House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd, and a happy St David’s Day—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.
The Government are committed to improving digital connectivity as demonstrated by our commitment to Project Gigabit, the shared rural network and, most recently, the new very hard-to-reach pilots, two of which are located in Wales.
Ben Lake
Ofcom reports that some 30,000 premises across the UK have no access to decent broadband or to a decent 4G signal, including rural areas of Ceredigion, such as Lledrod, Pennant, Talgarreg, Cribyn, Sarnau, Abermeurig and Coed-y-bryn to name but a few. Will the Minister make representations to colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that those areas are prioritised in the next iteration of Project Gigabit?
Dr Davies
The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. Let me reiterate that we have Project Gigabit, which is an ambitious £5 billion project to reach the hardest-to-reach areas outside of the commercial scope, and also the Alpha trials using satellites, two of which are in Snowdonia National Park. There are, as he will be aware, also opportunities through the Mid Wales growth deal. I would be happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do. With regard to mobile networks, there is the shared rural network, alongside the use of the Home Office’s extended area service infrastructure.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) is absolutely right to raise the issues that he has—he is often right, actually. I declare an interest here, Mr Speaker. In the Dyfi valley, in Gwynedd, broadband fibre was connected to premises after being a complete non-spot for so many years. Can my hon. Friend the Minister carry on with the hard work to ensure that there is gigabit connection within Cymru—Wales?
Dr Davies
I know that my hon. Friend is a regular visitor to Wales. He is quite right to raise the importance of broadband both to people’s modern way of life and also to business. There has been progress, but there is much more to do.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Happy St David’s Day, Mr Speaker. I thank London Welsh School for such a lovely flag-raising ceremony this morning.
On the subject of digital connectivity, EU structural funds have helped our universities to deliver research, innovation and skills development across areas that the Minister’s Government consider a priority, including digital transformation. Many of these projects now face a cliff-edge as EU structural funds finish, with 60 projects in Wales due to end this year, putting around 1,000 skilled jobs at risk. What conversations has he and the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues to protect those valuable skilled jobs?
Dr Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She is right that academic institutions have been reliant on EU structural funding in the past. There is, of course, the shared prosperity fund coming forward, which universities will need to apply to. I know that my colleague the Secretary of State is visiting all universities across Wales. I have accompanied him to Bangor University and I have also visited Wrexham University very recently, and both are adjusting to the new landscape.
Jo Stevens
Going back to the subject of gigabit, the Government’s Project Gigabit boasts that it will deliver lightning-fast reliable broadband to every corner of the UK, but the project update that was published this week by the Minister’s Government shows that Wales has the lowest coverage of any of the home nations—just 57% compared with, for example, 73% in England and 89% in Northern Ireland. Does that not represent yet another broken promise by the Tories to Wales?
Dr Davies
The hon. Lady is aware that the geography and topography of Wales make digital connections more tricky than in some other areas. She is also aware that it is the Welsh Government who have been leading on the roll-out of broadband in Wales in conjunction with Building Digital UK, and I agree that more work needs to be done to improve those figures.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd, a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i chithau ac i bawb—happy St. David’s Day to everybody.
Although the Minister might blame the mountains, it is evident that poor connectivity in rural areas is clearly one of the factors holding businesses back. Another is trade barriers, particularly for Holyhead. Pre-Brexit, about 30% of all trade through the port went on to Northern Ireland from Dublin. That trade has collapsed and it is not protected by green lanes. Stena Line says that there needs to be a solution to this disparity. Can he come up with a solution to protect Holyhead from his Government’s policy?
Dr Davies
The right hon. Lady recently attended a debate that I responded to in Westminster Hall, where she was making the case for a freeport in Holyhead. She knows that there are opportunities, through freeports, to boost the trade through Holyhead and other ports in Wales that are seeking the same designation. I urge her to continue that fight.
Liz Saville Roberts
I urge his Government to come forward with news, because Wales desperately needs two freeports at least.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that Northern Ireland is in the “unbelievably special position” of having privileged access not just to the UK market, but hey, to the EU single market. That is an excellent argument for Plaid Cymru’s policy to rejoin the single market. Why is it not good enough for Wales?
Dr Davies
Wales voted to leave the EU quite decisively. The right hon. Lady knows that the situation in Northern Ireland is really quite different from that in Wales, and this is a carefully put together deal to accommodate that situation. I feel quite sure that the EU is not in the business of allowing what she suggests.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
A gaf i hefyd ddymuno dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb?—[Translation: May I also wish everyone a happy St David’s day?]
Health is a devolved matter and we therefore have no control over how the National Health Service is delivered in Wales—that is a matter for the Welsh Labour Government—but improving health outcomes for people across the UK is, of course, a priority for this Government, and we have made sure that the devolved Administrations have the funding to enable them to deliver the same high standards of care that have been delivered in England by this Conservative Government.
Theresa Villiers
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a top priority for the Welsh Government should be helping the 45,000 people who are currently waiting more than two years for treatment in the NHS in Wales, rather than focusing on things such as banning meal deals and axing road improvement schemes?
David T. C. Davies
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. Figures from the Office for National Statistics this week suggest that around 1 in 5 people in Wales is now on a waiting list as opposed to just 1 in 18 people in England. As she has just pointed out, 50,000 people have been waiting more than two years for healthcare in Wales. I would far rather see the money that will be spent on creating extra Senedd Members spent on delivering healthcare in Wales.
Marco Longhi
Despite the Welsh Government receiving £1.20 for every £1 spent on public services in England, they spend only £1.05 of that money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Government should spend less time and money on expanding the Senedd and putting tampons in men’s toilets, and focus on delivering a proper service for the people of Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the 50,000 people who are in pain and on waiting lists at the moment would far rather see the £100 million that will be spent on expanding the Senedd being spent on delivering healthcare and reducing waiting lists in Wales.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware that higher levels of poverty give rise to higher healthcare costs and higher absolute numbers of people needing healthcare, so how can he justify the fact that Wales does not get its 5% share of High Speed 2—£5 billion—and is losing enormous amounts of money from EU funding, which he promised would be provided, and thousands of jobs in Welsh universities? We need that productivity to alleviate poverty and to put less pressure on the NHS. It is his fault that those waiting lists are growing.
David T. C. Davies
I certainly do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has come up with on HS2. The fact is that the UK Government have replaced EU funding in full through the shared prosperity fund, the community ownership fund, the community renewal fund, levelling-up funds and much else besides. The UK Government have also made certain that £1.20 is delivered per head of population for NHS care in Wales, as opposed to £1 in England. It is very hard for him to explain why Wales receives more money to deliver healthcare and yet delivers lower standards.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
If the UK Government were to uplift NHS and social care pay in England to the level in Scotland, it would unlock funding for all the devolved nations to support their national health services through the cost of living crisis. Will the Secretary of State discuss the possibility of a pay uplift and its impact on Wales with Cabinet colleagues?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady is right that Scotland is very generously funded. She seems to be making an argument that Wales and England should receive more money per head than Scotland does at the moment and that she would be happy with that: I doubt it very much. The reality is that despite the generous funding that the Scottish Government receive, they have very poor outcomes, and some of their own members have said that health care in Scotland is close to collapse.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
The UK Government are committed to supporting renewable energy generation in Wales, including for innovative tidal stream technologies at Morlais through our flagship contracts for difference scheme. I will continue to work across Government to ensure that we can capitalise on the huge renewable energy opportunities Wales has to offer.
Jeff Smith
The best way to bring down bills for Welsh businesses long term is to help to transition away from fossil fuels. That is why Labour is calling for a national wealth fund, so we can help industries such as Welsh steel win the race in the future. What comparable steps will the Government take to help heavy industry decarbonise?
Dr Davies
The Government have an ambitious programme to decarbonise the country by 2050, and we have provided £21.5 million to the south Wales industrial cluster to decarbonise heavy industry and support the transition to net zero. Of course, the opportunities for floating offshore wind in that region could be critical too.
Liz Twist
A Labour Government will more than quadruple offshore wind to make the UK a clean energy superpower, making the most of the fantastic natural resources in Wales. When will the Government match that ambition so that sectors such as Welsh offshore wind can achieve their full potential?
Dr Davies
As I mentioned in my previous answer, there is an ambitious programme for offshore wind, including floating offshore wind in south-west Wales and south-west England. There is an intention for 4 GW of power to be provided through the Celtic sea by 2035 and many more gigawatts in the future.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On this St David’s Day there are many reasons to be positive about the Welsh economy, not least the role that Wales will play in delivering greater energy security for the UK and helping move us to net zero. On that theme, would the Minister agree that we have a brilliant opportunity with the deployment of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, but we need the Government to go ahead and give us the Celtic freeport for south Wales? We also have a huge opportunity on Ynys Môn with the development of new gigawatt-scale nuclear power there.
Dr Davies
My right hon. Friend is a strong campaigner on this front. I would add that £60 million is being invested in the marine project at Pembroke dock through the Swansea Bay city deal, so there is plenty of potential for his region.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that over recent months we have seen better co-operation between the European Union and the UK over energy? Does he agree that the Windsor framework will mean that we can go much further? That co-operation will release the potential for energy security and hopefully see prices come down, which will help Wales.
Dr Davies
My right hon. and learned Friend is of course right that co-operation is always a good thing, and in fact interconnectors are critical to our energy security. Only last week I met a company proposing to connect mainland Great Britain with the Republic of Ireland through a second interconnector.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
We know that oil and gas producers have been making record profits for more than 18 months, but the Government’s paltry windfall tax began in May last year. How can the Government justify leaving billions of pounds of excess profits untouched while so many people across Wales are struggling with household bills and the rising cost of living crisis?
Dr Davies
Mercifully, energy costs now appear to be on a downward trajectory, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that up to 70% in tax has been taken from energy producers through the windfall tax, which is bringing a great deal of money into the Treasury to help to fund the support packages that people are relying on.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I share the concerns of all hon. Members about the grave allegations of misogyny that have been made about the Welsh Rugby Union, and the recent contract negotiations with players have also been a matter of concern. Rugby has always been at the heart of Welsh culture and, as such, I was pleased to meet the acting chief executive officer Nigel Walker recently. He is an honourable man and well thought of. I am sure that he takes the allegations seriously and will be dealing with them.
Dr Evans
Being half Welsh and half English, the game at the weekend can often be difficult, but I am united in being a rugby fan. In England, I have met the CEOs of premiership rugby and of the Rugby Football Union, and the Minister, to ensure good governance. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Labour Government to ensure that the players, fans and good governance secure rugby union and its elite stars in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
Obviously, sport is a devolved matter, but I have had conversations with Nigel Walker and other members of the WRU informally. The UK Government, and I am sure the Welsh Government, were appalled by the allegations. I would be happy to work with the Welsh Government, the WRU or any other body, including the external body that has been set up to look at the issue, to ensure that the allegations are properly dealt with.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Dydd gŵyl Dewi Sant hapus, Mr Speaker. I am sure that all hon. Members are concerned about the allegations of discrimination and misogyny within the WRU that victims have come forward and said they have faced. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about the matter and the pressure that they can put on the WRU to address these serious allegations?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady will be aware that sport is a devolved matter, but those concerns will be shared in DCMS. Those sorts of allegations have been made about not just rugby, but other sports, so there is a nationwide problem. My colleagues in DCMS will be doing everything they can to deal with such allegations in England. I would honestly be happy to work with her, the WRU and the Welsh Government—or any other body that has some means of dealing with the issue. We must absolutely ensure that sport is safe for women, minorities and everyone to take part in without any form of discrimination.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about how the £330 million allocated to Wales so far through the levelling-up fund is supporting communities, creating jobs, driving up economic growth and keeping the Government’s commitment to ensure that Wales does not lose a penny as a result of coming out of the European Union.
Simon Baynes
The Labour Welsh Government have badly let down Clywd South and Wrexham by scrapping the A483 junction upgrade, which would have unlocked substantial investment and jobs in our community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they need to support and maximise the benefits of the UK Government’s Welsh levelling-up fund projects by investing in road upgrades across Wales?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Welsh Government’s response to the roads review gives the impression that Wales is closed for business by determining that no further road-building projects will take place. I urge them to consider the impact of not building roads on the economy and the long-term prosperity of Wales. They should consider how they might build on the record support that Wales has received through the levelling-up fund and city and growth deals by rebuilding roads and improving connectivity across Wales.
