about the possibility of their being stopped without suspicion just because they unwittingly wandered near to a protest, they are aghast. When this possibility is extended to journalists being stopped for going about their business, the threat against free speech posed by this Bill is compounded.
The Government are usually eager to protect journalists and journalism. I suggest to the Minister that, by accepting this amendment he will be striking an important blow for freedom of speech, which is so sorely missing in much of the Bill.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I had no intention of speaking on this amendment, but I feel I must, because my late husband, Philip Bassett, was an industrial journalist who covered many strikes, most significantly, I suppose, given what we are discussing, the miners’ strike, which the whole team of industrial journalists on the Financial Times covered. If this legislation stands the way the Government have drafted it, people like my late husband, and indeed the team with whom he worked, which included the very eminent journalist, John Lloyd, would have been open to prosecution. As it is, for their coverage of the miners’ strike they won journalist of the year.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, really was excellent, and I hope it gets a wide hearing beyond this place and the numbers here.
When I have discussed this, I always hear the argument from people who are opposed to Just Stop Oil that the people we are talking about are not real journalists. There is something about the concentration on Charlotte Lynch from LBC that somehow says that the other people who were arrested on the same day did not really count, and I want to address that briefly.
There is no doubt that, when the protests that we are seeing at the moment are so performative, activists may well film what is going on, often because they want records of what they are doing to put out on social media. It is tempting, therefore, to treat them differently from journalists. However, I would urge against that and have argued against that. In the end, who decides who is the journalist and who is not? As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, the whole act of bearing witness and truth has nothing to do with views on the protest. Whether you are enthusiastic about the protest or hostile about it is irrelevant to those of us who want to know what has happened on the protest. Sometimes, even activists with a film camera are valuable for truth. The argument that it will incite more protest is misguided, because it treats those who are viewing these films as though they are just automatons who will see them and immediately rush out and protest. You might well see the film intended to illicit your support and think what idiots they are. That is not the point. The truth is what we should be concerned with.
I just say to the Government that I am concerned in particular about the serious disruption prevention orders. I have said throughout the discussions on the Bill that there are so many unintended consequences. I have no doubt that the Government are not intending to use serious disruption prevention orders to stop journalism in its tracks. I think the orders are a terrible blight, by the way, and should be removed from the Bill, but that is not the point I am making. The consequences of them could well be that they thwart journalism. That is the point. I urge the Government to consider that they can support their own Bill and accept these amendments in good faith—I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, explained this well—because they are trying to ensure that what they do not intend to happen, which is that journalistic freedom is compromised, will not happen and that journalists will not get caught up in this. We know that they will. That is the reality. It is a danger and a threat that the Government should get rid of.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have been following this Bill carefully but have not been able to take an active part in it so far. It is difficult not to agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said about the importance of journalism, and I am sure the whole House agrees. I declare an interest as the chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Of course, a good and accurate record or recording of what takes place at a demonstration is important for all parties, whether they be demonstrators, the police or the public. What concerns me a bit about the amendment is what it actually does, apart from sending a very important message. That may be enough; I do not know. It seems to me that in fact it would not be lawful for a constable to arrest anybody anyway for observing, recording or reporting a protest, and nor would the exercise of police powers in relation to those matters or indeed any other matter, but I will listen carefully to what the Minister says.
I would also be grateful for some clarification of how this might interrelate to the reasonable excuse defence that exists in various parts of the Bill. I know that there is some uncertainty at the moment about its scope, where it features in terms of the definition of the offence and whether simply saying—understandably, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said—that this an incredibly serious cause, ie, climate change, and therefore justifies all the potential offences here. This is a fascinating and important amendment, and I seek clarification in due course from the Minister as to its scope.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we wholeheartedly support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and signed by me for the reason so effectively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
We have seen some very worrying developments. I remember that when I was serving, the police, following criticism, made strenuous efforts to work with journalists, in particular photographers, to ensure that their work was facilitated during protests. A colleague of mine who became chief constable of British Transport Police, Andy Trotter, made great strides in building a good rapport between journalists and the police. Recently, however, there is evidence of disregard for press cards—for example in a briefing from the National Union of Journalists on the arrests of journalists by Hertfordshire Police and other police forces. This seems to be going completely in the opposite direction to the progress made when I was serving.
As others have said, if journalists and photographers are afraid to do their jobs of being at protests and reporting on them, that is very dangerous for our democracy and the right to protest, having a chilling effect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, put it, on journalism in relation to protests.
As other noble Lords, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said, it points to the overly wide offences in the other parts of the Bill, for example,
“being present in a tunnel”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, journalists have reported from inside these tunnels and could be guilty of those offences. It points not only to the importance of these amendments in protecting journalists but to the overreach of the offences in other parts of the Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, Amendment 127A is an important extension of the original Amendment 117, extending the protections beyond journalists to legal observers, academics and even innocent members of the public watching what is happening and recording it on their smartphones.
However, other noble Lords have not mentioned that it is also damaging to the police. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, talked about a dispute where the police asked journalists to turn off their lights and, under cover of the darkness that ensued, engaged in violence towards the protesters. In the situation the police service now faces of ever-diminishing public trust and confidence in it, stories of the police arresting journalists at protests could easily be hijacked and used by anti-police activists further to undermine public trust and confidence in the police.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak to these important amendments in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The way they spoke to the amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was not only moving but challenging. I want to say something more generally, as other noble Lords have, about what happened to Charlotte Lynch.
Every now and again, something occurs in our society and our democracy which should act as a wake-up call. We all speak here and say that we are proud of our democracy and of our freedoms and traditions. Of course we are. I do not believe that we live in a totalitarian country, but even in a democracy things occur that are totally unacceptable. Such things require the state to act and respond, require Parliament to take action, and require a Minister of the Crown to look at what has happened, listen to what is being said and respond in the way that the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Paddick, mentioned.
The Minister’s brief will probably say that the amendments are not necessary, that we have ways of dealing with this and that it is an isolated incident that means that no action is required—we can condemn it and say it should not happen, then move on. It is too serious to do that. You cannot do that with certain things that occur. This is not a weakness; it is a strength when a democracy responds in this way. It is a strength when a democracy shines a light on things that have happened. This is not to blame an individual officer or circumstance; it is to say that, for whatever reason, something happened in our democracy—this was about a journalist—and the police operated unacceptably.
That is what the amendments seek to do. They ask the Government, “If these amendments are not the right way of solving the problem, what are you going to do, other than say warm words, to ensure that it will not happen again?” That is what Parliament wants to hear and what all of us here expect from the Government. We do not want a massive condemnation of the country’s police or a massive assertion that every time you go out on a protest, people are arrested. But Charlotte Lynch, as well as the other two that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, mentioned, Felgate and Bowles, were reporting on a protest and were arrested. That is astonishing. It is incredible, quite frankly, when you go through the actual events. Despite producing a card, they were arrested, handcuffed, taken away and detained for hours.
That cannot just be explained away. How on earth did it happen? Where was the senior officer? Where was the very senior officer? Where was even somebody saying, “Hang on a minute. What is actually going on?” That happened in our country in 2022. Let me repeat: nobody is saying to the Minister that we live in a totalitarian state, but you cannot have a situation like that occurring without the Government of our country responding in a way that is appropriate and reflects the seriousness of it. That is why the amendments have been put forward. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is right that Amendment 127A is better because it talks about observing as well and has a broader scope, or whether the Government’s lawyers could come forward with an amendment, but something needs to be done that addresses something that has really occurred.
We talk about other countries where this happens, and ask why they do not do something about it. Actually, we need to look in the mirror and reverse it on to ourselves and say, “Why don’t we do something about it?” I repeat, because it is so important, that the Government’s defence mechanism—and I have been in government and know what happens—will be: “It’s a very serious matter, but, of course, it’s not the normal state of affairs.”. That is absolutely not the point.
I was rereading the briefing we have had from the NUJ, from Amnesty and from other people. It is just words sometimes, because words and principles matter. Principles that underpin out democracy are important, particularly when it comes to the freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of journalists, broadcasters or whoever to go and do their business and report on demonstrations or protests. The Government’s own statement on 3 November said:
“Media freedom is an essential part of a healthy information ecosystem. The free flow of independently generated and evidence based information is the scaffolding for building democracy.”
That says it all.
Warm words matter, but so does policy and so does government reaction. It was a terrible situation that occurred with Charlotte Lynch. There are other examples where that has happened, and I cannot finish without responding to my noble friend Lady Symons. I played all sorts of roles during the miners’ strike. I was in Nottinghamshire as a local councillor representing and, by and large, working alongside miners who were on strike in a community where the vast majority were working. People know—and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will also know the situation in Nottinghamshire with his background—the important role that journalists and broadcasters of all sorts played, including by my noble friend’s late husband, in reporting that. That is the strength of democracy. It is a crucial series of amendments, and if the Government are not prepared to accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said, what are they going to do about it?
Before I forget—I just got carried away with my own rhetoric—I want to ask one simple but important question. The Hertfordshire police did an inquiry into what happened in respect of Charlotte Lynch. They published five recommendations on 23 November. Given the importance of this, they made all sorts of recommendations about training and guidance. They also said:
“Hertfordshire Constabulary should consider ensuring that all officers engaged with public order activity complete the NUJ package and identified learning is shared.”
That means shared with other forces across the country. That is really important. If something good can come out of what happened to Charlotte Lynch, surely it is an improvement in police practice. It is also about the Government themselves considering whether something needs to be said in this Public Order Bill that strengthens and underpins the right of journalists to go about their business. Sometimes it is action that is needed as well as warm words.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Before the Minister responds, I have to say that, while I do not often take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—normally we are on the same side—I am more concerned than he appears to be about what happened in Hertfordshire. That is because, when somebody is arrested and taken to a police station, a sergeant or a custody officer has to satisfy himself or herself that there are grounds to detain that individual. I cannot believe that the journalist did not say to the custody officer, “I’m a journalist”. Yet a sergeant or above—as a custody officer has to be—authorised the detention of that journalist. That does not sound like officers on the front line getting a bit overenthusiastic and not having the right training; that was a sergeant in a controlled environment who was not at the scene of the protest and who authorised the detention of somebody he or she knew to be a journalist. That sounds more like something systemic than something unusual.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will respond to the noble Lord. If I, in any way, gave the impression that I underestimated the significance or seriousness of what happened to Charlotte Lynch, that was certainly not my intention. I hope that most noble Lords can see the vehemence with which I support doing something about what happened to Charlotte Lynch and using that—if that is the right way of putting it—as a way of ensuring that the Government respond in a way that protects journalistic freedom across our country, whatever the circumstances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin responding to the debate, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his most gracious apology, which I am obviously very happy to accept. I also acknowledge that the debate in question was long, free-ranging and somewhat tortuous.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on Amendments 117 and 127A. I completely agree with much of the sentiment that has been expressed when speaking to the amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have added their names. As I made clear during the debate on the first day in Committee, I share the concerns about the recent arrest of journalists reporting on the Just Stop Oil protests on the M25. The Government are absolutely clear that the role of members of the press must be respected. It is vital that journalists can do their job freely and without restriction, so I agree completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Deben, that it is a vital part of our democracy that journalists must be able to report without fear or favour.
On the specific case of the arrest and detention of the journalists at Just Stop Oil’s M25 protest, I was pleased to see the independent review into the arrest and detention of the journalists that concluded on 23 November. The statement issued by Hertfordshire Constabulary confirmed that the arrests were not justified and that, going forward, changes in training and command would be made. It acknowledged that it was the wake-up call to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred. The review has proposed a series of recommendations which Hertfordshire Police has confirmed it is acting on. They include:
“A further review to ensure that any Public Order Public Safety officers and commanders who have not yet carried out the College of Policing National Union of Journalists awareness training are identified and do so within 30 days; Directions to ensure that all commanders have immediate access to co-located mentors”,
to the policemen who are logging activity,
“and public order public safety tactical advisors throughout operations”
and:
“An immediate operational assessment of the number and experience of the Constabulary’s cadre of Public Order Public Safety commanders.”
I hope that the noble Baroness was somewhat reassured by that statement and the confirmation from the constabulary that it clearly got it wrong in that case, as well as the mitigations in place to ensure that it does not happen again.
In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Coaker, the police make mistakes. We agree that it was wrong, but we do not legislate for instances where it was clearly a false arrest and, therefore, unlawful.
More widely, I seek to assure noble Lords that the police cannot exercise their powers in any circumstance unless they have reasonable grounds to do so. It is highly unlikely that simply recording a protest creates sufficient grounds for the use of powers. The College of Policing’s initial learning curriculum includes a package of content on dealing effectively with the media in a policing context. In addition, the authorised professional practice for public order contains asection on the interaction of the police with members of the media, including the recognition of press identification.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Boycott, referenced SDPOs, to which we will return later. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, specifically asked whether attending two or more events might give cause to one. The answer is no, because they would not be causing or contributing to serious disruption. However, as I said, that is a debate to which we will return.
Therefore, I support the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary and respectfully ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, and with my real thanks for the sentiment that he expressed, does he concede that public order powers in general are cast in broad terms? Charlotte Lynch was arrested for the offence of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance—a fairly broad concept—and a number of broad police powers and offences in the Bill are triggered by an undefined concept of serious disruption.
Does the Minister also concede that senior voices in policing have said that journalists who give the oxygen of publicity to protests are part of the problem? By giving publicity, they are feeding the fuel of serious disruption. I know that the Minister disagrees with that proposition but, given that there has been so much performative legislation, and that there is apparently disagreement in the policing world about what is and is not feeding a serious disruption, why would the Government not take this modest step to ensure that no one should be arrested for the primary purpose of preventing their reporting of protest?
As a point of clarification, the difference between Amendments 117 and 127A is not the class of people they cover; it is the class of activity that is being reported on. Amendment 127A is an improvement on my poorer drafting of Amendment 117 because it refers to reporting protests themselves and not just the policing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that I do not agree with the proposition she just outlined from senior police officers. Having said that, I have not read those particular comments and cannot comment on the specifics. I go back to what I was saying earlier: it is not lawful to detain journalists simply there monitoring protests; it is against the law. The police made mistakes in these cases. As I said earlier, we agree it was completely wrong.
Lord Deben (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, the fact is that what he says is true, but something has happened and therefore we have to react to it. For the Government to say that it is not necessary to do this does not mean that they need not to do it, if noble Lords see what I mean. It does not help for the Government to say that it is all okay because it was illegal. It happened and we know that it has happened on several occasions. It is also true that there appears to be among sections of the police a feeling that journalists make things worse rather than do their job. In those circumstances it is no skin off the Government’s nose just to say, “Right, we will put this in and that will make people feel happier and it will make us able to say to foreigners, ‘Look, we actually got this in the law. Not generally, but particularly, because it happened. Why don’t you do the same thing?’”
I do not understand this Government not taking easy steps that do not harm anybody. Just do it and do not constantly say, “Oh well, it’s all right.” It is not and we should do it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have to say to my noble friend: I hope I was not giving the impression that I was saying that it was all right, because it was not. I have acknowledged that it was wrong and the police made mistakes in this particular case. But, to go back to the point I made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we do not legislate for instances where it was clearly a false arrest and therefore unlawful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that neither in his remarks nor apparently from what he said was the response of Hertfordshire police, was there any reference to the unauthorised detention of the journalist at the police station? The first thing that would have happened at the police station is that the journalist would have been asked to turn out their pockets, including their press pass, and yet they were still detained for five hours. What do Hertfordshire police and the Government say about a sergeant not at the scene of the protest authorising the detention?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Obviously, I defer to the noble Lord’s expertise on matters custodial, but—I am flying solo a little bit here—I imagine that, whatever the erroneous reasons given for the arrest, the custodial sergeant or whoever was in that position felt that some investigation was required.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Does the noble Lord not realise how disappointing his response is in many ways? As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, just said, what happened in Hertfordshire was a real challenge to us to respond to something which seems to threaten journalistic freedom to report on protests. All of us are saying that, for the Government to turn round and say, “Don’t worry: it was a rare occurrence and it won’t happen again—no need to worry” with a shrug of the shoulders is just not the sort of response that one would hope to get from the Government. As I said, I do not believe we live in a totalitarian state, but every now and again a challenge emerges which threatens to undermine aspects of our democracy, and in this case it is journalistic and broadcasting freedom.
I think that we, certainly I, would expect the Government to reflect on what the movers of the amendment said and on some of the many moving speeches, including from my noble friend Lady Symons, and whether there is a need for the Government to act in order to protect one of the cherished freedoms that we have. I think that is what people in this Chamber—if I read again what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said; the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made the point through her amendment; and I have tried to do it through the words that I have said—are expecting from the Minister, rather than simply, “Well, it was just one of those things that happened and it won’t happen again.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Very briefly, what concerns me about this—well, lots of things concern me—is that the police, including the custody sergeant, should have known it was an illegal arrest, but they must have thought they could get away with it. That really irks me. It is the thought that the police were so high-handed, and that is why it has to be explicit so that they cannot in any sense claim ignorance of the law.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am getting a strong sense of how disappointing I am being, but it is also very fair to say that I have been completely unequivocal in sharing completely his concerns about the protection of our democracy and institutions. As I said earlier, it is a vital part of democracy, and I would expect and also demand, that protests are reported on fairly and freely. Of course I am sorry that the noble Baroness is irked, but I cannot second-guess what the police were thinking and I will not stray into that territory.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to all the wonderful speeches, and I thank many noble Lords for speaking tonight in support of the amendment that the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I put forward.
What I want to say very much reflects what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was saying. I would call this the Government’s “bad apple” defence, which at the moment gets deployed all over the shop, whether we are talking about a single police officer who accosts a young woman at night with bad consequences or about a single police station in Hertfordshire. This is not about a bad apple; as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, this is about a systemic situation, and as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, this has happened and it is now happening a lot more.
I suspect, although I am quite happy for your Lordships to disagree with me, that this is a lot to do with the climate and the feeling of people in a desperate situation who do not know what else to do. They end up gluing themselves to the road and they are seen as something extreme. That does not matter: it is still a protest, however annoying and nuisance making it is, and we can all debate that—but it is another debate. This is about the right to protest and the right of journalists to go to that protest and report on it. Journalists report on what human beings do. They report on people, what motivates them and what they care about, and what people are prepared to glue themselves to a road for or to padlock themselves to, or to climb Nelson’s column or whatever it happens to be.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made the point about monitoring things across the world. We send journalists to monitor whether African countries are having free elections. How can we stand here and say that that is a good idea if, at the same time, someone reporting on a climate protest is chucked in jail? She was in a cell with a tin bucket as a lavatory for five hours. We are not talking about a quick slap on the wrist and “I’ll write you a letter later and send you a 30 quid fine”. This was a serious thing and it happened. We are therefore obliged to do something about it.
I come back to the “bad apple” defence. It is used by this Government over and over. They cannot use it in this instance and hope to hold their heads up high, or for people in this House to let them get away with it—we will not. I, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others will bring this back on Report. We will work on the amendment, but it will fundamentally be the same. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who supported it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Repeal of section 73 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 omit section 73 (imposing conditions on public processions).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove the noise “trigger” that empowers senior police officers to impose conditions on public processions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was very excited when I saw this grouping: I thought that I had got my own group to myself. However, I am afraid that others have butted in. I am very grateful for that, obviously.
The noble and learned Lord accused me of trying to waste a lot of time on this—he is not listening—but I promise I will not. My aim here is to highlight the fact that, when we pass all these things in a Bill, is it sometimes very easy to miss their cumulative effect. For me, there is a slippery slope of anti-protest laws under this Government. It will not play very well with the public, or with them when they are out of government.
Each Bill that we pass diminishes our rights, little by little. We tend to see each of these measures in isolation because that is how we deal with them, so it is easy to lose track of the cumulative effect of the Government’s anti-protest agenda. I really hope that the opposition Front Benches can join me in committing to repeal these anti-protest laws when we finally get this Government out of power. I have merely highlighted the parts of the Bill that are the most egregious from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and I am pointing out that they should not have been in there and we really ought to have struck them out.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is difficult to argue with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb: if the Government, as they have, bring back those parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that they want to reinstate, why can she not ask this House to remove those parts of Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that she does not want retained? The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has adopted a less provocative approach in his probing amendment, Amendment 127, to establish how often the new noise trigger powers have been used by the police in relation to protests outside buildings—with or without double glazing.