Alun Cairns
Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus, Mr Speaker. The levelling-up fund offered prospects for communities such as Barry that had been ignored by the Welsh Labour Government for many years. In the last levelling-up fund round, however, Cardiff bay, which has received billions of pounds for regeneration in recent decades, received a further £50 million, but Barry Making Waves, which is delivering a marina project, was ignored. What hope, prospect and opportunity can I offer people in Barry for the next round of levelling-up funding?
David T. C. Davies
I fully understand my right hon. Friend’s disappointment that the bid was not successful on this occasion, and I pay tribute to him for being such a champion for that particular bid and for his constituency. I suggest to him that there is going to be a third round of levelling-up funding, and I hope that local authorities that have not thus far been successful will apply.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb. Will the Minister please join me in congratulating Mountain Ash in my constituency on being shortlisted for the Let’s Celebrate Towns competition, which is being announced here in Parliament this evening? On this St David’s Day, will he also now join me in urging the UK Government to restore the £1.1 billion missing in Wales, and allow the Welsh Government to administer those funds to enable every community in Wales, including Cynon Valley, to thrive?
David T. C. Davies
First, Mr Speaker, I would like to say llongfyfarchiadau mawr to the constituents of the hon. Lady. I do not recognise the figure that she has just quoted: the UK Government have made sure that record funding has flowed through to the Welsh Government, and in replacing the funds that we used to receive from the European Union we have made sure that Wales has not lost out by one penny. The UK Government have been working directly with the 22 local authorities across Wales, including the hon. Lady’s, to ensure that we can continue to deliver jobs, prosperity and growth in Wales.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Minister says that he does not recognise the figure of £1.1 billion—well, the people and communities of Wales will recognise that £1.1 billion when it fails to materialise any significant improvement in their communities and healthcare outcomes, or in business investment. What will he do to compensate the people of Wales for the paltry levelling-up funding that is no match for European funding?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well that it is not just levelling-up funding that is replacing EU funds: it is levelling-up funds, community ownership funds, community renewal funds and shared prosperity funds. On top of that, the Government are delivering nearly £790 million in growth deals. Wales has not lost out by one penny as a result of the UK Government’s implementing the result of the referendum, in which the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
This Government have provided an unprecedented package for non-domestic energy users through this winter, worth £18 billion, and our new energy bills discount scheme will provide a discount on high energy costs to give businesses certainty while limiting taxpayers’ exposure to volatile energy markets.
Chris Elmore
I welcome the Secretary of State’s support running up to April, but he must accept that the changes that the Government are introducing from April are also bringing about huge amounts of uncertainty for many businesses, including in my constituency of Ogmore. One business is looking at potentially making several hundred of its workforce redundant because it is unable to get guarantees on funding beyond April. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see what work we can do to try to ensure that business is secured, and convince the Chancellor that more support is needed in the Budget for businesses in Wales and across the UK?
David T. C. Davies
I certainly know that the Chancellor and the Treasury have been having discussions with businesses in Wales about what support can be given, but I would be perfectly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and that business in his constituency to see what further support can be given.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus. Businesses on Ynys Môn have been impacted by the cost of living crisis, compounded by a lack of investment in key infrastructure. With the cancellation of plans for a third Menai bridge, it is clear that Labour and its Plaid chums in Cardiff would rather Anglesey was on a road to nowhere. Does the Secretary of State agree that a freeport on Anglesey would demonstrate that my constituency is on a superhighway to the future?
David T. C. Davies
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty champion for not only a freeport, but a nuclear power station and a third Menai bridge, in her constituency of Ynys Môn. She must have been as disappointed as I was that the Welsh Labour Government have decided that they will build no more roads in Wales, meaning that her constituents will lose out as a result of not being able to have that vital road connection.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
This Government are committed to delivering high-quality public services. For instance, by next month, there will be a record number of police officers serving communities across Wales, and we have seen crime decrease by 10% across England and Wales between 2021 and 2022. As the hon. Lady is aware, many public services, including health and education, are devolved in Wales.
Christina Rees
Will the Minister urge his colleagues to accept the Welsh Affairs Committee’s recommendation that HS2 be reclassified as an England-only project? Wales will then receive Barnett consequentials estimated at £5 billion, allowing the Welsh Labour Government to continue to expand public transport services, and people in Wales can then receive the same benefits from HS2 as those in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Dr Davies
The hon. Lady knows that HS2 is an England and Wales project and is an important backbone of Britain’s rail infrastructure, and the important thing for Wales is to be able to plug in to it and take advantage of it. We also need to see the roads review that the Welsh Government have brought forward scrapped. We need to see investment in our roads.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to inform Members that a book of condolence for Baroness Boothroyd has been placed outside the Library.
I point out that live subtitles and British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings are available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
May I wish everyone, but in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), a very happy St David’s Day?
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Justin Madders
The Prime Minister understands the importance of NHS staff, because he was out there every Thursday night clapping for them during the pandemic. He must therefore also surely know that he has not got a hope of dealing with the NHS crisis if he does not invest in its workforce. We have a plan to double medical school places and end the scandal of straight-A students being denied the chance to become a doctor. Patients support our plan, the NHS supports our plan, and even his Chancellor supports our plan. Why doesn’t he?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman needs to keep up—we are doing a workforce plan for the NHS. There are tens of thousands more doctors, more nurses in the NHS, a record number of GPs and record investment in the NHS. That is what we get with a Conservative Government delivering.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust for their fantastic work, and I can confirm that we are committed to a new hospital scheme at the Queen’s Medical Centre and City Hospital as part of our new hospital programme. I know that progress is being made, and I look forward to seeing the project come to completion.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Can I join the Prime Minister in wishing everybody a happy St David’s Day?
After 13 years of Tory failure, the average family in Britain will be poorer than the average family in Poland by 2030. That is a shocking state of affairs. If the Tories limp on in government, we are going to see a generation of young people learning to say “auf Wiedersehen, pet” in Polish, aren’t we?
The Prime Minister
It is clear to everyone that the biggest impact on household living standards is the energy prices we are suffering as a result of an illegal war in Ukraine, and I would just remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we are doing to ease people through that. Because of our energy price guarantee, the Government are paying more than half of a typical household energy bill, saving households right now £1,000. It is one of the most generous support schemes globally. He knows that future decisions to support the cost of living are for the Budget, but if he is concerned about the cost of living, what he should do is stop making inflationary, unfunded spending commitments and back our plan to halve inflation.
Keir Starmer
The dictionary definition of unfunded commitments is last year’s kamikaze Budget. We are the only country in the G7 that is still poorer than it was before the pandemic, and the Prime Minister stands there pretending that it is all fine—total denial about the damage and decline that he is presiding over. Delivering growth and tackling the cost of living crisis will mean standing up to vested interests. Energy bills will go up by £900 in April. He knows he will have to act, but who is going to pay? Hard-working families through higher taxes and more borrowing, or the oil and gas giants celebrating record profits?
The Prime Minister
I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman recently made a rare trip out of north London to visit Davos. Perhaps while he was there, he missed the survey of 4,000 global CEOs from 100 different countries who ranked the United Kingdom as their No. 1 European investment destination. If he is serious about getting the economy growing, he should stand up to the vested interests in the unions and back our minimum service levels.
Keir Starmer
Here is the thing: all CEOs of businesses are saying there is only one party with a plan for growth, and it is this party here. There is one party that broke the economy, and its Members are sitting on the Government Benches. On energy bills, it is not as complicated as the Prime Minister pretends. Oil and gas companies are making vast, unexpected profits while working people face the misery of higher bills. He can boast all he likes, but companies like Shell did not pay a penny in windfall tax last year, and they are still not paying their fair share now. Why does he not admit his mistake, get rid of the loopholes in his botched windfall tax and finally choose family finances over oil profits?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to forget that, as Chancellor, I introduced a new tax on energy companies. Energy companies will pay a 75% tax rate on extraordinary profits comparable to—indeed, higher than—other North sea nations. That is what his shadow Levelling Up Secretary recently called for, but I have good news for them: we did it a year ago. They have to keep up. I know they claim to support levelling up, but they really need to keep up.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister introduced a tax on Shell and it has not paid a penny—fantastic work! If he were serious about investing in the future of the country, he would start with housing. A few months ago, his Back Benchers forced him to scrap house building targets. At the time, he stood there and said it would mean the Government would build more homes. Well, would you believe it? A few months later, the Home Builders Federation say house building will fall to its lowest level in 75 years. He can change course on this. He can bring back targets and planning reforms, or he can duck that fight and let a generation down. Which is it?
The Prime Minister
Actually, we have had record high numbers on house building and, indeed, the highest number of first-time buyers in around 20 years under this Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about investing for the long term of our country, and that is important when it comes to energy security, but Labour’s policy is to oppose any new oil and gas licences in the North sea. It is an absurd policy that would see us paying billions to countries abroad for our energy, while shipping it here with twice the carbon emissions. It is typical political posturing. It is bad for the economy; it is bad for our security—just like the Labour party.
Mr Speaker
Order. Because of the noise, I do not think the Prime Minister is hearing the questions because I do think that one was on house building.
Keir Starmer
House building is at the lowest level for 75 years. A whole generation of people are desperate to get on the housing ladder. Thirteen years in power, and all the Prime Minister has to say to them is, “It’s somebody else’s fault—let me deflect.” No wonder they are furious with his Government.
It is not just bills or housing. Families are paying over £1,000 a month just to send their child to nursery. If the Prime Minister scrapped his non-dom status, he could start to fund better childcare, put money back into people’s pockets and get parents back to work. It seems a pretty simple choice to me. Which is he going to choose: wealthy tax avoiders or hard-working parents?
The Prime Minister
If we want to see what happens with house building under a Labour Government, we just need to look at what is going on in London—and when it comes to the facts, they do not suit the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument. Let us just go over them: the wealthiest pay more tax and the poorest pay less tax than under any year of the last Labour Government. As for his plans, he has already spent the money he claims he would raise from his policy on five different things. It is the same old Labour party: always running out of other people’s money.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is never happier than when he is pretending that everything is fine or blaming someone else—and didn’t we just see it there? He is choosing tax avoiders over hard-working parents.
I do not want to finish this session without asking about the covid disclosures in today’s Daily Telegraph. We do not know the truth of what happened yet—there are too many messages and too many unknowns—but families across the country will look at this, and the sight of politicians writing books portraying themselves as heroes or selectively leaking messages will be an insulting and ghoulish spectacle for them. At the heart of this is every family who made enormous sacrifices for the good of the country or who tragically lost loved ones.
The country deserves better. The covid inquiry has already cost the taxpayer £85 million and has not heard from a single Government Minister yet. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no more delays and that the inquiry will have whatever support it needs to report by the end of this year?
The Prime Minister
The past couple of years were an incredibly difficult time for everyone involved in the health service. I pay tribute to all their hard work, and I know that the House will join me in that regard.
Rather than comment on piecemeal bits of information, I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the right way for these things to be looked at is through the covid inquiry; that is why we have established the covid inquiry. He will know—he has mentioned once or twice before that he was a lawyer in a previous life—that there is a proper process for these things. It is an independent inquiry. It has the resources it needs, it has the powers it needs, and what we should all do in this House is let it get on and do its job.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the Windsor framework. He is right about the benefits that it can bring. I also join him in paying tribute to our incredible research community, who do a fantastic job. I can assure him that we will continue to work with the EU in a range of areas—not just research collaboration, but strengthening our sanctions against Russia, energy security and, crucially, illegal migration. I look forward to those discussions and hope we can conclude them productively on a range of different areas.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that EU single market access was “special”, “exciting” and “attractive”. If that is the case, why is he denying it to the rest of us?
The Prime Minister
It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to play politics with the situation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, as he well knows, has a unique place in the United Kingdom. What we are trying to do is restore the balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and he would do well to acknowledge that.
Stephen Flynn
Let us be clear: what the Prime Minister said yesterday was that EU single market access will be a good thing for business. Of course, that is in contrast to the leader of the Labour party, who said in December that EU single market access would not boost economic growth. Does it hurt the Prime Minister to know that the Labour party believes in Brexit more than he does?