We on these Benches vehemently oppose the provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act that the noble Baroness wishes to repeal, although we subsequently and reluctantly accepted the usefulness of Section 80. But that was then, and this is now. I believe that the Committee should perhaps operate on the basis of appeals in criminal trials and ask this: what new evidence is there to persuade Parliament that we should now reverse the decisions that it made a year ago?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Before I forget, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for signing Amendment 127, which deals specifically with noise. I have a lot of sympathy with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said about many of the powers, but I will concentrate specifically on noise, so may disappoint her.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
I thank noble Lords. The public order measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 have only just come into force, so, in the Government’s view, it is far too early to consider whether they should be repealed. These measures were debated at length during the passage of the Act, and the police have barely had the opportunity to make use of these new powers to manage public processions, assemblies, single-person protests and protests in the area outside Parliament. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to respect the democratic process and allow these measures to continue to be part of the statute book. It is no doubt clear that, as we have seen, the public continue to be able to protest as before since the commencement of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
I will not dwell long on the amendment lowering the maximum penalties for wilful obstruction of the highway. This House was clear in its position that the increase in sentences was appropriate, and I doubt that that position has changed in the last six months.
Amendment 123 would repeal the statutory offence of public nuisance and reinstate the common-law offence. In doing so, it would allow courts to place custodial sentences beyond the current 10-year maximum in the statutory offence. This would also have the effect of removing the reasonable excuse defence. I worry that this amendment undermines the benefits of the statutory offence, as recommended by the Law Commission.
I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on double glazing—I want to say, “for complete transparency”, but perhaps I should not. Parliamentarians asked for practical examples of when the power would and would not be used. This example is in the guidance to illustrate that the threshold is subjective, depending on its impact on people or organisations, which is why there is no decibel threshold.
When debating the measure covered by Amendment 123 during the passage of the PCSC Act, Parliament spoke at length about the meaning of “annoyance”. The Law Commission’s written evidence to the Public Bill Committee on this said:
“Annoyance in the context of nuisance is a legal term of art that does not connote merely feeling annoyed. It requires ‘a real interference with the comfort … of living according to the standards of the average man’”.
In common law, “annoyance” and “inconvenience” were already within the consequence element of the common-law offence.
Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, probes the use of the powers to prevent noise from public processions, and presumably assemblies and single-person protests, from causing harm. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the Government are legally required to table a report on the operation of these new powers to manage public processions, assemblies and single-person protests by 28 June 2024. In the meantime, I can inform him that I am not aware of the new powers relating to noise being used—but I remind the House that the use of conditions on protests and other gatherings is relatively infrequent. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about instances of the noise provision being used. As I say, there is no record of the police using this power.
For the reasons I set out, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Did the advice’s definition of “discomfort” really use the word “man”, so it does not apply to women? Is that real?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I was quoting from the Law Commission’s written evidence, which referred to the
“standards of the average man”.
In that context, as in many legal documents, the word “man” implies “mankind”.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I suggest that legal sources need to brush up on equality these days—that is ridiculous.
With my amendments, I was trying to give the Government the opportunity to see that the legislation they have brought in is extremely unpleasant and repressive. I wish I had done a little more homework, like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and highlighted some of the ridiculous things in the Act. He highlighted a real deficit in the Government’s reading of legislation and their concentration on these things, which let such things through. There was a lot of laughter in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, presented that part of the Bill, as it was. I argue that the drafting of some of these Bills is absolutely appalling, and that highlights it. I will of course withdraw my amendment, but this Government are awful.
Lord Coaker
“Consolidated public order guidance(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the College of Policing must, with the approval of the Secretary of State, publish consolidated guidance on public order policing. (2) Guidance under this section must consolidate into a single source—(a) the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for public order, and(b) the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing’s operational advice for public order policing.(3) The Secretary of State must require the College of Policing to annually review its guidance under this section.(4) The College of Policing may from time to time revise the whole or part of its guidance under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any guidance on public order policing issued by the College of Policing, and any revision of such guidance.(5) Guidance under this section must include—(a) legal guidance on existing public order legislation and relevant human rights legislation;(b) operational guidance on best practice in public order policing, including how best practice should be shared between police forces;(c) specific operational guidance in addressing techniques for locking on;(d) minimum national training standards for both specialist and non-specialist officers deployed to police protest-related activity;(e) guidance on journalistic freedoms and the right of journalists to cover protests without interference.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the need for public order policing guidance to be consolidated into one accessible source and regularly updated, as recommended by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. It would require guidance to include minimum training standards, clear information on relevant law, and operational guidance on best practice.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I emphasise my Amendment 126 in this group, which probes the need for public order policing guidance to be consolidated into one accessible source and regularly updated, as recommended by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. It would require guidance to include minimum training standards, clear information on relevant law and operational guidance on best practice.
Throughout the Bill we have argued that this legislation does not answer the actual issues. Rather than layer upon layer of new legislation, we need to use the powers the police already have. Police need clarity, excellent training and robust and up-to-date guidance on how to use the powers they have, what the rights of the British people are and what best practice is out there. Our officers need the support and resources to be confident in what their powers are and to use them effectively and proportionately, not be left to interpret broadly defined new powers every few months. As we have just been debating, we have seen stark examples of what happens when this goes wrong.
My Amendment 126 reflects issues raised by His Majesty’s inspectorate in Matt Parr’s report on public order policing, Getting the Balance Right?, published in March 2021. On guidance, the report found:
“The College of Policing’s ‘authorised professional practice’ … is out of date: it does not include recent relevant case law, or information on certain new and emerging tactical options. The College is planning a review.”
Has this review taken place?
The report welcomed work by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing to put together operational guidance for protest policing, but
“found problems with some of its legal explanations, particularly how it sets out the police’s obligations under human rights law.”
This document was being revised in light of the inspectorate’s concerns. Has that taken place?
Crucially, the inspectorate recommended that it would be beneficial to consolidate relevant guidance into one source, as my amendment seeks to do, with arrangements to keep the guidance current and regularly revised as is necessary. My amendment provides for that, as I said, but what action have the Government taken on this with the police?
Noble Lords have experienced how difficult it is to find a comprehensive summary of the existing powers that the police have to manage protests. We have asked the Government whether it would be possible to publish a comprehensive guide to all the powers available to the police so that we can see for ourselves whether there are any gaps.
On training, can the Minister provide information to us on what national training standards are in place for the police on their protest powers? One issue picked up in Matt Parr’s report and reflected in the amendment is the deployment of non-specialist officers to protest sites. The report found
“a wide gap between specialist … officers and non-specialists when it comes to understanding and using existing police powers. Non-specialist officers receive limited training in protest policing, and lack confidence as a result … In every force we inspected, interviewees told us that some of these non-specialist officers do not have a good enough understanding of protest legislation.”
What changes to training will be required as a result of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, or Acts that have preceded it? How many specialist officers are available for deployment and how often are non-specialist officers being deployed out of necessity, with the obvious potential consequences?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I say to the Minister that I will not be deviating into policy regarding the Bill. I am going to stick to the 17th and 19th reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I have served on this fascinating committee since January and I want to test how deeply the Government consider the reports from the committee.
Memory tells me that when I came into the House—it was around 20 years ago; I was Home Office Minister in 2001—being new to the House and the department, I was advised that, in the main though not exclusively, the Government tended to accept the advice of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am not complaining; on this, it is the Government’s choice, but the way they have gone about it is what I want to test.
It is only Clause 30. In the history of this Bill, earlier this year a similar power was in a previous Bill. The 13th Report of Session 2021–22 raised the same points about the power in Clause 30. The report drew this to the attention of the House, repeating the concerns expressed in an earlier report.
Clause 30 is on the power to issue guidance. It gives the courts a very broad discretion to impose on a person—but I will not go over all the detail of that. In its 17th report, at paragraph 10, the committee said:
“As we stated in our 13th Report … we consider that the SDPO”—
the serious disruption prevention order regime—
“places considerable power in the hands of the police—first, any decision of a court as to whether to make an SDPO—and as to the restrictions to be imposed under one—is likely to be heavily influenced by what the police say about whether the conditions for making one are met … second, SDPOs can be applied in a broad range of circumstances: they are not limited to the prevention of criminal conduct but can be imposed for such vague, and rather open-ended, purposes as preventing people from ‘contributing to’ the carrying out by others of activities that ‘are likely to result in’ serious disruption to as few as two people”.
The report went on to say:
“Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance to chief officers of police and chief constables in relation to SDPOs, including, in particular, on—the exercise of their functions in relation to SDPOs; identifying persons in respect of whom it may be appropriate for applications for SDPOs to be made; and providing assistance to prosecutors in connection with applications for SDPOs.”
That is the Secretary of State issuing guidance on what appear to be quite detailed operational functions of the police.
Paragraph 12 of the report said:
“A chief officer of police or a chief constable ‘must have regard to’ such guidance.”
The guidance is not subject to any consultation requirement at all. The Government stated, in a memorandum they supplied with the Bill, that the guidance should be subject to parliamentary procedures only in exceptional circumstances. In other words, Parliament is not really bothered about this. It said the guidance in question merits this,
“given the extensive parliamentary and public debate about the appropriate balance between the rights of protesters to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly”.
The report said this was unchanged from the view expressed by the Government in the memorandum accompanying the power to which the committee drew the attention of the House in its 13th report. The whole point about this is whether the affirmative procedure might or might not be appropriate—which the committee drew to the attention of the House—so that Parliament at least has a role.
Paragraph 17 of the report said that
“we considered that guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the exercise of police functions in relation to serious violence reduction orders should be subject to the affirmative procedure because the exercise of those functions could prove to be highly controversial. We indicated that such scrutiny would benefit the police by whom the functions would be exercised”.
In the second part of paragraph 17, the committee said that
“we considered that proposed revisions to an existing code of practice on the exercise of statutory stop and search powers were sufficiently significant to merit affirmative procedure scrutiny. We noted that the Act governing that code gives Ministers a choice as to whether to make revisions by affirmative procedure regulations”.
At the end of the day, the committee concluded that Clause 30 contains an extreme example of a power to issue guidance on the exercise of statutory functions. It allows the Secretary of State to influence the exercise, by the police, of functions that could prove highly controversial, including identifying persons against whom the courts may make serious disruption prevention orders. The committee then said:
“Accordingly, we consider that guidance under clause 30 is sufficiently significant to merit affirmative procedure scrutiny.”
The point is that, when the Government published the Bill and the delegated powers memorandum, they gave examples of previous cases where such scrutiny was not required. Commenting on the 16 examples, paragraph 20 of the 17th report says
“of the ‘examples’ given … 10 are not comparable as they do not require anyone to ‘have regard to’ the guidance; … a further 2 concern guidance that has a much narrower focus (as to ‘the effect’ of statutory provisions); … another relates to functions (exercisable by a constable) that appear to be much more limited; … 4 concern guidance to which a requirement to consult applies; and … the most recent one we reported to the House. In addition, the ‘examples’ relate to … the prevention of harm that is much more specific”.
So the examples set out in the delegated powers memorandum, published by the Government and given as part of their reason for it, did not apply; the Delegated Powers Committee made it clear that they were not relevant. To be honest, I never expected to be speaking on or tabling amendments to this Bill, because it drifts along, as it were, but the great thing about the delay is that I have the opportunity. Last week, we had the Government’s response to the 17th report, which we published in the 19th report on 5 December—a few days ago.
I do not have the letter with me, and I do not know which Minister signed the response to the Delegated Powers Committee, but I can remember my 52 weeks’ experience at the Home Office like it was yesterday. I had a private office of seven, and my day job was immigration, nationality and asylum. My other job was coming here and doing police, prisons and everything else—of course, we had the 9/11 legislation. I have to say that I cannot conceive of anybody in my then private office suggesting that I ever sign a letter such as that which has become the Government’s response to the 17th report.
The reason is this: in response to our conclusion, the Government said:
“The Government does not agree that clause 30 contains ‘an extreme example of a power to issue guidance’.”
They went on to talk about provisions in other Bills, including domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders, and said:
“As the table below shows, the Committee took a similar position in relation to previous Bills providing for very similar statutory guidance. Given this, we remain of the view that the negative procedure is appropriate in this case.”
My initial reaction to that was, “Blimey, they’ve come up with some new examples of where we got it wrong”. But they did not, because the table of examples supplied by the Government—table 1 in the 19th report of the Delegated Powers Committee—is exactly a repeat of what they said in the delegated powers memorandum. Every single example is repeated, one after the other, which the 17th report said was not relevant.
My question is: did the Minister who signed the letter on the Government’s response realise that the examples they were giving to the committee in justification were the exact same examples—no new ones—that had been given in the delegated powers memorandum, which the 17th report listed in the main as not relevant? How can this happen? Did anybody read the 17th report?
No committee is more important than another, but this House has the Delegated Powers Committee, and the other place does not. It is a very important issue as Ministers accrue powers. In this case, they want the power to give guidance to chief constables on controversial matters without any parliamentary scrutiny or consultation whatever. Therefore, it is just one clause in the Bill that the Delegated Powers Committee drew attention to.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 142A from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and his Clause 30 stand part. He has set out the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pretty clearly. Noble Lords will be pleased that I will therefore speak briefly, but I will consider Clause 30 in the political context.
Having been a member of the Delegated Powers Committee for a full term, I am acutely conscious of the increasing tendency of the Government to avoid adequate parliamentary scrutiny of powers delegated to Ministers. Clause 30 is of particular concern, because the delegated powers enable Ministers to increase the already unacceptable police powers under SDPOs. I am very interested in this Bill, even though I have not been able to be involved until now.
As has been extensively debated in this House, it is extraordinary that these orders can apply to people who have not been convicted of any offence and who are not considered to be at risk of offending; that orders can last for up to two years and be renewed; and that a breach of any requirement under an SDPO can lead to six months in prison—for somebody who has not been convicted of an offence. As things stand, such powers do not sit comfortably in a democratic state, in my view. But with Ministers able to extend those powers and further interfere with citizens’ liberties, with only minimal parliamentary involvement—and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, they stick with the negative procedure—this Bill feels much more suited to a country such as Iran or China. I have never said such a thing about a piece of legislation in this House before, but this goes way beyond the pale. A few years ago, Clause 30 would not have been included in this Bill; I just do not think it would have happened.
In the DPRRC’s recent report, Democracy Denied?, we express our concern about
“an increase in the number of occasions on which ministers have been given power to supplement primary legislation by what is, in effect, disguised legislation”
—things such as guidance, which is not a delegated power in the normal sense—that is,
“instruments which are legislative in effect but often not subject to parliamentary oversight”,
being, as in this case, subject only to the negative procedure. That is one way of doing things.
Democracy Denied? expresses further concern about guidance where there is a requirement “to have regard” to it, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, also referred to. Although there is an element of choice, a requirement to have regard to guidance carries with it an expectation that the guidance will be followed unless there is a cogent reason for not doing so. In the context of this Bill, such guidance is completely unacceptable.
I very much hope that this House will deal with Clause 30 on Report. Our Delegated Powers Committee recommends that the guidance should be subject to the affirmative procedure. It would probably have been ultra vires for the committee to have gone further than that, but speaking personally, and not in the context of being a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, I really hope that the House considers removing Clause 30 from the Bill at the next stage.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has done a service to the House in focusing such clear attention on the Delegated Powers Committee report, and the issue that it raises. I simply want to pursue one of the points that he mentioned, which is one of the features of the guidance to which this power relates:
“guidance about identifying persons in respect of whom it may be appropriate for applications for serious disruption prevention orders to be made”.
What does the Secretary of State know that the police do not know about who it would be appropriate to make serious disruption prevention orders about? On what basis does the Secretary of State know what the police do not know and therefore have to be advised about?
The only basis I can think of is not a helpful one for the Government. It is that there is a political reason here and that what the Government want to do is say, “Never mind those people who are protesting about this, go after those people who are protesting about that.” This is the very kind of power which we have always tried to avoid giving, in the form of direction to the police, to anybody, including police and crime commissioners. There has been a very necessary reluctance to have the police directed in a way which could become political, and in which the choice of where to deploy resources was based on whom the authority concerned—in this case, the Government—disliked and wanted to see penalised in some way.
I cannot see any respectable argument for the Secretary of State saying to the police “You do not realise what I realise; this is the guidance I am giving you about identifying appropriate persons.” It is the sort of thing that even the affirmative procedure would not give us a very good chance to deal with, because you cannot amend statutory instruments, even under the affirmative procedure. But to leave it simply to the negative procedure, which is so limited and so inadequate, particularly in the other Chamber, is simply not satisfactory. The Government’s response to the Delegated Powers Committee has been wholly inadequate so far.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I wish to make one or two brief observations in respect of the way these amendments tie together. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I support, sees a good precedent in what Parliament sometimes does, which is to pass successive pieces of legislation without having in mind all the complexities of the earlier legislation. We saw this most clearly in my experience in relation to search warrants of premises, and I will come back to that in a moment. There is a huge advantage in having up-to-date guidance, and the best people to produce it are those who have practical experience—namely, the police institutions—so I warmly welcome that.
But its importance goes to Clause 30, because the question I ask myself is: why is Clause 30 there? Why can it not be dealt with in two other ways? One is the use of guidance given by independent police to other police, to get uniformity; and secondly, do not forget these are applications to a court, so can we not do what we did in relation to search warrants? That is, to provide in detailed form, through the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, working closely with the police and other organisations, the information that needs to be put before a court to make the decision on the order. Now, if the Home Secretary feels that there are areas that you need to specify—for example, about the kind of person who should be asked to supervise or do something—why can the detail of what is required, the kinds of considerations, not be put properly and openly through an independent process of rules and forms? This worked for search warrants.
We ought to bear in mind the experience of ASBOs. It is not the time at this hour of night to go back to that rather unhappy chapter, but trying to supplement un-thought-through legislation of this kind with guidance is not the way forward; there are better mechanisms.
It seems to me, when one looks at Clause 30, one asks oneself, “What is it for?” In Clause 30(2)(c), the guidance is about
“providing assistance to prosecutors in connection with applications for serious disruption prevention orders.”
Is the intention that somehow the Home Office believes that the police do not help prosecutors? What guidance do they need? These are independent people and their independence should not be called into question. In most countries, the independence of the prosecution service, as in our country, is critical, and so is the independence of the police.
I do not want to go into the constitutional points under Clause 30, because I entirely agree with what has been said. I think one ought to look at this from a practical experience point of view to say that the clause is completely unnecessary. It should be possible to deal with the practical consequences of these orders in a way that takes into account experience. This is a criticism of the way in which the modern Civil Service is structured. There are probably few people in the Home Office who remember what I have just gone through. I thought a few grey hairs might remind people that there is a better way forward than this constitutional aberration, constituted by Clause 30.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support Amendments 126 and 144 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. As recommended by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, consolidated public order guidance should be published, to include minimum training standards, clear information on relevant law and operational best practice. We must ensure that existing law and practice are used effectively and that police can then be held to account against that consolidated guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about ensuring that the police had excellent training. I go back again to my own experience: the Metropolitan Police were world leaders in public order policing and the training was extensive and excellent. Other forces used to come to the Metropolitan Police and engage in training with it and in that way good practice was shared.
Does the Minister know what the impact of cuts to police budgets has been on the quality and amount of training in public order policing—the involvement of other forces in training with the Metropolitan Police, for example? My understanding is that special constables, who are part-time volunteers, are now being trained as public order officers. This is a very difficult, sometimes dangerous, skilled area of policing. One would question whether part-time volunteers are the right officers to be used in that sort of situation, requiring knowledge of public order legislation that is getting longer and more complex as we go on.
What has been the impact of the police cuts on the number of public order trained officers? Before the Minister stands up and talks about the uplift in the number of officers, I point out that across 16 constabularies, the number of police officers over the last 12 months has gone down rather than up and the Metropolitan Police has given notice to the Government that it will not reach its target of the uplift of an additional 30,000 officers.