The Prime Minister
With regard to Northern Ireland, the important thing is to avoid a land border on the island of Ireland between north and south. That is what it is crucial to achieve in getting the right framework for the arrangements in Northern Ireland, and the businesses there that trade across that border on a daily basis, with complex supply chains need, and value that access. That is something that the Windsor framework has sought to achieve and, I believe, delivers. It is not about the macro issue of membership of the European Union; it is about getting the right mechanisms in place to support businesses and communities in Northern Ireland. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he knows better than that: he knows that this is about Northern Ireland, and I hope that he can support what we have agreed.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Prime Minister
When it comes to our energy policy, the important thing is to focus on our long-term energy security. That means more renewables, more offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and, indeed, more nuclear. Wylfa remains one of the best nuclear sites in the UK, and the strong support from the local community, and indeed my hon. Friend, makes it an attractive site for the UK’s nuclear revival. I know that Great British Nuclear, when that body is up and running, will be taking a very close look at it.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Well, I have to say it is great to hear of the conversion that the Prime Minister has had on the benefits of the single market. Given Northern Ireland’s access to the dual market—both markets—and the benefits that that brings, will his Government commit to investing in infrastructure and higher education provision to maximise that benefit?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement and support in developing the Windsor framework. I think it delivers on what he wanted, which was to ensure that we protect Northern Ireland’s businesses and the supply chains that they have, and I can give him that commitment. He and I both want to see more investment in Northern Ireland not just from the Government, but from the private sector. This agreement will unlock that investment, but, critically, a step on that journey is to have a reformed Executive, something I know everyone in this House would like to see.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I am delighted that Lithuania and the city of Vilnius will host the NATO leaders summit in July, and the UK does have a strong and growing relationship with Lithuania. It was just yesterday that its Defence Minister was here supporting our efforts, together with Lithuania, to train Ukrainian soldiers. At the summit, we will work together to ensure we can deter and defend against Russian aggression by making sure that we implement the next phase of the most radical military transformation since the 1960s.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Safety on our roads is our absolute priority, and we will do everything we can to make sure drivers do feel safe. Last year, we in fact paused the roll-out of smart motorways not already in construction while we consider the data and next steps. In the meantime, we have committed almost £900 million for safety improvements across the entire network.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Zero Carbon Guildford on receiving the Climate Coalition’s Innovative UK Community Project award. She is absolutely right that community empower-ment, engagement and action can play a role in supporting the UK’s transition to net zero, enabling communities to access the benefits that it brings, from greener jobs to improved health.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are investing record sums in the hospital capital upgrade programme across the country. I am very happy to make sure that we are making progress on the scheme that she mentioned and that she gets the detail of that. It is not just the 40 hospitals but the 90 upgrades around the country, and up to 300 community diagnostic centres and elective surgical hubs. This is a Government who are backing the NHS with the resources it needs.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the tragic incident near Italy at the weekend demonstrates only too well how illegal crossings put lives at risk. That is why last year the Home Secretary and I last year announced five new measures to tackle the problem of small boat crossings, including the largest ever boats deal with France and a landmark deal with Albania. But we must do more, and as soon as the legislation is ready it will be brought to this House to ensure that if you arrive in this country illegally, you will not be able to stay. You will be swiftly detained and removed to your own country or a safe third-country alternative. That is the right and responsible way to tackle this problem.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
There is a very special status for the nation of Scotland, and that is inside our United Kingdom.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Prime Minister will know that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has yet again been put in special measures. The chairman and the whole board resigned en masse, as they no longer have faith in the Welsh Labour Government. Yet on a call earlier this week, the Welsh Health Minister told me that it was not the Welsh Labour Government’s fault that healthcare has collapsed in north Wales. Given that Labour runs the NHS in north Wales, can my right hon. Friend suggest to the people of north Wales whose fault it is and who should put it right?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. The House will know that health is a devolved matter for the Labour-run Government in Wales, where one in five people in the entire country are now on a waiting list. The Government there should focus on the people’s priorities and start cutting waiting lists, as we are doing here in England.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The Liberal Democrats’ shadow Energy Secretary said that there was no role for nuclear power in our future energy industry, which is not something that we need to listen to. As for helping people with their energy bills, as I said earlier, because of the energy price guarantee we are paying, typically, about half a family’s energy bill at the moment, which is worth £1,000. However, the support does not end there: over the next year there will be about £1,000 of direct support for the most vulnerable families in the nation.
I agree with the hon. Lady about energy efficiency. It is important, which is why the Government have allocated more than £6 billion over the current Parliament, and the new schemes that we have just introduced will help hundreds of thousands of households across the country, saving them about £300 on their bills through improvements in their energy efficiency—and the hon. Lady is right: it should be available everywhere, including Scotland.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Greece, may I put on record how sad we all are about the tragic train accident and loss of life there?
The double child rapist and killer Colin Pitchfork is once again up for parole next month. I know that the Prime Minister has no part in any decision-making process in terms of the independent Parole Board, but can he organise an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Justice, so that I can refer my constituents’ views about this dangerous man and he can take them into account in his submissions to the board?
The Prime Minister
Pitchfork’s crimes were heinous, and our thoughts remain with Lynda and Dawn’s friends and families. My hon. Friend knows that it is for the Parole Board to make these decisions, but my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be submitting his views on the Pitchford case to the board before the oral hearing and will be happy to meet my hon. Friend again. We recently published a root-and-branch review of the Parole Board system that outlined our plans to introduce greater ministerial oversight, and I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions and thoughts on that.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Rough sleeping levels have been 35% lower this year than the peak, partly as a result of our £2 billion of extra investment over the last three years to tackle rough sleeping. We still have one of the lowest rates in the world, according to when it was last measured, but we will continue to do more. We do not want anyone to have to sleep rough. Because of the innovations that we have made we are taking more and more people off the streets, and we will keep delivering more.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Last month The Pines Primary School in my constituency achieved a “good” rating in its Ofsted inspection. That in itself is laudable, but what is particularly significant is that The Pines is now the 40th of 40 eligible schools in Bracknell to be rated “good” or “outstanding”. This clean sweep is itself an outstanding achievement, and I am very proud of everyone locally. Will the Prime Minister please join me in congratulating our fantastic teachers, staff, governors and pupils, as well as Councillor Gareth Barnard and the entire education team in Conservative-run Bracknell Forest Council?
The Prime Minister
Education is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for transforming people’s lives, so I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in praising everyone involved, from the councillor to the teachers to the staff to the governors, for delivering such fantastic results. They are in the business of providing tremendous opportunities for the children in their care, and we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are helping people now. We are helping people with the energy price guarantee, which is ensuring they have a £1,000 saving on their energy bills right now, and we are providing further support over the coming year for the most vulnerable with direct cost of living support of up to £1,000. There is also a record increase in pensions, a record increase in benefits and a record increase in the national living wage, because that is what Conservative Governments do.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Some 97% of ceramics businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises, which means that they have not received the level of support that many other energy-intensive sectors have, so will my right hon. Friend look at what more support, particularly financial support, can be offered to help this sector to decarbonise and invest in energy efficiency measures?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his ceramics industry, and rightly so. It has been a pleasure to meet him and his businesses in the past. He will know that our energy bills discount scheme will support businesses with their energy bills through to March next year, and we have a range of other funds to support energy-intensive industries. There is the scheme that he mentioned, and also the industrial energy transformation fund, which provides capital grants to businesses such as his to help them decarbonise. I look forward to discussing this with him and his businesses in the near future.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
It is amazing, when we have had a question about the awful tragedy of illegal migration that happened recently, that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept that there is absolutely nothing compassionate about tolerating illegal migration when people are dying. That is why the Government will bring forward legislation to improve the system here. It is absolutely right that if people come here illegally, they should be sent to a safe alternative, because that is the only way we will break the cycle of these criminal gangs and stop people dying needlessly.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
A school in my constituency was complaining that it could not afford to turn the heating on, yet that school and others are spending money on PSHE materials from organisations such as Stonewall and Jigsaw that are educating our boys and girls that they may not have been born in the right body or that they may have an inner gender identity. Will the PM meet me to see how we can stop this unscientific, ideological education being taught in our schools and get our children learning where they should be learning—in a warm, safe place?
The Prime Minister
We have boosted school funding by around £2 billion in each of the next two years, which will help schools to manage their energy costs, but we do expect schools to take responsible and sensible decisions on their RHSE materials and make sure that those materials are age-appropriate, suitable, politically impartial and value for money. I look forward to discussing this matter with my hon. Friend, and I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister may be aware of Sky News’s investigation and report today on the over-the-counter sale of nitrous oxide, or laughing gas, to children and young teenagers. One alarming aspect is the change in the size of canisters from 8 grams to 620 grams, and ambulance call-outs related to overuse have tripled. Instead of criminalising the young people who buy nitrous oxide, is it not time to take urgent action against those knowingly selling this harmful and potentially life-changing substance to children under age?
The Prime Minister
I share the hon. Lady’s concern and that of Members across the House about nitrous oxide’s detrimental impact on communities and its contribution to antisocial behaviour. Indeed, I mentioned it specifically in a speech I made at the beginning of this year. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is conducting a review of nitrous oxide and looking at this question in particular. The Home Secretary has asked it to expedite that review and we will consider its advice carefully when it is received.
Covid Pandemic: Testing of Care Home Residents
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the testing of care home residents during the covid pandemic.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
The covid-19 pandemic was an unprecedented global health emergency involving a novel coronavirus that we were still learning about day by day, even hour by hour. Even in those early days, the UK Government and colleagues in my Department were clear that testing would be crucial. That is why the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), set ambitious testing targets to drive a true step change in the quantity of tests, because he knew that testing would be a vital lifeline until vaccines could be developed and proven safe and effective.
The importance of testing was never in doubt, and there was full agreement on that in every part of Government, from the chief medical officer to the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister. But in a situation where we had the capacity to test, at most, a few thousand each day, tough decisions about prioritisation had to be made. Those decisions were taken on the best public health advice available. Thanks in no small part to the bold testing ambitions driven by the Government, we were able to build the largest testing network in Europe.
I put on record my thanks to all those who worked tirelessly on this mission day and night, from civil servants to the NHS and, of course, our incredible social care workforce, who did so much to look after their residents. They all deserve our lasting gratitude.
The situation in our care homes was extremely difficult during the pandemic, not just in England but across the UK and, indeed, across the world. Because of the vulnerability of residents and the large number of people who come in and out of care homes, it is vital that we learn lessons.
It is equally vital that we learn those lessons in the right context. Selective snippets of WhatsApp conversations give a limited and, at times, misleading insight into the machinery of government at the time. The covid inquiry is important so that we have the right preparations in place to meet future threats and challenges.
Liz Kendall
Throughout the covid pandemic, Ministers repeatedly claimed that they had thrown a protective ring around England’s care homes and that they had always followed the evidence and scientific advice, but WhatsApp messages from the former Health Secretary revealed in today’s Daily Telegraph suggest that nothing could be further from the truth.
Will the Minister confirm that the chief medical officer first advised the Government to test all residents going into care homes in early April 2020? Can she explain why the former Health Secretary rejected that advice and failed to introduce community testing until 14 August—a staggering four months later? Can she publish the evidence that following the advice would have muddied the waters, as the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) claimed? And can she confirm that 17,678 people died of covid in care homes between the CMO’s advice and the Government finally deciding to act? She should know, because she was responsible for care homes at the time.
Former Ministers are touring the studios this morning claiming that this delay was simply because there were not enough tests. Where is the evidence for that? Even if tests were in short supply, why were care homes residents not prioritised when the devastating impact of covid was there for all to see?
Nobody denies that dealing with covid was unbelievably difficult, especially in the early days, but care home residents and staff were simply not a priority. Yet the former Prime Minister and former Health Secretary were first warned about the emerging horror in care homes by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in March 2020. I myself raised the lack of testing in care homes with the Health Secretary on 8 April, 28 April, 19 May and 17 June 2020, long before the CMO’s advice was finally followed.
The Minister will no doubt say that all these issues will be looked at in the public inquiry, but its findings will not be available for years. The families of the 43,000 care home residents who lost their lives will be appalled at the former Health Secretary attempting to rewrite history—an attempt that will turn to ashes along with his TV career. We need more humility and less celebrity from the right hon. Member for West Suffolk, and above all we need answers.
Helen Whately
It is relatively easy for the hon. Member to come to the House today and make these highly political points. Knowing how she and I worked together in the pandemic, and that she and I talked about all that we were doing to look after people in care homes, I am shocked and disappointed by the tone she has taken today, when we are dealing with extremely serious questions.
I will turn first to some of the difficult prioritisation decisions that were made, given the limited quantity of testing we had at the beginning of the pandemic. The Government followed the expert public health advice available at the time. We had the capacity to test just 3,000 cases a day in mid-March, and I am sure colleagues will understand why the health advice at the time was to prioritise those working on our NHS frontline and, for instance, the testing of people in hospitals and care homes who had symptoms. In fact, the courts have already agreed that our prioritisation decisions on testing were completely rational.
As we dramatically ramped up testing capacity, we also adjusted that prioritisation in line with the public health advice and the capacity, so by mid-April—just a month later—with testing capacity exceeding 38,000, we were in a position to test more widely. In fact, that is reflected in our adult social care plan published on 15 April, which made it clear that everyone discharged from a hospital to a care home should be tested even if asymptomatic, and that all discharged patients, regardless of the result of their test, should be isolated for 14 days. It is worth reflecting just what a dramatic increase in testing the Government oversaw, from just 3,000 in March 2020 to over 38,000 in mid-April, to over 100,000 by mid-May, to the point where we could test many millions in a single week. We established the largest testing network in Europe from a standing start, and the science proves that it saved lives.
The hon. Lady asked about the content of the WhatsApp messages that have been published. I say to her that it is a selection from a larger quantity of messages. Clearly, while there were discussions and debates between Ministers and colleagues, partly on WhatsApp, there were also meetings and conversations and other forums in which advice was given and decisions made. A huge quantity of that is with the public inquiry, but I can say to her that, for instance, a meeting to discuss the implementation of the advice on testing was not referenced in the WhatsApp messages she is talking about. There is an email following the exchange to which she is referring that says, “We can press ahead straightaway with hospitals testing patients who are going into care homes. And we should aspire, as soon as capacity allows and when we have worked out an operational way of delivering this, that everyone going into a care home from the community could be tested.” As I say, she is basing her comments on very selective information.
As I said, the hon. Lady knows how the Government, and me personally, strained every sinew, worked day and night, and did everything in our power to help people, and specifically the most vulnerable, during the pandemic. She and I spoke about it regularly during our frequent calls. In fact, at the time I appreciated her perspective, questions and insights from her own area of Leicester. I say to her that we should go about this discussion in the right way for the country. This is not the time to play political games. We should look to save lives. That is the purpose of the public inquiry: to learn lessons in the right way in case this should ever happen again.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will agree that it was Labour that called for a public inquiry, and the Government agreed to it. It is a full public inquiry and we could not have a better judge than Dame Heather Hallett, one of our most experienced and distinguished judges. She will do a very thorough job. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are seeing today is a bit of trial by media and party politics?
Helen Whately
My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right; we are having a public inquiry and the Government are fully co-operating with it so that it has all the information required to look through all that happened, to investigate it and, rather than trying to score political points, to truly learn lessons for the benefit of the country.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On 2 April 2020, I wrote to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), highlighting the urgent need for testing in care homes for staff and residents and, in particular, for patients being discharged from hospital. I knew at the time, as did other colleagues, that without that testing, care homes in my constituency and those across the country were suffering a heavy toll of deaths of residents. Indeed, one of our care home managers died of covid in my constituency.
Furthermore, at a session of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care in July 2021, I asked the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) why the Government had not taken up the offer from care providers of facilities to isolate people discharged from hospital before admitting them to care homes. He told me that he did not know anything about the letter, despite it being sent by Care England. Will the Minister now admit that the Department and Ministers failed to understand and to involve social care in the key decisions about the covid pandemic, and ignored letters offering help that could have saved lives?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady is right about the importance of testing. It is a view that she has and that I had at the time; some of the exchanges will show how I, as Social Care Minister, was arguing very hard for testing for care homes, as Members would expect. I know that other Ministers and other people were arguing for the things that they had oversight of. Ultimately, of course, the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister had to make decisions, based every step of the way, clearly, on the scientific advice on these things, as we did. To that point, during the course of the pandemic, as the capacity allowed, millions of tests were distributed to care homes. As I have said, as the capacity increased, care homes were prioritised in that process. Specifically to address one of the points she made, let me say that the guidance set out on 15 April was not only that everyone discharged from hospital to a care home should be tested, but that they should be isolated.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It seems that the Opposition want to rewrite history. The fact is that at the time people did not know what was right or what was wrong. The then Secretary of State listened to a whole lot of advice and then had to make a decision. Even one of the WhatsApp messages I have seen said:
“Tell me if I’m wrong”.
What should happen is that the covid inquiry should deal with all these matters properly. The one question I have for the Minister is this: is it possible to get the covid inquiry to report earlier?
Helen Whately
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the covid inquiry being the right place for people to go through the details of what happened—who said what and, as he said, the genuine debates that took place behind the scenes. This was a new virus and, at the time, we had only limited information about it. For instance, when it first hit our shores, it was not known who would be most vulnerable to it. We also did not know about asymptomatic transmission. There was a huge amount of uncertainty at the time, but the best possible decisions were made. As for the timing of the public inquiry, that is not within the control of Ministers.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The leaked WhatsApp messages from the then Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), showed that, despite a shortage of covid tests in September 2020, one of the Minister’s advisers sent a test to the home of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) by courier. This is yet more evidence that it is one rule for Conservative Ministers and another for everyone else. Can the Minister please inform the House how many other Government Ministers, Conservative MPs and their families received priority tests during the pandemic when there was a shortage of tests?
Helen Whately
It is difficult for me as a Minister to see WhatsApp messages from me in the pages of a newspaper. If the hon. Lady has read those, she will have seen that I was seeking a test for a member of my family and that I used exactly the same test app as everybody else to try to access a test that was needed.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I seem to recall that two years ago, when there was a limited supply of testing equipment, there were all sorts of calls for certain groups to be prioritised. There were also urgent calls for available beds in hospitals to be freed up to cope with the likely surge in cases. In hindsight, some of those priorities may have been wrong, but at the time it was an urgent situation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that exactly the same set of priorities about access to testing prevailed in Wales, and it took the Welsh Government two weeks longer to mandate testing for care home residents in Wales than it did in England? Why are we not seeing equal outrage from the Opposition about that?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the challenges that were faced around the world in handling the pandemic, and very conspicuously for us across the UK. Decisions were having to be taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as here in England. Had Opposition Members been in our position, in government, and having to make these difficult decisions, I am sure that they, like us, would have strained every sinew and done their very best to make the best possible decisions in a situation of limited information.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Even if we now know that the Secretary of State was not following the scientific advice, the Minister was in her job at the time these decisions were being made. Can she explain why she did not do the right thing then? Was she not listening to the chief medical officer either?
Helen Whately
I fear that the hon. Lady did not hear my previous answer, which was that the public health advice and the advice of the chief medical officer was followed. Of course there is a job to do when advice is given, and then there are the practicalities of implementation. As the volume of tests became available, those tests were used as advised, following the public health advice.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I will not forget the totally shameless politicking by Opposition Members during the pandemic. I specifically remember the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in her place, and the Leader of the Opposition talking about how we had the worst death toll in Europe. They said that again and again. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister say from a sedentary position that we did, but the studies now show that we were ahead of Italy, ahead of Spain, broadly in line with France and Germany, and very far from the worst in Europe. Have we ever heard any Opposition Member come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for misleading the British public about our record during the pandemic? Does my hon. Friend agree that they might seek to do that before criticising us any further for our record?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is right. The right thing for us to do as a country is to reflect overall on how we handled the pandemic, on the decisions that we made and, indeed, on how prepared we were in the first place. That is the right way to do it. Of course we regret every life that was lost; I think about the families who lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandmas. It is so deeply sad that so many lives were lost, but that is something that affected us here in England, across the UK and, indeed, across the world. But the right thing for us to do is to look at these things in the reasoned environment of the inquiry and then use the lessons learned and the reflections from that inquiry to make sure that, in the event that we ever have to face another pandemic like it, we can do better.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Government entered the pandemic unprepared, ignoring the lessons from Operation Cygnus, and ran the NHS at 96% capacity. That was part of the problem. We all know that mistakes happen. We all know that it was really difficult. However, today is disappointing, because some humility should have been brought to this place. More than 17,000 people lost their lives. It is our job as the Opposition to scrutinise decisions. The former Secretary of State has thrown his colleagues under a bus because of his own vanity, but I suggest that Government Ministers need to use this time before the inquiry to ease families’ suffering by coming forward with more detail on actually what did happen.
Helen Whately
There has already been a legal investigation into some of the aspects that we are talking about today. Given the huge number of decisions that had to be made and the period of time that we are talking about, the right way to do this is to bring all the evidence together, in the form of a public inquiry, and have it fully examined. That is the best way to answer the sorts of questions that the hon. Lady suggests.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
This is a profoundly serious question—literally a matter of life and death. As such, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that the appropriate way to reach conclusions is through a proper public inquiry conducted by a very distinguished judge. Can she assure the House that the Government will be as transparent and as open as possible in giving evidence to that public inquiry, so that we can all be confident at the end of this that we have reached the appropriate conclusion?
Helen Whately
I can absolutely assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are sharing with the public inquiry a huge quantity of evidence so that it can reach the best possible, best informed conclusions.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The emails and WhatsApp messages expose the fact that the scientific advice was that people leaving hospital should be swabbed before going into care homes, and the Government ignored that. That shows that the Government were not following scientific advice. The Minister has said that other priorities had to be considered before the Government could implement that policy, but no one would have been more aware of the competing priorities than Professor Whitty. What was it that the Government knew that Professor Whitty did not when they decided not to follow his advice?
Helen Whately
It really feels as though Opposition Members have not been listening to my answers. The public health advice was followed. The situation was that we had a limited capacity for testing. That is not spelled out in those messages, because, as I have said, other meetings and other conversations were taking place. As soon as testing capacity was available, further testing was used—for example, on people being discharged to care homes. Having been Care Minister at the time, I can tell the hon. Gentleman how hard we worked across Government. We all worked—not only me, but all of us involved in this—to get millions of tests out, during the course of the pandemic, to care homes in order to help protect those residents. This was followed by our prioritising those in care homes for the vaccination because, when it came down to it, although testing was helpful, what really made a difference was being able to vaccinate people. That is what really started to provide protection.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Is it not regrettable, if all too typical, that the Labour party ignores the fact that when the pandemic struck there was capacity for only 2,000 tests a day—ignoring, too, the huge, successful efforts to massively increase that capacity—and instead chooses to leap on partial information to make political points rather than listen to the full facts of the public inquiry?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about how we ramped up incredibly fast from a capacity of just 3,000 tests a day in March 2020, to more than 38,000 in mid-April, and more than 100,000 by May. We were then able to test many millions per week during the course of the pandemic. That was the most extraordinary increase in the capacity to produce, carry out and analyse tests, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Minister said that what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said was shocking. What is shocking is the number of people who died but who might have been saved in the first place. Is the Minister really saying that, at the beginning of the pandemic, there was no rush to get people out of hospital and back into the community without being tested?
Helen Whately
The questions about the discharge policy have been interrogated on a number of occasions, including by Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman will well know that in general, and in the work that we are doing now on discharge, it is rarely good for somebody who is medically fit for discharge to continue to be in hospital beyond that time. So of course it is right that when people are medically fit, they should be discharged home. The guidance of how that was done was set out on a number of occasions during the pandemic, and that guidance was updated both as we learned more about the virus and as greater testing capacity became available.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am very proud of this Conservative Government’s record during the pandemic: 400 million tests, a world-leading and world-beating vaccine programme, and £400 billion spent to keep jobs and people’s prospects going. Clearly, hard decisions were made, and hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we should not be reflecting with hindsight now; we should deal with the facts at hand. Does the Minister agree that this Government will continue to take measures, and that if—God forbid—there is another pandemic, we will not let party politicking get in the way of making decisions to protect lives, fund jobs and keep our country going?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the extraordinary things that were done during the pandemic. I do not think that the Government should seek to take credit for that; so many people worked incredibly hard, whether in local authorities, social care or the NHS, or through their involvement in supply chains and the huge efforts to secure personal protective equipment when that was incredibly hard to get hold of across the world. I am glad that he draws attention to some of those things. He is absolutely right that, in the context of the public inquiry, we should reflect overall.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
In April 2020, now-disappeared Government guidance in relation to hospital discharges stated:
“Negative tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home.”
It was later reported that the Minister then leaned on Public Health England to alter its proposed advice to care homes from ensuring that those discharged from hospitals tested negative to not requiring any testing at all. Why, at every stage, were the Government content to send people to their deaths in our care homes?