HMICFRS talks in its public order report about the lack of regular officers volunteering to be public order officers because it involves increased weekend working—which is not popular—an increased risk of complaints, and the increased risk of being verbally and physically abused. What steps are the Government taking to mitigate these factors, which are working against having highly trained, highly skilled public order officers in sufficient numbers to be able to handle protests?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group. I turn first to Amendment 126, which would require the College of Policing to publish guidance consolidating the public order authorised professional practice and NPCC and college operational advice for public order policing. The Government would be required to lay the consolidated guidance before Parliament and the guidance would need to be reviewed annually and updated when appropriate.
The noble Lord’s explanatory statement clarifies that this builds on a recommendation from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to the College of Policing. For the benefit of the House, when giving oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, His Majesty’s Inspector Matt Parr has said of policing’s response to the report that it was
“the most professional and thorough response”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 9/6/22; col. 55.]
he had seen to a report that he had done.
The college has drafted a new public order public safety authorised professional practice that is in the final stages prior to consultation, which precedes publication. A draft version will be published for consultation by public order practitioners by the end of December and the college plans to publish the final version in early 2023.
To provide further reassurances to all those present who have shown interest in public order guidance, noble Lords will perhaps allow me to detail some of the work that the college has undertaken beyond the authorised professional practice to improve public order training.
On guidance, the college publishes regular bulletins, including on changes to processes, legislation and new training products. Its summary guide to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act has been circulated to all forces and widely shared with officers involved in policing public order and protest. This guidance reiterates the need for a balanced approach with a reminder of the recent HMICFRS conclusion that
“the police do not strike the right balance on every occasion. The balance may tip too readily in favour of protesters when – as is often the case – the police do not accurately assess the level of disruption caused, or likely to be caused, by a protest.”
In April, the college drafted the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Protest Operational Advice Document, which reiterated the need for a rapid response to disruptive disorder. The document aims: first, to support consistency of decision-making and engagement with stakeholders; secondly, to signpost guidance, legislation, key legal decisions, policies and practice which may assist in the policing of protest, thereby promoting public safety, preventing or reducing crime, disorder and/or terrorism to support overall public safety; and, thirdly, to assist decision-makers in achieving outcomes which support the exercise by peaceful protestors of their rights under Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11, while striking the appropriate balance between those rights and the rights of others affected by protest. This is being reviewed by the college, which aims to publish the revised version in February 2023.
On training, over the last six months the college has rolled out significant changes to protestor removal training. This used to be a very niche skill with very few people trained to a high level, but this meant the response was slow. The college has since developed new, quicker training for simpler lock-ons, which has meant a substantial improvement in the speed of the police response to these. I could go on, but I think I have made the point. The college is a professional organisation that is proactive in response to protests to ensure that officers are trained to the highest possible standards. It does not need a legislative stick to make them do so. That is why the Government do not support this amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for specifying that Amendment 144 is a probing amendment to query the demand for, and the capacity of, specialist protest officers across police forces. I presume by “specialist protest officers” the noble Lord is referring to both public order trained officers and officers trained in the removal of protesters who lock on. For the benefit of the House, it is worth clarifying that, for the most part, protests are non-violent and are managed effectively by general patrol officers. When there is a risk of violence, officers with additional specialist public order training are deployed.
On specialist public order trained officers, the NPCC has set a national requirement of 297 police support units across England and Wales, alongside 75 in London. A police support unit consists of one inspector, three sergeants and 18 constables as well as three drivers. On level 3, which is basic public order training, the NPCC has set a requirement for 234 basic deployment units.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on specialist officers, the NPCC has identified a national requirement for 108 officers trained in debonding protestors, 189 officers trained to remove protestors and another 189 who are trained to remove protestors from complex environments such as height. The noble Lord also asked about non-specialist officers. They are deployed to respond to peaceful protests and all have level 3 public order training.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about specials. Peaceful protests would seem to me to be well within the abilities of volunteer police officers—indeed, I have seen it in my own service overseas. He also mentioned cuts. I am afraid I am going to disappoint him by saying that we are well on the way to the 20,000 police uplift that was promised. I will also of course say that the nature of protests has changed and, therefore, so has the nature of policing, as reflected in much of this Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and am grateful to him for giving way. I have seen evidence that special constables are being trained to level 2 and being issued with specialist equipment, so I am not talking about special constables trained to level 3, as the noble Lord suggested.
The noble Lord gave a whole series of numbers. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has decided that there should be specified numbers of level 3 and level 2-trained units of one, three and 18—one inspector, three sergeants and 18 constables—as the requirement nationally. To what extent have police services fulfilled those requirements? The indication that the Minister gave was that that is the target that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has given, but to what extent have police forces been able to fulfil that target?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I do not know the answer. I will write to the noble Lord with the detail. Regarding the specials, as long as they are trained, surely that is the point.
Chief officers are responsible for demonstrating that they can appropriately mobilise to a variety of public order policing operations at a force, regional and national level in accordance with the national mobilisation plan. The College of Policing sets consistent standards across England and Wales to ensure consistency across forces, allowing officers from different forces to operate in tandem when deployed to other force areas.
The required capacity for public order capabilities is informed by the assessment of threats, harm and risk from the National Police Coordination Centre, as agreed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Officials and Ministers in the Home Office regularly probe the National Police Coordination Centre on its confidence that forces can respond to disorder. At present, it assesses that forces are able to meet current protest demands. Forces have been able to use public order resources to respond to incidents including the awful disorder in Leicester in August and September, as well as Just Stop Oil’s recent disruptive campaign on the M25.
Amendment 142A seeks to ensure that statutory guidance issued under Clause 30 is subject to the affirmative scrutiny procedure, rather than the negative procedure, as the Bill currently allows. This follows a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I thank the committee for its consideration of the Bill. I hope, but am afraid I doubt, that noble Lords will forgive me for echoing the arguments made in the Government’s response here. SDPOs do not represent a new concept. Successive Governments, dating back at least to 1998 and the creation of anti-social behaviour orders in the Crime and Disorder Act, have legislated for civil preventive orders of this kind, which can impose restrictions on liberty, backed by criminal sanctions. Many of these preventive order regimes include similar provision to that in Clause 30 for the Secretary of State to issue guidance which was not subject to the draft affirmative scrutiny procedure. Guidance issued for serious violence reduction orders is subject to the negative scrutiny procedure. Having said that, I listened very carefully to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I will write to him with an attempt to unravel some of the discrepancies that he mentioned.
We therefore see it as entirely appropriate that the guidance is subject to the negative scrutiny procedure and respectfully encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the last remark the Minister made, about writing to my noble friend Lord Rooker, was useful. Reflecting in the letter on the comments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, might be helpful as well.
I will focus on my own amendment. I thank all noble Lords who contributed on it. The reason for it was the need for co-ordinated and updated guidance. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the updated guidance will come at the beginning of 2023.
You can see why there is a need for clarification. An article in the Daily Telegraph just yesterday, quoting the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Stephen Watson, said:
“criticism of officers by the public for being too slow to clear the protesters was ‘not an unreasonable judgment’.”
He went on to say:
“The public has seen us reacting too slowly, less assertively than they would have liked.”
That is the second-most senior police officer in the country saying that the police should have acted more quickly with respect to the protesters. He goes on—and I am not a trained police officer, just reflecting on what the chief constable said in a national paper:
“I think fundamentally, if people obstruct the highway they should be moved from the highway very quickly. The so-called five stage process of resolution can be worked through”
quickly. He goes on, and here is the point that the guidance needs to clarify. Is the chief constable of Greater Manchester right, or are the other officers? The article says that his argument is that
“officers spent too much time building a ‘copper-bottomed’ case for prosecuting people for offences such as public nuisance rather than arresting them for the lesser crime of obstruction.”
I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but somewhere along the line there needs to be clarification through the guidance package, which we hope will come at the beginning of 2023. It should say that, to deal with protests quickly and robustly but according to the law, these are the options available in coming to any decision. The chief constable of Greater Manchester is clearly saying that the police could have done better by using the lesser offence of obstruction. Is he right or wrong? The guidance may be able to sort that out for us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment raises the burden of proof for imposing a serious disruption prevention order to the criminal standard.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 128 is in my name, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I will also speak to Amendments 129, 130, 133 to 136, and 139 to 142 in my name and to the other amendments in the group; and I will oppose Clauses 19 and 20 standing part of the Bill.
Serious disruption prevention orders are modelled on the orders given to terrorists and knife carriers, with similar draconian provisions, yet these are to be imposed on peaceful protestors, some of whom will never have been convicted of a criminal offence and some of whom will have never even attended a protest. These orders will effectively prohibit British citizens from exercising their human rights of free expression and assembly. They include the possibility of electronic tagging and restricting people’s use of the internet.
Liberty gives an example, which, in my own words is of someone who could be subjected to an SDPO, who has never been convicted of an offence, who attended two protests in the last five years and who, at those protests, based on inadmissible hearsay and on the balance of probabilities, contributed towards someone else doing something that was likely to result in serious disruption. The purpose of the order would be to prevent the person subject to the SDPO from contributing towards another person doing something that was likely to result in serious disruption at some point in the future.
HMICFRS says of serious disruption prevention orders:
“Such orders would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent. All things considered, legislation creating protest banning orders would be legally very problematic because, however many safeguards might be put in place, a banning order would completely remove an individual’s right to attend a protest. It is difficult to envisage a case where less intrusive measures could not be taken to address the risk that an individual poses, and where a court would therefore accept that it was proportionate to impose a banning order”.
In the same report, senior police officers are quoted as saying that SDPOs would
“unnecessarily curtail people’s democratic right to protest”;
that such orders would be a “massive civil liberty infringement”; and that,
“the proposal is a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable.”
That is the police’s view. They added that it appeared unlikely that the measure would work as hoped, because a court was unlikely to impose a high penalty on someone who breached such an order if the person was peacefully protesting, to which HMICFRS said:
“We agree with this view and that shared by many senior police officers.”
It is what we would expect in Russia or Iran, not in the United Kingdom.