Helen Whately
I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s account at all. If she looks back at one of the legal cases that has looked into this question, she may find more accurate information about some of the conversations that went on behind the scenes. I can assure her that, as she would expect, in my capacity as social care Minister, I fought the corner for people receiving care—both home care and in care homes—throughout the pandemic.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Leaked WhatsApp messages will be partial and selective, but in reading even those I note that the Minister was doing her job on behalf of my constituents. In a message on 8 April, she spoke up for a care home in Newcastle-under-Lyme and raised it with the Government and her fellow Ministers. Everyone was doing their best. I served in the lessons learned inquiry, and there are lessons that can be learned with the benefit of hindsight, but the hindsight that we have seen from the Labour Front Bench is opportunistic. Does she agree that the Government were doing everything they could to respond to an unprecedented situation under severe pressure and severe supply and capacity constraints?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is 100% right. The context is absolutely important as part of this conversation. It was a global pandemic about which very little was known and about which we worked incredibly hard to find out more, and on which we continually made the best possible decisions in the light of the information that we had. At all times, we prioritised protecting people and saving lives, particularly those who we learned would be most vulnerable. It is extremely disappointing to see an attempt to play politics with this issue.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Care home residents and their families were failed not just at the beginning of the pandemic but in the months and years that followed, as families and loved ones were prevented from visiting. The leaked WhatsApps show that the Minister was arguing against the ban on visiting. Can she say why the ban was sustained for so long throughout the pandemic, and what plans she has to ensure that families with loved ones in care homes have the right to visit if this ever happens again?
Helen Whately
I know how strongly the hon. Member feels about this. Clearly, we are having ongoing conversations about visiting in care homes at the moment. As is evident in the WhatsApps, I was concerned during the pandemic about ensuring that families were able to see loved ones in care homes. As I have said in response to a number of questions, public health advice had to be taken into account all the way through the pandemic. Getting the right balance between protecting people from the risk of covid being taken into care homes and seeing friends and family will, I am sure, be looked into as part of the public inquiry discussions to answer questions such as his about the decisions taken on visiting. I will continue to work with him here and now to ensure that those who are currently in care homes get the visiting that they need.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The front page of today’s Telegraph, which reveals that the medical advice was not followed, will be heartbreaking for so many families up and down the country, re-opening the grief that so many felt about the loss of their loved ones. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s responses, and she has basically said that she is unable to compel the public inquiry to move more quickly—that it is above her pay grade. But what she could do now is commit to lobbying the Government to complete that public inquiry before the end of the year, and to doing everything she can to bring those answers forward for all those families who are today feeling so deeply hurt and upset.
Helen Whately
On the first point about the use of public health advice, the hon. Lady is wrong; all decisions were informed by public health advice. On her request about the public inquiry, that inquiry is independent of government, so I cannot do what she asks.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
To reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) just made, every time there is a statement, every time there is a revelation, every time such an issue is raised, whether in this House or in the press, it triggers trauma for many people who have not healed from losing their loved ones, who were not able to go to funerals, and who were not able to seek closure. I hope that the Minister will reflect on her response in that context.
To come back to the public inquiry, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said that the revelations show why the inquiry must allow the bereaved families to
“be heard in the hearings and for our lawyers to cross-examine key people”—
including the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock)—
“so we can get full answers to our questions in the right setting instead of having to relive the horrors of our loss through exposés.”
Does the Minister agree?
Helen Whately
As I have said, we are talking about, very sadly, people’s lives being lost—people’s mothers and fathers, grans and grandpas, sons and daughters, and sisters and brothers. We should always remember the genuine and real human cost, as well as all those who worked in health and social care looking after dying people and who had a traumatic time themselves.
On the trauma that the hon. Lady talks about, it is Labour Front Benchers who have asked the urgent question and made this conversation happen in this forum rather than in the context of a public inquiry, which might encourage a more reasoned form of debate. I hope she will have noticed that my tone fully appreciates the points that she makes, but it is not for me to dictate who will give evidence to the public inquiry.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As the Minister will recall, I spoke for the Opposition on dozens of regulations to do with the pandemic, and on occasions I questioned some of the decisions that were made. The suspicion was that sometimes political rather than medical or scientific decisions were taken. What has come out overnight has caused me to question that again, and I hope she can understand why. It is an important question of trust for us as politicians but also for the wider public. Does she agree that rather than a partial and selective release of information to sell newspapers or books, the public deserve from the Government the release of all information so that we can get to the bottom of this?
Helen Whately
I do remember many of those SI debates. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not political decision making as he suggests. At every step of the way, Ministers such as I, the Health Secretary and of course the Prime Minister were making incredibly difficult decisions but always trying to do the right thing to save people’s lives and to protect people from that cruel virus which particularly attacked those who were most vulnerable, such as the frail elderly. In doing so, we continuously took public health advice. The way to look into everything that happened is indeed through the public inquiry: that is where the evidence is being provided and that is the forum in which the reflections will be taken and the lessons can be learned.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My heart goes out to the bereaved families and I cannot imagine what they must be feeling again today. My heart also goes out to care workers, many of whom lost their lives having contracted covid. Many also survived but are now living with long covid and have lost their livelihoods. The Minister may be aware that advice from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that would give compensation to just some of those brave workers is currently with the Department for Work and Pensions. In a recent meeting with me, the Minister told me that it could take years for that to be taken up. What conversations has this Minister had with the DWP and, if it will take years, will her Department set up a compensation scheme so that those brave workers get the support they deserve?
Helen Whately
As the hon. Lady says, care workers were among those on the frontline during the pandemic and they had some incredibly difficult experiences. They took the risk of catching covid and, very sadly, some care workers and NHS workers were among those who lost their lives. Others have long covid. The question of compensation is currently with the Department for Work and Pensions. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is in his place on the Front Bench: his Department is looking at this and will respond in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Everyone’s thoughts and prayers are with those who lost loved ones. The impact of the covid lockdown on mental health was felt most keenly in care homes. To see what the elderly people were put through, and learn that the full protections were not in place and they could not see loved ones at the end of life, is totally unacceptable. What would the Minister offer to those who lost precious hours with those they loved and adored on hearing this tragic news today?
Helen Whately
I reiterate to those living in care homes and their loved ones and families that the Government took every step throughout the pandemic to protect those we knew were vulnerable. For instance, we prioritised testing with more than 180 million tests going to care homes during the pandemic, and we prioritised vaccinations. I remember talking to residents in care homes at the time, and vaccination was a huge moment for them because it was the first time they had felt really protected from that cruel virus. I know how hard it was for families that they could not see loved ones in care homes, and that was one reason we put out guidance about visiting, saying that if someone was close to end of life they should be able to receive visitors. I will continue to do my utmost as Minister for Social Care to make sure that we do our very best for those living in care homes.
Independent Public Advocate
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Today I can announce that we intend to legislate as soon as possible to introduce an independent public advocate; to put victims and the bereaved at the heart of our response to large-scale public disasters; to make sure they get the support they deserve through public inquests and inquiries; and to make sure they get the answers they need to move forward in their lives.
I know the whole House will recall that fateful day of 15 April 1989, when thousands of fans prepared to watch the FA cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Ninety-seven men, women and children lost their lives, unlawfully killed in our country’s worst ever sporting disaster. What happened at Hillsborough was a monumental and devastating tragedy. To this day, I remember watching the scenes in horror, and the impact is felt to this day, especially by the families and friends of the victims.
Of course, for Hillsborough’s survivors and the bereaved, that terrible day was just the beginning of a 34-year ordeal. It was followed by an appalling injustice. Fans were blamed for their own injuries. Survivors and the bereaved were blocked at every turn in their search for answers. We must learn the lessons of Hillsborough and we must make sure they never happen again.
In the wider context, major disasters involving significant loss of life are mercifully rare in this country. But, as Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester bombings have shown, when they do happen, victims, families and communities have not received the answers to their questions, nor the support they need. We are duty bound, as a Government and as a House, to make sure that that never happens again and, positively, to ensure that those families and communities never again have to struggle in anguish against a system created to help them, in order to get the truth, and some measure of accountability.
The IPA will go some way to making good on the Government’s longstanding promise to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough victims, and other victims, is never repeated. It will be passed into law, and made up of a panel of experts to guide survivors and the bereaved in the aftermath of major disasters. It will deliver in six important respects that I will outline for the House.
First, the IPA will provide practical support to the families of the deceased, and individuals, or their representatives, who have suffered a devastating or life-changing injury. That practical support will include helping them to understand their rights, such as their right to receive certain information at inquests or inquiries, and signposting them to support services, for example financial or mental health support. In particular, the IPA will help victims every step of the way, from the immediate aftermath of a tragic event, right through to the conclusion of investigations, inquiries or inquests. We will make IPA support available to the closest next of kin relative, both parents where they are separated or divorced, or to a close friend if there is no close family. That support will also be there for those whose loved ones die after the tragedy as a result of their injuries—a particular issue in relation to Grenfell, as I know from my experience as housing Minister. The IPA will also offer support to injured victims or their representatives.
Secondly and critically, the IPA will give the victims a voice when they need it most. It will advocate on their behalf with public authorities and Government, for example, where they have concerns about the engagement and responsiveness of public authorities such as the police or local authorities, or where the victims and bereaved want an investigation or inquiry set up more swiftly, to ensure maximum transparency.
Thirdly, the IPA will give a voice to the wider communities, not just the directly affected victims and bereaved, that have been affected most by the tragedy in question. To achieve that, we will set up a register of advocates from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas, including doctors, social workers, emergency workers, clergy, people with media-handling experience—often that is another burden that victims will not have experienced—and others. Communities will be able to nominate an advocate to act on their behalf, in order to express their particular concerns and ensure that their voice is heard as a community.
Fourthly, the IPA will be supported by full-time, permanent staff so that it can act swiftly when a tragedy occurs to make sure that the support is there for the victims and the families from day one. Critically, the IPA will be there to consult with and represent victims and their families before any inquiry is set up, so it will be able to make representations on the type of inquiry, whether it is statutory or non-statutory, and other important functional issues, such as the data controller powers available to any inquiry and the relationship it may have with the IPA in the exercise of such functions.
Fifthly, the scope of the IPA will be extended to cover events in England and Wales, but of course we are mindful of the devolved settlements, so we will work with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that our plans are co-ordinated with the support offered outside England and Wales. Finally, although the IPA is first and foremost about doing better by the victims and survivors, it is worth acknowledging that it is also in the wider interests of the public. It will ensure that we achieve a better relationship between public bodies, the Government and the bereaved; that we get better, quicker answers; and that we can learn and act on the lessons from such tragedies more decisively.
I can tell the House that the preparatory work is well under way to establish the IPA, and we will place it on a statutory footing as soon as possible. I will say more about the legislative vehicle shortly.
Of course, there have been other important reforms in recent years to support and empower victims and their families. We have made inquests more sympathetic to the bereaved with a refreshed, accessible guide to coroner services, so the process, which can feel like a minefield to navigate, is easier to digest and understand. We have removed means testing for the exceptional case funding for legal representation at an inquest, which means that applying for legal aid is easier and less intrusive. People who have suffered a traumatic bereavement no longer have to submit the details of their personal finances to the Legal Aid Agency; if their case meets the exceptional case funding criteria, they will be entitled to legal aid whatever their means.
More broadly, we are putting victims at the heart of our justice system by quadrupling victims funding compared with 2010, and we are giving them a louder voice through the upcoming victims Bill. The creation of an independent public advocate to give greater voice to the victims and the bereaved of major tragedies is the next important step forward.
I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families for their courage and determination despite every setback and to their long-standing struggle to stop other families from enduring the same anguish in future. They have always maintained that their struggle for truth and justice for the 97 was of national significance, and I agree entirely. I also pay tribute to the families of those who died at Grenfell and the Manchester Arena bombing. Our hearts go out to them for their loss and I pay tribute to them for their dignified courage.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to hon. Members in this House and those in the other place who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), Lord Wills, the Mayor of Liverpool and others, for their steadfast commitment to establishing an IPA. I will continue to work closely with all those hon. Members, the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell groups and the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing to ensure that their experiences are taken into account and we get the detail of the IPA right as we establish it.
I pay particular tribute to the right reverend James Jones KBE for his work on Hillsborough and his important report. I met him last week and the Government will respond to the wider report this spring. We know in our heads and hearts that there is still much more to do to heal the wounds from that horrendous and heartbreaking tragedy, but this is an important step forward. The IPA will make a real difference. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. For decades, the Hillsborough families fought for justice and for the truth about how 97 innocent children, women and men were unlawfully killed in wholly avoidable circumstances. They faced a cover-up by public authorities that hid the truth and blamed the victims. Those brave families did more than seek justice for their loved ones; they sought to shine a light on what had gone so tragically wrong, because that is how we learn how not to make the same mistake again, but it should never have taken more than three decades.