These orders can also be imposed on those convicted of public order offences, and although we impose their imposition on anyone, it cannot be right that a person can be convicted of a criminal offence of breaching a serious disruption prevention order and sentenced potentially to a term of imprisonment, on the basis of an order imposed on the balance of probabilities, potentially based on evidence such as hearsay that would not be admissible in a criminal trial. I have rehearsed these arguments time and again in relation to similar orders in the past.
The origins of this type of order are to be found in anti-social behaviour orders—ASBOs—another order imposed on the balance of probabilities but with criminal sanctions for a breach, which Parliament decided was unfair and unreasonable, and so replaced with an entirely civil-based, non-criminal approach. In the case of knife crime prevention orders, the Government used the argument that the police had advised them that knife carriers would not take the orders seriously if no criminal sanctions were attached to them. Even if noble Lords had some sympathy with that approach in relation to the potentially fatal consequences of knife crime, surely serious disruption prevention orders are far closer to ASBOs than to knife crime.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans have added their names to my Amendments 128, 129 and 130; and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has also added his name to my Amendment 128. The amendments require a court to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” —the criminal standard of proof—before imposing a serious disruption prevention order, rather than depending on the civil standard of “on the balance of probabilities”.
We support Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which states that participation in a lawful trade dispute should not result in the imposition of a SDPO. I can see what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is doing with her Amendment 132, and, if she were here, I would have looked forward to her explanation of it to the Committee.
Although electronic tagging is limited to 12 months, serious disruption prevention orders can be imposed for up to two years—but they can also be renewed indefinitely. That means that someone who has never been convicted of an offence can be prohibited from being in or entering a particular area indefinitely, prohibited from being with particular people indefinitely, prohibited from engaging in particular activities indefinitely, and prohibited from using the internet for particular purposes indefinitely. Can the Minister explain how that provision would be enforced, if they could use the internet for some purposes and not others? My Amendments 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 and 142 would prevent serious disruption prevention orders being renewed, effectively placing a maximum limit of two years on their imposition.
Someone who breaches a serious disruption prevention order can be sentenced to a maximum of 51 weeks in prison and an unlimited fine. My Amendment 134 questions whether an unlimited fine is appropriate for such an offence, for the reasons I have argued in previous groups.
Most of those amendments should be redundant, because I urge all noble Lords on all sides of the House to join me and the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in opposing the proposition that Clauses 19 and 20 stand part of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment 128.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that we are not living in a totalitarian state, but George Orwell also warned of the slide from democracy to despotism: it becomes invisible so that, in the end, you cross a border without really knowing that your freedom has been taken away because you do not want to do anything that might lead to anyone wanting to take it away. We have not got there yet. Nevertheless, it seems that we are discussing areas of legislation in which we find, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, blocks of words being transferred mindlessly from one set of offences to another set of offences, rather like prefabricated hen houses. One has to guard against that, because the offences are of very different gravity and one must not use the same language when talking of one rather than the other.
Part 2 introduces the serious disruption prevention order, described by Liberty as a protest banning order, which gives police the power to ban a person who has not been convicted of any offence for up to two years from attending any protest, together with extraordinary powers of surveillance, including electronic surveillance. Now I am against prevention orders on the whole, because they tread the path of stopping the liberties of people who have not been convicted of any offence. That is the road down which they lead, so I am suspicious of that in principle.
Here, we have a penalty which can be imposed on a civil standard of proof, meaning that the conditions needed for being given an SDPO need to be proved only on a balance of probability. That compounds the offence. The Government are not only taking powers to inflict extraordinary penalties on someone who has not been convicted of anything, they are also claiming the power to do that on a balance of probabilities, rather than on having reasonable suspicion. That is what this amendment wants to remove and there are subsequent amendments to which the same logic applies. We need to put in a requirement of reasonable doubt into the whole series of these preventive disruption orders.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I gladly put my name to the stand part amendments on Clauses 19 and 20, which of course stand for Part 2 as a whole, not because I am temperamentally inclined against compromise but because these clauses are so breath- takingly broad that I am not sure I would know where to begin the process of amendment.
Seeking perspective, I turned to the civil orders with which I am most familiar, terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs, the replacement for control orders, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which are currently being copied, I think reasonably, for hostile state actors in the National Security Bill. These are the most extreme forms of restriction known to our law, short of imprisonment. In a rational world, were measures such as these considered necessary in the completely different context of public order, they would be considerably lighter—but, in no less than six respects, the reverse is true. I shall briefly explain how.
The first respect is the trigger. TPIMs can be imposed only when it is reasonably believed that the subject is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity and that the TPIM is necessary to protect the public. An SDPO can be imposed under Clause 19 on someone who twice in the past five years has been convicted of something as minor as obstructing the highway, if an order is thought necessary to prevent them doing so again. Under Clause 20, the person need never have been convicted of anything, though of course if they breach any provision of their SDPO then, just like the suspected terrorist, they can be convicted and sent to prison.
The second respect is content. The range of TPIMs is limited to the specific measures specified in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. The Bill, by contrast, makes a virtue of the fact that the range of SDPOs is completely unlimited—a point emphasised in Clause 19(6), Clause 20(5) and again in Clause 21(7). Notification requirements seem to be envisaged as routine—as, remarkably enough, is electronic tagging—but these orders can require the subject to do, or prohibit the subject from doing, anything described in them. The extensive list of prohibitions in Clause 21(4) is for some reason not considered sufficient. The right to peaceful protest is not even referred to in the Bill as a consideration to which those imposing the orders must have regard, despite the obvious potential for these orders to inhibit the exercise of that right.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, at this late hour, I will say just a very few words. I start, rather tiresomely, with a pedantic legal point. The explanatory statements for the first three numbered amendments in this group suggest that they relate to the “burden of proof”, but they do no such thing. As I say, somewhat pedantically, I point out that the burden is unquestionably accepted to be on those who wish to pursue this supposed remedy, but these amendments are directed to the standard of proof, which is so critically important here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, this is no place for balance of probabilities; it is for the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. That is assuming that anything stays in this part at all. Having just listened with my usual awe and admiration to my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and having been conducted down memory lane—TPIMs were a significant part of my past when I was here in a judicial capacity—let me say that his attack on Part 2, on the whole concept of SDPOs, is devastating and unanswerable, and hopefully, at some point, the Government, will recognise that if they have not done so already.
In case the Government have not the good sense and courage to abandon entirely this whole group of provisions, I say that the balance of probability has absolutely no place here at all. Of course, it is the standard by which we determine civil disputes and claims, but, as has already been pointed out, ASBOs—which were given to anti-social people who were being very tiresome with no sort of justification towards their neighbours—were initially put on a balance of probability basis and even that was regarded as unacceptable. But how much more unacceptable is it when, as here, fundamental civil liberties are at issue. To suggest that the touchstone for deciding whether people should be barred from exercising their historic rights should be the balance of probabilities—“Well, perhaps it is just more likely that he did or didn’t do whatever it is”—is a nonsense. Again to revert to legalese: “a fortiori” means if it is a nonsense for one thing it is particularly so for something else; and it is particularly so here, in the circumstances where one contemplates making these draconian orders even when there has been no conviction whatever.
I shall support those who I hope will pursue the stand part provisions here, but, failing that, it is unthinkable that this Bill could go through on a balance of probability basis.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I intend to be brief, but I wanted to speak in favour of Amendments 128, 129 and 130, addressing the Bill’s provisions on serious disruption prevention orders, adding my support to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others, and in particular my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. SDPOs are particularly hard-line and risk undermining people’s fundamental rights to protest, and they risk subjecting individuals to intrusive surveillance—methods that, as we have heard, are not typical in this country, and nor do we want them to become typical. The terms used to define who they can apply to are worryingly broad. The definition of “protest-related offence” as
“an offence which is directly related to a protest”
leaves the door far too open to interpretation. It therefore seems appropriate that the burden of proof for imposing SDPOs to the criminal standard should be raised as set out in Amendments 128 to 130.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Noble Lords will recognise this speech in style and content as the work of my noble friend Lord Hendy, of Hayes and Harlington, who is unable to be in his place this evening. I speak in his place on Amendment 131.
Clause 20 is wholly objectionable because it enables the imposition of criminal penalties in respect of conduct for which the defendant has not been convicted of any criminal offence, as we have heard from all around the Chamber. However, assuming the clause is to stay in the face of opposition from various parts of the Chamber, there is another defect.
The conduct at which it is aimed clearly comprehends picketing in the course of an industrial dispute. There will not be much effective picketing in the course of a trade dispute which does not offend against the description in Clause 20(2)(a)(iii), which refers to
“activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales”.
The very purpose of picketing, as legitimated in Section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, is to attend a workplace for the purpose of “peacefully persuading any person” not to work. If effective, this will seriously disrupt those so persuaded and their employer and will render nugatory the right to picket
“in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute”,
contained in Section 220 of the 1992 Act. That right has been statutory in this country since the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875. The right was subject to offences created by the 1875 Act such as “watching or besetting” and an array of other potential offences such as obstructing a public highway or an officer in the exercise of his duty, or more serious offences.
Since 1875, the right to picket has been regulated and restricted by many amendments to the relevant law, the latest being several requirements imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016, now found in Section 220A of the 1992 Act. Yet the right remains. This clause would destroy it altogether. It is also a right protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to freedom of association, and, in particular, the right to be a member of a trade union for the protection of one’s interests. It is likewise protected by ILO Convention 87, Article 6(4) of the European Social Charter, and many other international instruments that the UK has ratified.
What is needed is protection against this provision for those who are acting
“in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute”,
to use the time-honoured phrase, which is now found in Section 244 of the 1992 Act. The Government have used this protection in relation to Clause 6 to provide such protection against the offence there created. This modest amendment seeks its protection in relation to this new provision.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I entirely support the analysis so eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and supplemented by the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown. It is easy to think of ways of making these clauses, chipping here and chipping there. However, the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was plainly correct. The Government have got themselves into the mess of putting this into legislation without understanding the context of where these orders were made in the past and what they are seeking to do now.