I was in Sheffield on that fateful day in 1989, just a mile or so from Hillsborough, with a junior doctor friend who was called back to the hospital to treat the victims and deal with the aftermath, so I vividly remember the horror of what we heard unfolding from the football stadium. I pay tribute to those families for their long struggle for justice and to those who have spoken up for them, notably: my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle); my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne); the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); Lord Wills; and the Mayor of Manchester.
Today is a chance to balance the scales of justice and give those victims the voice that they need and the power to make it heard, but it is a chance that the Government have missed. Their proposals do not go far enough and will be too weak, as they stand, to prevent future cover-ups. The public advocate needs to be a fully independent, permanent figure that is accountable to the families, not a panel of advisers appointed as a signposting service by the Government if they see fit.
It is critical that the public advocate has the full power of data controller, not just the power to make representations, as we heard from the Secretary of State. That means having the power to access all data, communications, documents and other information to torpedo cover-ups before they even happen. We know from the Hillsborough Independent Panel that the existence of such powers would be a massive deterrent to future cover-ups.
Will the Secretary of State reconsider and establish a fully independent public advocate? Will he agree to give it the full power of data controller from the start? That matters immensely because without control over the data that can expose the truth, there can be no transparency, and without transparency, there can be no justice. How many more tragedies will it take to wake the Government up? How many more lives need to be lost?
Labour is committed to real change. In government, we will establish a fully independent public advocate that is accountable to survivors and victims’ families. We will arm it with the power it needs to access documents and data to expose the truth about what went wrong, and, importantly, to stop cover-ups before they happen. That will be part of a Hillsborough law with teeth that will also give victims’ families access to legal aid and impose a duty of candour on public officials. We will do that because we believe that victims must be at the heart of the justice system and that they must have a voice and the power to make it heard, and because we understand that a system that fails to learn from its mistakes is doomed to repeat them.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his partial welcome of the announcement. I listened carefully to what he said. We share, and I personally share with him, the commitment and desire to set up the most credible advocacy for the bereaved, the victims and the families. I am very happy to work with him and hon. Members on both sides of the House on the detail, but I do not accept his characterisation.
The hon. Gentleman said that the IPA was not independent, but in fact it will be decided on the basis of consultations with the victims and the bereaved. That must be right to make sure that we have the right range of experts to deal with the particular circumstances of the tragedy in question. It would act on their behalf; it would not act on behalf of the Government.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to data controller powers. I understand exactly the point he makes, and as I said in my statement, it is important that there will be consultation with the families. The IPA will be able to consult with a putative independent inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the independent inquiry will have many of those powers itself. Therefore, how would he reconcile that with duplicated powers in the IPA? However, this is something that we should talk about—I know it is an issue that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. We want to get this right, but what we risk is a conflict of functions, which is something we would all want to avoid.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned other measures, such as the duty of candour. That is a broader issue for the Government’s response to the wider Hillsborough report, which is expected in the spring. I know it has been a long time coming, but it is right to deal with those broader issues. Although the IPA is only part of the redress and the accountability, I felt that we were in a position to not just bring forward the policy announcement but in due course, very shortly, to be able to say something about the legislative vehicle. Because this is such an important issue for the bereaved, the victims and the families, I felt it was right to do that now, not wait any longer.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this statement to the House today and welcome the decision to introduce an independent public advocate, which was of course a commitment in our 2017 manifesto. However, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand, I want to ensure that this body will meet the ambition of the commitment that we made in that manifesto. I am happy to work with him to do that.
For today, though, could my right hon. Friend please just go back to two particular issues? One is the question of whether the families, victims and survivors will be able themselves to initiate the independent public advocate, so that they are not relying on the Government to do that for them. Certainly, in the case of Hillsborough, it was the fact that the state and state authorities shut their doors to people that led to the 34 years’ wait for any answers for the families. Also, in line with that, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the IPA is able to compel the provision of information and evidence to the families? He is assuming that an inquiry will always take place, but that might not be the case. It is essential that the families have answers to their perfectly reasonable questions.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute again to her for her campaigning and advocacy on this issue. On the right of initiative, the Government will ultimately have to decide the shape of any IPA that is set up. The right of consultation is clearly set out, but of course, one of the challenges will be where different views are expressed as to how the IPA should be configured for a particular inquiry. Ultimately, where there are differences, the Government will have to try to reconcile those, so in committing to an IPA, I think it is right to allow the Government to engage and to allow the victims, the bereaved and the families the power of initiative to call for an IPA and make their representations, but to allow the Government to decide the precise configuration of that IPA.
I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the compulsion of evidence. As I said before, I am very happy to engage with her and with other hon. Members as this policy comes forward. I take her point that an inquiry may not be set up, but where one is set up, the piece that we need to reconcile is making sure that we do not have conflicting powers. But again, I am very happy to work with my right hon. Friend on the detail of this policy and, in due course, on the clauses.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Government want to legislate for a public advocate, five years after the consultation that they undertook closed, but I am very disappointed with the provisions as the Secretary of State has set them out. His proposed public advocate would not be independent, would not be a data controller, and would not be able to act only at the behest of families. It would be directed by the Secretary of State. It would not have the power to appoint independent panels such as the Hillsborough independent panel—but at a much earlier stage following a disaster than the 23 years it took us to get that report out—and it would not have the power to use transparency to get at the truth at an early stage and torpedo the cover-ups that public authorities set about undertaking in the aftermath of disasters. This must be something that the families themselves can initiate and use to get at the truth at an early stage.
The public advocate having the power to compel—to produce documentation and shine the light of transparency on what public authorities have done in the immediate aftermath of a disaster—would stop cover-ups. It would mean people not still having to fight to get at the truth 34 years later. That prize is within our grasp if we set this up right, so does the Secretary of State accept that if he does not beef up his proposals significantly, he will be missing an important opportunity to stop things going wrong for families? For what it is worth, I am perfectly willing to indicate to him in detail quite how those proposals ought to be improved.
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. She has worked tirelessly on this issue, and we have very good engagement on it; I am happy for that to continue. I take her point about the power of initiative. The families of the bereaved will have a power of initiative through consultation, but if there are conflicting views—something that I have seen before at first hand—the Government will have to reconcile those views in the last analysis.
Secondly, on the point about data, I am happy to keep listening and working on this issue, but if we have an inquiry that has powers to compel evidence of its own, the problem will be how we reconcile those powers where they are competing in a process. But as I have said, it is important that we bring this policy forward. There will be full scrutiny of it, and as we develop the clauses, I am very happy to keep working with the right hon. Lady.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), a fellow member of the Justice Committee, for the work she has done, and to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
The former Prime Minister’s point about the risk of cover-ups by those in authority is an important one. That is why, while I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said—it is an important step—I hope that when engaging on how best to refine and advance these proposals, he looks again at the Justice Committee’s recommendation that there should be an extension of legal aid availability. Although the situation has already improved, we should be extending non-means-tested legal aid to all cases where there are mass fatalities, or where public bodies are potentially at fault. It is not fair—there is no equality of arms—when those public bodies are represented by teams of lawyers, but the bereaved families have to rely on sometimes getting legal aid and sometimes not, or on pro bono representation. Equality of arms would surely mean representation as a matter of right in those cases.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I think that this policy will create stronger advocacy on behalf of the bereaved, the victims and the families, and having panels with the right expertise, range and status will go a long way towards getting the answers.
Again, I understand the point about compulsion of evidence. There is not a theological objection to it, certainly as far as I am concerned: it is a question of reconciling competing powers when an inquiry is set up. I will, of course, look at the Justice Committee’s report and recommendations on that issue. In general, of course, inquiries are not supposed to be adversarial, which is why the rules in relation to legal aid are as they are, but we will look at this and work with colleagues in all parts of the House as we introduce these important clauses.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement that we need to legislate for an independent public advocate, but I am sorry to say that today’s announcement is a pale imitation of what Hillsborough families and survivors spent years campaigning on. The Government’s proposal feels like a weak signposting service. It does not have any of the powers that a truly independent public advocate would require—it feels so weak.
For me, the key question is whether this proposal would have stopped the state cover-ups of Hillsborough, the contaminated blood scandal and so many other cover-ups over the ages, and whether it will prevent further cover-ups. Unfortunately, I have to say that the answer is no, so will the Secretary of State instead adopt the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, which is ready to go, and work with us to bring the Hillsborough law—including a fully independent public advocate—into legislation?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts. I am afraid I do not accept the characterisation; calling it a signposting service is quite wrong. By the way, the signposting is important, but that is the start, not the end of the role of the IPA. It will be set up as a statutory advocate for all those who have been affected, whether individual victims or on behalf of the community as a whole. As of its own status, it will be impossible to ignore.
On the specific functions beyond those I set out in my statement, I am very happy to keep engaging, but I think that Members need to think about the practicalities, for example with data compulsion, and how we make sure that they can be reconciled. I hope that we will be able to continue working together to make sure that victims and the bereaved, particularly of pre-existing tragedies, such as Hillsborough, but also those in the future feel they are better equipped to get the answers and accountability that they need.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I join other Members in welcoming today’s statement and the important step that it takes, as well as recognising that the legislative process to follow will provide opportunities to strengthen the role and ensure that it delivers what we set out all the way back in 2017, not least trying to ensure that we can safeguard the independence of the IPA from Government. Can I ask my right hon. Friend how “survivors” will be defined? Will it simply be those who have had a life-changing injury, or will it also include those who may have been physically or mentally changed by their experience of a disaster they have been involved with and their need to have support and advice through that inquiry process?
Dominic Raab
We will work very closely with my hon. and learned Friend and colleagues on the definition. It is important to get that right. It will be an independent advocate once it is established, with the full force of expression and advocacy to get the answers that are required. As I have said before, I am happy to work with colleagues to make sure that we get the right balance and, in particular, to get the IPA to be as effective as possible, whether in relation to an inquiry, statutory or otherwise, or indeed when an inquiry is not established.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today and the willingness to legislate in this area. As he has heard already today, nothing less than an independent public advocate acting at the behest of families, not directed by the Secretary of State, and with specific powers, will do. How is he engaging with Members in this place, others who have campaigned on these issues for years and, most important, the Hillsborough families? My constituent Deanna Matthews wrote to me—her uncle Brian was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough—to share her dismay about the lack of engagement with bereaved families ahead of this announcement. Can he tell me how he is engaging with those concerned?
Dominic Raab
Just to be clear, the advocate will be entirely independent once it is established, so the characterisation is not accurate. In terms of engagement, I am caught a little bit in terms of the detail by the strictures of Mr Speaker in making announcements to this place first, but I wrote to the families, the bereaved and the various groups from Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester bombings, so they have had advance sight. One of the concerns now is the lack of detail, which I could not provide in advance of the statement. I did consult Bishop James Jones, and I saw him over the last week. I am committed to working with all those families—I know Grenfell United and some of those well from my time as Housing Minister—to make sure that we get this right and, above all, get them the most effective means of giving them the transparency and accountability they need.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome this announcement by the Government of the establishment of an independent public advocate, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), with whom I have sat on the Justice Committee and who I know has worked tirelessly on this for many years. I was at university at the time of the Hillsborough disaster in Sheffield, and sadly a friend of mine died in that tragedy, so I know all too well the frustration that the bereaved families have felt ever since. Can my right hon. Friend tell us in more detail how he will ensure that the families of the bereaved of the Hillsborough disaster will be fully involved in the practicalities of the establishment of the advocate?
Dominic Raab
I am very sorry for my hon. Friend’s loss in relation to Hillsborough. I mentioned some of the engagement there has been. I have offered to meet the families and their groups, in relation to not just Hillsborough but Grenfell and the Manchester Arena bombing. I have always found in these cases, when facing the bereaved or survivors of such dire tragedies, that the most important thing is that they feel they have access, and I am very happy to meet any of them.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and I just wonder whether the Secretary of State has actually read previous debates on this issue in Hansard, because 12 years and five months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and many other Members of this House and I stood here seeking the power to compel the Government to release papers on Hillsborough and to get transparency over that information, yet all this time later, here we are again, still debating who has the power to compel information—in other words, how we as citizens can have the power to get to the truth.
I also want to ask the Secretary of State about extending the duty of candour to public servants so that they have to proactively tell the truth, because without this information we will, as my right hon. Friend has said, always be liable to these cover-ups. I saw it through all of the process with Hillsborough, with Lakanal House, with Grenfell and with the covid inquiry—again and again. I want the Secretary of State to understand this issue properly; it is about the truth. Will he explain what he is going to do on the duty of candour?
Dominic Raab
I know the hon. Lady cares deeply about this subject. I am familiar with these challenges from my time as Housing Minister, aside from the issue of Hillsborough, which I followed closely.
I totally understand the importance of the duty of candour. I have never said that the IPA is the whole picture; I said that it is a partial but important step that we are taking. It is better to get on with it, because after so long, one thing that I get from the communities, victims and survivors is the need to get on with tangible action—that is the way we will restore confidence. Thy duty of candour was included in the report by Bishop James Jones, and therefore it is right that is part of the Home Office response. As has been set out previously, the Home Office will publish that response in the spring, and of course it will cover that issue.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain in a little more detail at what point and under what circumstances the availability of the advocate will be triggered? I see that he or she could be involved in not just inquiries but inquests, so how large a tragedy does it have to be before the victims and the bereaved can call upon his or her services?
Dominic Raab
I thank the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who raises a very good point. The principle is that the advocate is there for major tragedies. This is a specific institution set up with a range of expertise designed to deal with that. It is not dealing with one loss of life or a smaller event like that. We will need to work closely with Members on the definition to get that right.
Dominic Raab
There are many good things in the right hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill, but there is more we can do than just that, and there are some areas where, as she knows from her engagement with me—we talked about this at some length, and I am always happy to continue engaging—we take a different view. The most important thing, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made this point well, is to make the advocate as effective as possible. I am committed to that, and I am committed to working with Members in all parts of the House.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was at the Hillsborough disaster. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), I worked closely with the families, particularly in the lead-up to the decision of the independent panel, so we know quite a bit about the impact on families and what families and victims want. I came to this statement today when I saw its heading, about an independent public advocate, but I am going away not sure what “independent” means, because the Government have not set out clearly how independent it will be. It appears to me, from what the Secretary of State has said, that it will not be totally independent. I am surprised, given that there has been so much discussion in this Chamber, including with my right hon. Friend, that the Secretary of State has come here today and it is still a bit muddled. What does “independent” mean? If it is truly independent, it means that Ministers have no role in it whatever.
Dominic Raab
To be clear, on the right of initiative, which I know the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has raised and included in her Bill, there could be different views as to its shape or scope, so that is something the Government will ultimately have the last word on. Frankly, what the hon. Gentleman said about the IPA not being independent is wholly wrong. We ought to be clear that, from the point of establishment in relation to a tragedy, the IPA will be wholly and entirely independent to serve the victims, the bereaved and the survivors, and only them. I could not be clearer on the subject.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
A lot of the statement is welcome and will hopefully rebalance the position for families and victims, not least since they have had the unedifying experience of facing phalanxes of lawyers, knowing they were being paid for by their own taxes and by public funds to sometimes cover up the impact on their relatives. However, I do not find myself particularly persuaded on the points made by the Secretary of State around the compulsion of evidence, which strikes me as something that needs to be part of this. In his preparation work, which he referred to, what timeline has he set for this institution being up and ready, pending the legislation coming through the House?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The policy work is quite far developed, but of course we have not foreclosed options so that we can have maximum transparency and proper engagement. I will need to identify the right legislative vehicle and it will then take as long as the House takes to enact it, but I hope to say more on the legislative vehicle shortly.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I put it to the Secretary of State that, in the case of the contaminated blood scandal, Governments failed to acknowledge what actually happened for decades, even though thousands of people had been harmed and died. The scandal is now recognised as one of the worst treatment disasters in the history of the NHS. How would this independent public advocate work in circumstances where incidents happen over many years and across many parts of the United Kingdom, and where Governments fail to come clean about the involvement of the state for years and deny that there was a problem? What confidence would victims actually have in a situation where the Government decided whether an independent public advocate was appointed?
Dominic Raab
We are talking about the final configuration of the IPA, and the immediate consultation will take place with the families and the bereaved. On how it would help in a scenario like that, that is precisely why—with the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady—we went for a panel approach, so that we have a range of experts. A disaster like she mentions would be quite different from, say, Hillsborough or Grenfell, and it is therefore important that the IPA has that range of expertise. I take the point about compulsion of data and evidence, and that is something I am happy to keep looking at, but, frankly, from the moment an independent public advocate starts asking those questions, given the nature of its status in statute, it would break down many of the barriers that have previously faced victims in these situations.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I agree fully with my right hon. Friend when he says getting the detail right is vital in this process. I am pleased with the tone he has taken in his comments about being willing to work with Members from across the House to reach the right settlement for victims and ensure that this process is right for the future. Will he expand more on the panel he is planning? In particular, will victims be fully represented? Could they elect people to go on this panel to advocate for people involved in a tragedy?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right: the point of having a range of expertise on the panels, rather than a single public advocate, is precisely to ensure that there is a range of expertise to deal with the nature of the unfolding tragedy, but also to allow the victims, the bereaved and the families to be properly consulted. In addition, they will have the ability to nominate a community-level representative on that panel to ensure that, as well as dealing with technical issues and with individuals being represented, the community as a whole and its concerns, which are often expressed as a whole, are properly reflected in that advocacy.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families and all those affected for their tireless campaigning over decades to establish the truth of what happened and their determination to ensure that other families do not have to suffer the injustices they have been forced to endure. I pay tribute in particular to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for all their hard work on this matter.
The Secretary of State talks about a conflict between the IPA and any inquiry. Surely he must recognise that it is vital that victims and families feel confident that they have a truly independent advocate. Surely he must also recognise that, by definition, we cannot have too much transparency.
Dominic Raab
I certainly agree with the thrust of that. The IPA will be fully independent once it is established, with all the powers of advocacy and with the expertise to give voice and expression to the victims and the bereaved. On the compulsion of data or access to evidence, we need to ensure that we reconcile that with the powers an inquiry might be exercising and that we do not end up with either a legal muddle or an ineffective process.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I join colleagues in paying tribute to my fellow member of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for her long campaigning on this issue, which the whole House recognises.
I am interested in the issue of legal representation that other Members have raised. How would the IPA interact with that, and what support might be there in accessing legal advice when, as others have said, it may face public bodies with well-funded legal teams that family members will not necessarily have access to?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In general, inquests should be inquisitorial, fact-checking processes, and the 2019 review into legal aid for inquests, which he may recall, underlined the importance of us keeping it that way. There are, of course, circumstances, such as article 2 inquests or where there is significant public interest in the outcome, where legal representation may be available under exceptional case funding. I mentioned more about the detail of how that will work in my statement.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
For bereaved families to have confidence in an independent public advocate, it needs to be truly independent of Government. That means acting on the directions of families and not the Secretary of State, exercising the powers of a data controller and being empowered to establish independent panels. Elkan Abrahamson, the co-author of the Hillsborough law, has said this Government’s engagement with the Hillsborough families has been “almost non-existent”, and it shows. Will the Justice Secretary commit to meeting with the Hillsborough families with a view to revising his proposals and bringing them in line with what the Hillsborough families have long been calling for?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have already made clear the level of engagement we have had before, and of course I am willing to meet with representatives or directly with the families involved.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I understand that the Secretary of State could not divulge the detail of today’s announcement to the families who had been campaigning, but does he believe they would recognise the independent advocate he has announced as what they have been campaigning for on behalf of the people they lost?
Dominic Raab
I hope that they would, particularly as we engage with them on the detail. As I said, it will be fully independent. I take the points that have been made about the right of initiative and powers over data; we are always willing to look at the detail of how that will work, but we want to make sure that we have the most effective means of giving expression and voice to people in their time of need.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Chloe Rutherford and Liam Curry from South Shields were tragically murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Archaic law on terror attacks prevents their parents from registering their precious children’s deaths. Last week they again met Ministers, who this time treated them with contempt, patronised them and insulted them. In that meeting, it became clear that they have been misled by the Government for nearly a year: the law can be changed but the Government simply choose not to change it. Registration is now imminent. The IPA will not help them or other families. How on earth can they believe the Secretary of State when he says that victims and the bereaved are at the heart of his response?
Dominic Raab
If the hon. Lady looks at what we are doing in the round, I think she will see the steps we are taking. I am very mindful of and sensitive to the issues that she describes and, indeed, the constituents who lost their lives in that appalling attack. As the hon. Lady will know, the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which is owned by the Home Office, and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 set out the process for registering deaths following an inquest, which requires the coroner to inform the registrar of particulars of the deceased. As the law is currently configured, there is no flexibility around that, but I reiterate my deepest sympathies to the families who were so tragically bereaved.
Turkey and Syria Earthquakes
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Turkey and Syria. I know that the House will join me in offering sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent earthquakes.
Last week when I visited Turkey, I witnessed at first hand the terrible scale of human suffering. I also had the opportunity to speak to Syrian partners and the United Nations about their work on the immediate response. I pay tribute to the hundreds of British personnel engaged in specialist health, humanitarian and rescue work in Syria and Turkey. I saw for myself the outstanding work that Britain is doing on the ground to save lives and support those who are suffering. Throughout these events and our responses, there has been excellent co-ordination across the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Care.
Today, the death toll across Turkey and Syria stands at more than 48,000, and at least 118,000 people have been injured. Approximately 25 million people have been affected, with homes, businesses and key infrastructure destroyed. The further earthquakes on 20 and 27 February, which have tragically led to additional deaths, show that the danger has not passed. In Syria, this disaster adds to years of turmoil inflicted by conflict, striking hardest in the very place that has borne the brunt of Assad’s war machine.
I turn to the initial response. Turkey requested international support immediately after the earthquakes. The UK Government delivered aid as swiftly as possible, working closely with Turkey, the United Nations, international partners, non-governmental organisations and charities. That included deploying a 77-strong search and rescue team in Turkey, along with state-of-the-art heavy equipment. We also quickly announced £4.3 million in new support to Syria Civil Defence—the White Helmets—who have carried out search and rescue operations in 60 villages, helping thousands of civilians. The British Government rapidly engaged with the Turkish Government at the highest level, and the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad and I immediately spoke to the senior UN humanitarian officials to ensure a rapid and co-ordinated response in Syria.
As part of the immediate response, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office set up a field hospital in Türkoğlu, including an emergency department and a 24/7 operating theatre. I saw for myself 150 UK-Med and Ministry of Defence personnel working side by side with Turkish medics to save lives. I was deeply impressed and moved during my visit by the lifesaving work that those teams are doing. Together, they have treated more than 5,000 patients so far.
Meanwhile, the UK has delivered 465 tonnes of relief items to Turkey and Syria through civilian and Royal Air Force flights. That includes tents and thermal blankets for families made homeless in freezing conditions, as well as solar lanterns, water purification tablets and hygiene kits. On 15 February, we announced a further £25 million in funding to bolster our humanitarian response. That is supporting the work of the UN and aid agencies on the ground in Syria, helping communities ravaged by war, as well as by this natural disaster. It also continues to support the recovery effort in Turkey, led by its Government.
Beyond our support to the White Helmets, UK-funded charities and NGOs in northern Syria have cared for the injured through mobile medical teams and health centres. The UN has distributed food and other essential items, to which the UK has contributed. Further assistance will be delivered in the coming days as part of the UN’s Syria cross-border humanitarian fund, to which the UK is one of the most significant donors. The fund has already allocated $50 million to scale up the response. There is a particular focus on displaced families, the elderly, women, children and people with disabilities.
The UK has also supported and bolstered the response through our existing support to key multilateral organisations that are helping in Turkey and Syria. The UN’s global fund, Education Cannot Wait, announced a $7 million grant for Syrian children affected by the earthquake, and the Global Partnership for Education will provide $3.75 million to support the emergency education response. The UK is one of the most significant donors to both funds.
We are also a long-standing partner and donor to the World Bank, which announced $1.7 billion to assist Turkey, and the United Nations central emergency response fund, which has released $50 million for the crisis. Most significantly, our constituents—the British public—have demonstrated extraordinary generosity through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, raising more than £100 million. That figure includes £5 million from the UK taxpayer in matched seed funding.
His Majesty the King visited Turkish diaspora groups and members of the British Syrian community at Syria House, a donation point in Trafalgar Square, on 14 February. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Syria House on 16 February.
It is clearly vital to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it as efficiently as possible in Syria. I will continue to engage with the United Nations to ensure maximum access for as long as is required. We welcome the accelerated pace of United Nations deliveries and are monitoring the situation closely in the Security Council in New York.
The House will understand that the scale of this tragedy is immense. The UK will continue to stand in solidarity with Turkey and with the people of Syria during these most testing of times. I commend this statement to the House.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement.