Being a lawyer, I always go back to precedent. You look at it and copy it all out, but at the end of the day you have to sit in your chair and think. There are two things the Government ought to think about. First, can they achieve what they want to do by something that is much more sensible?—to which the answer is plainly yes—and, secondly, what is the consequence of what they are doing? When you are dealing with people who carry knives, with terrorists, or with people who engage in activities that disrupt neighbourhoods, people gathering together, and violence in a social context, that is one thing. But here we are dealing with people who genuinely believe that they are fighting the existential threat to the planet—or they may be fighting for trade union rights, or for liberty. If you treat those people, who have a noble cause as they see it, in the way that you treat terrorists, what do you do for justice? You can only damage it severely. I therefore humbly ask the Minister to sit back in his chair and have a good think about the wisdom of this.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have not been present for earlier proceedings on this Bill because of other commitments, for which I apologise. For that reason, I will say only a very few words. With everyone else who has spoken, I completely oppose Clauses 19 and 20 and support the amendments in this group restricting their ambit and the ambit of SDPOs, for all the reasons considered and voiced by my noble friend Lord Paddick in opening and all other noble Lords who have spoken.
The so-called serious disruption prevention orders amount to punishment that does indeed involve serious disruption: serious disruption of individual citizens’ liberties, imposed without a criminal conviction and on proof to the civil and not the criminal standard, and which can last indefinitely. These proposals are entirely inimical to principles deeply embedded in our law and to notions of crime and justice that we all hold so dear. They are an insidious attack on civil liberties. They threaten a gradual, incremental encroachment on civil liberties—the very type of encroachment that can ultimately lead to the destruction of those liberties themselves.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a historical if not a current interest as a Home Office lawyer from January 1996 until the autumn of 2001. I was occasionally and habitually a happy and unhappy inhabitant of the Box.
I agree with—I think—every speech so far in this significant debate. I would go further than some in saying that I was always against this blurring of civil and criminal process from the beginning when, I am sorry to say, Labour did it. I was against ASBOs, CRASBOs, control orders, TPIMs, football banning orders and all the rest, because they were always about lessening criminal due process. That is always the intention when you blur civil and criminal process by way of these quasi-injunctive orders. Whether it is minor nuisance or suspicion of being associated with terrorists, whatever the gravity of the threat, you will catch behaviour without proper criminal due process and then prosecute people for the breach.
Although we do not always agree, I must commend the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in particular on a devastating critique of this use of copy and paste in my former department. Computers are wonderful things—until they are not. I will not labour the point, save to quote the right honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who has done his best on this Bill in the other place along with Sir Charles Walker, from the Times this morning:
“Serious disruption prevention orders, or SDPOs”—
protest banning orders—
“can be given to anyone who has on two previous occasions ‘carried out activities related to a protest’ that ‘resulted in or were likely to result in serious disruption’”—
which is not defined—
“or even ‘caused or contributed to the carrying out by any other person’ of such activities. This is drafted so broadly so as to potentially include sharing a post on social media or handing out a leaflet encouraging people to go to a protest—even if you did not go on to attend that protest. Those issued with an SDPO can face harsh restrictions on their liberty, including … GPS tracking and being banned from going on demonstrations, associating with certain people”,
et cetera—and the orders are renewable indefinitely, as we have heard.
I am sorry if I have made noble friends feel uncomfortable. Do not think about these measures as they would be employed today. Think about how they could be used on the statute book by another Government, not of your friends and not of your choosing, in 20 years’ time. That is why, in a terrible Bill, Clauses 19 and 20 should not stand part.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said: all the arguments in all the amendments could become redundant if we support not putting Clauses 19 and 20 in the Bill. The strength of feeling demonstrated through this short debate leads me to believe that that may well be what we vote on when we come to Report.
I forget whether it was my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti or the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who referred to this as copy-and-paste legislation. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who gave the analogy of chicken coops being moved around to replicate these civil injunctions. But perhaps the most powerful speech we have heard was from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who gave six examples of SDPOs being tougher than TPIMs, which really caused me to sit back and reflect on the meat of what we are dealing with here today.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said she has always been against what she called quasi-injunctive orders—civil orders—going all the way back to ASBOs. This caused me to reflect, as a magistrate, on which of those orders I deal with when I sit in courts. I deal with some of them: football banning orders, knife crime prevention orders and domestic violence protection orders—I think most noble Lords who have taken part in this debate think DVPOs are an appropriate use of civil orders. But, of course, the list goes on. That is really the point my noble friend makes: there are a growing number of these civil orders that, if breached, result in criminal convictions.
To repeat what I said, here we are meeting a very extreme situation in which people planning to get involved in protest or to help people do so can potentially be criminalised for that activity. The nature of the potential offence being committed is different.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, went through in detail, for which I thank him, the nature of the injunctions in Clauses 19 and 20, so I will not go through all that again, but I will make one point that he did not make. We are concerned that there does not seem to be any requirement for the person involved to have knowledge that the protest activities were going to cause serious disruption. That lack of a requirement of knowledge is a source of concern for us.
In the debate on the previous group, my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke about the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and my noble friend quoted from them. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, spoke about the Secretary of State issuing guidance to chief police officers and how that could go down a road whose potential political implications, in a sense, I prefer not to think about.
I will quote briefly from other committees which have reflected on this legislation. First, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said:
“Serious Disruption Prevention Orders represent a disproportionate response to the disruption caused by protest. They are likely to result in interference with legitimate peaceful exercise of Article 10 and 11 rights. The police already have powers to impose conditions on protests and to arrest those who breach them. Other provisions of this Bill, if passed, will provide the police with even greater powers to restrict or prevent disruptive protest.”
Another committee, the Constitution Committee, said:
“The purposes for which a Serious Disruption Prevention Order can be issued are broad. They can be issued not only to prevent a person committing a protest-related offence but also to prevent a person from carrying out activities related to a protest. Such a protest need cause, or be likely to cause, serious disruption to only two people. This gives the orders a pre-emptive or preventative role. Furthermore, ‘protest-related’ offence is not adequately defined in this part of the Bill nor … is ‘serious disruption’. This undermines legal certainty. We recommend that the meaning of ‘protest-related offence’ is clarified more precisely.”
The Minister has a big job on his hands to try to convince any Member of this Committee that he is on the right track. The amendments in my name—the clause stand part amendments—are the quickest way to put this part of the Bill out of its misery.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, there are notices to oppose within this group, so it may help if I start by addressing serious disruption prevention orders as a whole, before turning to amendments to the clause. SDPOs will target protestors who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public or those who simply wish to go about their daily lives. Our experience at recent protests has shown that many police are encountering the same individuals, who are determined repeatedly to inflict disruption on the public.
It cannot be right that a small group of individuals repeatedly trample on the rights of the public without let or hindrance. Yes, many are arrested, but after paying small fines or serving short or suspended sentences, they are free to reoffend. This measure would, following the consideration and permission of the courts, allow for proportionate and necessary restriction or requirements to be placed on individuals to prevent them causing harm.
Additionally, in some cases, individuals choose to not get their hands dirty. They go around the country speaking to young people who are determined to make the world a better place—not to encourage them to study and seek out a career to better the planet, or even to enter politics to enact change; instead, they encourage them to commit criminal offences, alienate the public from their cause and jeopardise their opportunity for a career that will actually make a difference. Why should these individuals, who contribute to serious disruption, be permitted to behave as they do without consequence?
This is why SDPOs are needed, as drafted. They will provide an alternative, non-custodial route to prevent those who have a track record of trampling on the rights of others from doing so. The threshold for the imposition of these orders is appropriately high and I trust our courts to impose them only where necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the HMICFRS conclusion. The report from the policing inspectorate considered only orders which would always ban an individual from protesting. SDPOs grant the courts discretion to impose any prohibitions and requirements necessary to protect the public from protest-related crimes and serious disruption. Depending on the individual circumstances, this may mean that the court will not consider it necessary to stop individuals attending protests.
Amendments 128, 129 and 130 would raise the evidential threshold for SDPOs to the criminal standard. I am sure that many who support these amendments also support the civil courts approving injunctions against protesters. These are made on the civil burden of proof against large numbers of people, including “persons unknown”. SDPOs are made against single known individuals.
A number of noble Lords asked why SDPOs can be granted using a civil standard of proof, including the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Skidelsky, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, among others. The use of the civil standard of proof is not a novel concept for preventive orders. Football banning orders, for example, use the same standard of proof to help prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches. By using a civil standard of proof, courts will be allowed, following due consideration, to place prohibitions or requirements they consider necessary to prevent an individual causing disruption.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As many noble Lords have said, this is about restricting the human rights and civil liberties of unconvicted people on the basis of the balance of probabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, described the “breathtakingly broad” provisions, more draconian than those imposed on terrorists, that the Government propose to impose on peaceful protesters.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—of course it is the standard of proof, not the burden of proof—and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, for pointing that these orders will be imposed on activities in relation to a protest. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, described on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, not only would lawful picketing be included but somebody who organised or chipped in to pay for coaches to bus people down to London to take part in a protest would be covered by these provisions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, hit the nail on the head: quite clearly, there has not been enough thinking. I cannot believe that we have got to Committee in the House of Lords, having gone all the way through the process in the House of Commons, before a Minister agreed to start thinking about the consequences of these provisions. In defence of the Home Office and its officials, we should remember that Home Secretary Priti Patel was facing a potentially hostile Conservative Party conference in the wake of Insulate Britain protests and demanded an immediate, draconian response. That is how we have come to copying and pasting terrorist legislation and applying it to peaceful protesters without a second thought.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that we should support civil orders to protect victims of domestic violence, for example, but with civil sanctions. That is why anti-social behaviour orders are now anti-social behaviour injunctions, with civil penalties, which can include contempt of court and imprisonment. We are not talking about soft options here.
I could not believe the description of the sort of person on whom the Government think these orders are designed to be imposed. It was the most outrageous and extraordinary description of people going around telling young people all sorts of things. I have never heard or experienced anything like it in my life. If it is true, I am glad that the Government will now think about what has been said as a result of noble Lords in this Committee, whom the House has the utmost respect for and will listen very intently to when we come, as we inevitably will, to vote that these clauses do not stand part of the Bill. The Government need to do some long and hard thinking about these clauses because, with the support that we have seen across the House for these provisions to be taken out of the Bill, we will carry the House if the Government do not see sense on these measures. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Review of sentencing for protest-related offences(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review into sentencing for public order and protest-related offences.(2) “Public order and protest-related offences” include, but are not restricted to, offences for protest-related activity under—(a) the Criminal Damage Act 1971;(b) the Highways Act 1980;(c) the Public Order Act 1986; (d) the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;(e) the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022; andoffences charged following breach of an injunction against protest-related activity, granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.(3) The review must include—(a) the average sentence given where a person commits a public order or protest-related offence, and(b) the proportion of cases in which the maximum available sentence is given for a public order or protest-related offence.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before each House of Parliament.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a review into sentencing for protest-related offences within three months of the Act passing. The review must include the average sentence given for any protest-related or public order offence, and the proportion of cases in which the maximum available sentence is given. This will be a quick introduction to the amendment and a series of questions to the Minister.
First, what work has been done to look at current sentencing practice for public order offences before this whole tranche of possible new sentences is introduced? Hundreds, if not thousands, of Just Stop Oil and other protesters have now been arrested and given sentences. Do the Government have any view on the longer-term outcomes of those arrests and sentences? What is the average sentence or fine given for the activity which is already considered unlawful? How often has an existing available maximum sentence been used? What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of the Bill on the number of cases which need court time and how will this be managed, given the extensive backlogs in the existing criminal justice and court system?
The amendment covers a variety of legislation in which relevant powers can already be found, including the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the Highways Act 1980, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and offences charged following breach of an injunction against protest-related activity, granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The point is that we have layers and layers of new and old laws on our statute book, and we are yet to be convinced that these additional powers are necessary. It is for the Government to show how much the existing powers are being used and whether there is a real case for adding new powers through this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to which I have added my name. We on these Benches believe that the prison service is overwhelmed. As a result, prisoners have no real opportunity for rehabilitation, and this can lead to a revolving door of offending, conviction and imprisonment. Liberal Democrats want to reduce the number of people unnecessarily in prison by introducing a presumption against short prison sentences and including the use of tough community sentences and restorative justice where appropriate. We want to transform prisons into places of rehabilitation and recovery by improving the provision of training, education and work opportunities.
That cannot be done against a background of an ever-increasing prison population. In particular, custodial sentences should be restricted to the most serious types of offending that place public safety at risk. We believe that peacefully exercising basic human rights of freedom of expression and assembly are not included in the types of offending warranting a custodial sentence in most cases. That it is why it is important to review sentencing for public order and protest-related offences to ensure that the right balance is struck between the right to protest and the disruption such protests may cause. If the balance is wrong, it is an indication of a repressive regime that seeks to stifle the democratic right of citizens in a free society to gather and express their concerns about the way the Government and Parliament are operating. We therefore support the proposed review.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, for tabling this amendment. I empathise with the importance of understanding sentencing for criminal offences. However, the Government do not feel that it is necessary to accept this amendment. There are already adequate mechanisms in place to scrutinise sentencing. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales exists to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing. It issues guidance on sentencing and is responsible for monitoring sentencing. Its objectives are to promote a clear, fair and consistent approach to sentencing, to produce analysis and research on sentencing and to work to improve public confidence in sentencing.
As a result of the delegation of these functions, it is felt that the Government are not best placed to undertake such a review. I therefore respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Well, the Minister did not make any attempt to answer any of the questions I asked. I do not know whether he would undertake to guide me to some government documents that may answer those questions. I think that may be useful, to see whether we might come back to this matter at a later stage.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in respect of the specific questions, which are more or less covered by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, I think we will commit to write to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“(4A) No other provisions of this Act may be brought into force until a report by His Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire Services on improvements to the vetting, recruitment and discipline of specialist protest police officers is laid before and debated in each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, require parliamentary debate of a report by HMCI on improvements to the vetting, recruitment and discipline of specialist protest police officers before most provisions of the legislation may be brought into force. They further prohibit the bringing into force of the provisions in any police area under HMCI special measures.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate those still here. We end, of course, with commencement, because that is the tradition. In moving Amendment 146 I will speak also to my Amendments 147 and 149. I also support Amendment 148 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and Amendment 150 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend. We are dealing with the tension between ever more police powers on the one hand and the lack of equivalence in resources, training and vetting for policing on the other hand. This tension has been more and more exposed in graphic terms in recent months and years.
We began this evening with the eloquent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who spoke powerfully about incidents of abuse of police power in relation to journalists. We were assured, I think sincerely, by the Minister that it was far from the intention of the Government that those things happened. The Government apparently agreed with me that those were wrongful arrests, yet they have happened more than once. There are some in the police community who hold the view that this is a legitimate thing to do to prevent serious disruption, which is undefined in statute. So, with the amendments, we are seeking to ensure that there is some check on the new blank cheque that we are putting on the statute book, in addition to blank cheques that have already been put there by broad concepts such as conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, et cetera. That is what we are trying to get at.
Amendment 146 prevents the commencement of most provisions of the Bill until there has been
“a report by His Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire Services on improvements to the vetting, recruitment and discipline of specialist protest police officers”.
In another group, the Minister said, “If they’re trained, they’re trained”. So this is about ensuring that that is the case before additional power is granted. Amendment 147 is consequential to that.
Amendment 149 is crucial at a time when more than one police force is in special measures. It provides that provisions should
“not be brought into force for any area in which the police service is under special measures, the engage phase of monitoring, or other unusual scrutiny … by His Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire Services.”
That seems to be a perfectly reasonably check on the new powers and a perfectly reasonable request to make of Ministers, so I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 148 and 150 in this group, and will speak also to Amendments 146, 147 and 149.
My amendments would mean that the new offences in the Bill—the delegation of functions and serious disruption prevention order provisions—could not come into force until the Government have laid before Parliament a report assessing the current capability of police services to use the provisions in those sections. Most of the 10 police forces inspected by HMICFRS said that the limiting factor in the effective policing of protests was a lack of properly trained and equipped police officers, not gaps in legislation. If that is already the limiting factor, what assessment have the Government made of the additional strain that the new provisions will have on already-stretched police officer numbers? What is the point of new legislation if the police do not have the resources to use it effectively—or, indeed, to use existing legislation effectively?
I can understand the principle behind Amendments 146, 147 and 149 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has added his name to Amendments 146 and 147. Were it to be within the scope of the Bill, I too would support a moratorium on giving the police any further powers unless and until Parliament had a chance to consider a report by HMICFRS into the vetting, recruitment and discipline of all police officers, not just public order officers—particularly in forces that are subject to the “engage phase” of scrutiny by HMICFRS, commonly understood to be “special measures”. With so many forces requiring intensive scrutiny and intervention by HMICFRS, and public confidence in the police being so low, the police should not be given further powers until HMICFRS has reassured the public that they can have confidence in the police use of existing powers, let alone new ones.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I add my support to Amendments 146 and 147, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester added his name—I know he regrets that he is unable to be here today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for bringing these important amendments forward. Throughout the debate on the Bill, it has been clear that there are many justified and genuine concerns about provisions and the expansion of police powers laid out in it. I believe that it is therefore appropriate that further reflection should take place, and these amendments would provide for exactly that opportunity, requiring parliamentary debate of an HMCI report concerning improvements to the vetting, recruitment and discipline of protest police officers. In recent years, we have arguably seen an accelerated decrease in trust in the police, and it is critical that any expansion of powers such as those set out in the Bill does not occur without regard for the real implications of such measures.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will make a couple of brief comments in support of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, forcefully made the arguments for Amendment 150, and I will not repeat them. I also support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s amendments —she also made the arguments.
I will add one thing to the amendments of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—obviously spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Amendment 147 talks about the “vetting, recruitment and discipline” of specialist officers. It is especially important that these amendments have been tabled. I know that the Government will be as worried, concerned and appalled as the rest of us in the week where we have seen the resignation of Michael Lockwood as the director-general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct due to a criminal inquiry. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti made a point about vetting. I have no idea what the process or procedure was when Mr Lockwood got the post, but one wonders about the vetting that took place, and this raises the question yet again. We will not have a big debate about all this, but I think that what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s amendments get at is that, if we are to restore public confidence, we have to address some of these issues. Unfortunately, at the moment, we seem to have one thing after another which undermines the valuable work that so many of our officers do.
I will raise one other point about commencement. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised the issue of Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Talking about the commencement of the Bill, he was worried about Section 78’s definition of
“Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”
and how it related to the provisions in Bill. Before the commencement of the Act, as it will be, some clarification of how it relates to Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 would be helpful for our police forces as they interpret the law.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling their amendments; I absolutely understand the sentiment behind them. It is obviously important that the measures passed in the Bill are continually subject to inspection, reporting and scrutiny by the relevant bodies, such as HMICFRS. However, I remind noble Lords that the use of police powers is already carefully scrutinised by public bodies such as HMICFRS and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will forgive me for not referring to the ongoing case against the departing chief.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Can the Minister clarify what I thought I heard—noble Lords know what I am like with making mistakes about what a Minister actually said and what I heard. Did he say that the provisions in the legislation are designed to “deter protesters” and therefore relieve pressure on the police? Can he just clarify what he meant by that?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
What I hope I said is that our expectation is that the provisions in the Bill will improve the ability of the police to “remove and deter protesters”, thereby alleviating some pressure on the police.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
That is very helpful. I agree with the Minister that police officers—we have a fine one in this Committee—and police forces should not be treated with a broad brush, but, and noble Lords will perhaps forgive me if I say it, nor should peaceful protesters. Hence, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and hence the bulk of criticism of this entire draft legislation in this Committee. It is an unhappy privilege to be perhaps the last speaker in this Committee; I think I was the first. I am grateful to the Minister for his fortitude and courtesy. He wants to rise again.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I just want to clarify that I mean criminal protesters.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister but, of course, if the Government are able to keep expanding the definition of criminality, that does not give much cause for comfort about protecting peaceful dissent. I am none the less grateful to the Minister for his fortitude and courtesy throughout this three-session Committee. I hope that he and his colleagues will understand that what he has heard over these days and hours is very serious cross-party concern about these measures, reflected in vast sections of the country. I have no doubt that, after a good break and, I hope, a happy Christmas of reflection, colleagues will be back and some of these matters will definitely be put to the vote. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.