We have all been deeply shocked by the scenes from Turkey and north-west Syria. The damage done and the loss of life inflicted by these earthquakes and aftershocks is incomprehensible. The death toll in the two countries has surpassed 48,000 people. About 25 million people have been affected—a staggering figure—and homes, businesses and key infrastructure have been destroyed. We are looking at a damage area of more than 50,000 sq km.
The Labour party and, I am sure, each hon. Member present send our deepest condolences, thoughts and sympathies to all those whose lives have been devastated by this appalling tragedy. The many heartfelt contributions that Members across the House made to last Thursday’s Westminster Hall debate demonstrate the strength of support for the people of Syria and Turkey at this time.
Turkey is, of course, a close NATO ally and partner of the United Kingdom. There are many close ties of family and friendship between us, as there are with the people of Syria, many of whom have fled from the crisis there to be in the United Kingdom. We are duty-bound as a nation to respond to the challenges posed by this disaster in the long term as well as the short term, even as the cameras and headlines move on. While we have seen countless images of despair and devastation, I am sure that all of us have heard the stories of bravery, resilience and hope. I hope that this disaster can show that the spirit of humanitarianism still prevails across much of the world.
The response of the British public has been incredible. More than £30 million was donated on the first day of the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, which has now raised more than £100 million. That shows the British public at their best: generous, outward-looking and deeply concerned for the welfare of others around the globe.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the search and rescue teams that sprang to action within hours of the tragedy to assist in saving people trapped under the rubble of buildings that had collapsed. Speed was absolutely critical in those first 72 hours, and I was very proud to see how quickly British forces mobilised on a flight out to Gaziantep. In particular, I thank the volunteers from West Midlands Fire Service: Shyam, Shaun, Mark, Aghia, James, Mark, Joe and Paul, who flew out to Turkey, and Rob and Hannah, who supported from the United Kingdom.
The UK Government were right to respond quickly in those first 72 hours. Our support to the White Helmets was vital while humanitarian access to north-west Syria was impeded, and the delivery of medical assistance, rescue equipment and sniffer dogs to the disaster area has been important to help people in the immediate aftermath. However, we are now in a new phase of our response, and our support must not stop there. People are in need of emergency accommodation, food, healthcare, water and sanitary health, and the largest single need is for emergency shelter in both countries.
The earthquake has not only resulted in additional displacement, but diminished the prospects for the safe return of internally displaced persons from earthquake-affected areas. Even before the earthquake, an estimated 4.1 million people in north-west Syria relied on aid to meet their basic needs. The UN estimates that, in north-west Syria, 120 schools have been destroyed and 57 hospitals have been partially damaged or forced to suspend their services following the earthquakes. That is absolutely devastating. For those who survive, hunger, dirty water and the bitter winter cold still pose a significant threat. It is in Britain’s interests to support Turkey and Syria. Turkey hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees displaced abroad due to the country’s civil war, and in some of the affected areas 50% of the population in Turkey are refugees.
Through multilateralism and common purpose, we can stand together in the face of tragedy and do more than we can alone. The work that the UK has supported through our multilateral partners is significant, and it is a reminder of the many important partnerships that the UK has led in and often helped found over the years. The UN appeals for Turkey and Syria have now been announced, with a combined $1.4 billion requested for both countries over the next three months. As yet, the UK has not announced any further direct support since the launch of the two appeals. What is the Minister doing to co-ordinate and scale up the humanitarian response with our international partners in the United Nations?
On the £30 million announced so far, can the Minister say over what timeframe it will be disbursed and how it will be distributed between the two countries? Crucially, will he confirm where that support has been drawn from, and that it will not be taken from other planned in-country work or other humanitarian crises, such as those in east Africa and Yemen? According to reports, in December the Syria country team was asked to find cuts of between £6 million and £8 million. That would be utterly unconscionable in the light of the disaster that has befallen people who have already suffered so much. Can the Minister today confirm whether those cuts will still go ahead? Ministers have been asked about that twice and have not answered either time, so I would be grateful for some answers today.
Humanitarian access in Syria remains an ongoing challenge. The obstruction of Bab al-Hawa, the only border crossing into Syria, in the first week following the earthquake meant lifesaving support could not reach people who needed it. It has been disgraceful to see the damage that Russia’s political game playing on the UN Security Council has done to people there by restricting humanitarian access. It is important and welcome, therefore, that the UN has brokered an agreement to reopen two further crossings for three months. However, this agreement must be extended. Most of the aid packages crossing the border have only a 12-week lifespan. Moreover, UN convoys are severely lagging compared with before the earthquake. On average, roughly 650 to 700 trucks per month were passing through before the earthquake, but now, with two more crossing points available, only 493 have accessed north-west Syria.
A long-term strategy for aid and support is needed. What diplomatic efforts are the UK making to extend this agreement beyond three months and to hold authorities to their word on humanitarian access? Will the Minister set out a long-term strategy for the UK’s support to the region, and does he recognise the interplay between the earthquake and the conflict in Syria?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for the tone in which she delivered them; the House is completely united on such occasions, and particularly on this one. She underlined the British commitment and that of our constituents. I agree about the extraordinary international response across so many different countries that she mentioned. She mentioned the search and rescue team, which of course left from Birmingham airport, close to her constituency and mine. She also mentioned the strong British support to the White Helmets, whose leaders I met on my recent visit.
The hon. Lady asked about tents and blankets. I can tell her that Britain has delivered something like 3,350 tents to both Syria and Turkey, as well as 24,000 thermal blankets to Turkey and 17,000 to Syria, making a total of 41,000. She also mentioned the damage that has been done to schools, and I mentioned in my statement that Education Cannot Wait has allocated $7 million as a result of this crisis. However, I was in Geneva a couple of weeks ago for the replenishment for Education Cannot Wait, and Britain was able to find an additional £80 million to support the very important work that Education Cannot Wait is conducting.
The hon. Lady asked me about cuts in Syria. I can tell her that in 2021 we pledged £205 million for Syria, but we actually delivered £232 million. This year the figure has been reduced, but we are confident that, by the end of this month, £158 million will have been delivered. I would just emphasise to her that, to the support for refugees from Syria, Britain has contributed very substantially over the years since this crisis first started in Syria. In fact, we have contributed more than the whole of the European Union added together, with a figure of something like £3.8 billion.
Finally, on the crossings, the hon. Lady is right that there have been considerable difficulties. In the early stage, the one crossing that was open was damaged by the earthquake, but the most recent information indicates that, while 358 trucks have got across from Bab al-Hawa, 82 trucks have now got through at Bab al-Salam and 16 at al-Rai. That is something in the order of 456 trucks, so the food and supplies are moving.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Two weeks ago I was in Syria, and I saw for myself the refusal to open the borders with Turkey, and the reticence of the Syrian Government to allow humanitarian aid to enter the north-east autonomous region was causing additional suffering. Does the Minister share my revulsion that the drone missile attacks have continued, with the killing of a Syrian Democratic Forces soldier as recently as 12 February in Kobane, while I was there?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend has seen at first hand the impact of the Syrian regime on those poor people who have suffered not only from Assad and the Russian war machine, but now from this dreadful earthquake. The access that my hon. Friend rightly says is desperately needed was the result of the negotiations by the head of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths, who deserves considerable credit for the speed and efficacy of the way he got them opened.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Let me also thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. Let me also join the House in expressing condolences and sympathy, on behalf of those on the SNP Benches, to the peoples of Turkey and Syria, who have suffered the most powerful earthquakes in the region for over 80 years, releasing the catastrophes we see now compounding the suffering of the peoples of the region.
With an estimated 500,000 people of Turkish origin living across the UK and an estimated 28,000 Syrian nationals, I think we can all agree on how personal much of this loss is to many of our constituents. Let me welcome the Department’s decision to send further support to Turkey, and I commend the Department for co-ordinating with the UN on support for those in Syria. That said, it is always important that the international community continues to listen to those on the ground, including the UN, the Red Crescent and, of course, the White Helmets in the coming days and weeks, so that we can deliver the best relief and assistance possible. I am sure that the Minister and the Department are doing just that.
Let me ask three specific questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), in a written parliamentary question, has already asked the International Development Minister whether the Department plans to provide additional funding to the World Food Programme to help tackle immediate humanitarian needs in both Turkey and Syria. The Minister responded:
“The UK currently has no plans to provide additional funding to the World Food Programme.”
That question was asked because the World Food Programme says it requires $46 million over the next three to four months to address the immediate needs. Will the Minister reconsider the decision not to pledge to the World Food Programme and make a substantial donation?
In addition, the European Commission has announced that it will organise a donor conference for Syria and Turkey to mobilise funding, to be held in March. Will the Minister provide clarity on the Government’s attendance, as they are eligible to attend? Will his Government pledge generously and early to that campaign? Finally, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the north-east have pledged to facilitate the delivery of aid. It has been reported that the United States will fly aid to Qamishli, a city controlled by the SDF, where it will be transported by land to the affected region. Will the Minister outline whether UK aid will be flown in through that route as well?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Scottish National party spokesman for his comments about the work of British service and search and rescue personnel, and of others in my Department, given their hard work throughout many nights and days when this terrible event took place. He asked three questions. We are very significant funders of the World Food Programme. On whether we decide to use that route to provide additional help in Syria and Turkey, we will have to wait and see, but for the moment we have responded and made sure that UK aid gets through to those who need it at this point in the crisis.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether funding will be considered for the Turkey-Syria fundraising conference. We will look at that at the time, but I assure him and the House that we have been right up there in the lead on making sure that critical needs are met. On the third and final question he asked, we will make sure, in every way we can, that aid gets through to people in north-east Syria. We will use whatever means are available to us. As I hope he has seen from what has happened already, Britain has not been shy in pressing these points to make sure that the aid gets through.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in thanking my constituents at Royal Air Force Brize Norton for the significant help that they have given to the people of Turkey? I am thinking in particular of the tactical medical wing, which has been deployed and is giving the medical assistance that he spoke of, and the wider air mobility force that, on top of significant other tasking requirements, has moved the aid so swiftly. Simply put, without them British aid would not be going anywhere. They ought to have our thanks.
Mr Mitchell
I very much agree. My hon. Friend is right that the support of the Royal Air Force has been quite exceptional during this crisis. Across Whitehall—the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Department of Health and Social Care—there has been a quite unusual degree of cohesion and excellent co-operation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his personal interest in this topic. It has been fantastic to see the international community come together to support this region. But as we move from the rescue to the recovery phase of the earthquake response, could he give more detail about the UK Government’s long-term commitment to NGOs and UN partners, particularly in Syria, which is already suffering hugely? Could he focus on the help that communities will get to rebuild their lives?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for what she has said. The international community has done extraordinarily well in rallying together to meet the needs that the Turkish Government have set out, and to estimate and try to meet the needs in northern Syria. The co-operation between Greece and Turkey, for example, has been enormously heartening. She will appreciate that the £100 million raised from across our country will go to 15 British and international charities that are household names. We have allocated £43.3 million across the piece, which has paid for search and rescue, medical work in Turkey, and UK and aid agencies working inside Syria. The White Helmets funding of £4.3 million goes to help the 3,000 White Helmets who are operating in northern Syria, in 60 different areas.
The House should also look at the multilateral pound—the money going in, which I mentioned, through the Central Emergency Response Fund, which was invented by Britain and to which we have contributed $1.7 billion since its inception. That will be deployed in both countries. I have mentioned Education Cannot Wait, but the Global Partnership for Education programme has allocated £3.75 million. The effect of all that will be a very substantial British input. I can assure the hon. Lady that we will watch carefully what is going on. If further British leadership and money are required, we will certainly consider deploying it.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The earthquakes in Turkey and Syria have been heartbreaking to watch. I welcome the support that His Majesty’s Government are providing, and I pay tribute to the British rescue teams. As always, our community in Bexley has come together with care and compassion following the disaster, with many local businesses and residents donating what they could. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all the local residents of Bexley, especially Councillor Andy Dourmoush, the Turkish School at Blackfen School, Sidcup Partners, St John’s Church Sidcup, Barry and the Welling town centre businesses, and the Lighthouse charity for all their efforts collecting donations and vital aid?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for telling us what is happening in Bexley. All across the country, our constituents have responded magnificently to the appalling situation in Turkey and Syria. It is on such occasions that we see Britain at its best—going first and with effect to people in desperate jeopardy.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The scenes in Turkey and northern Syria are without doubt a tragedy. My heart goes out to all those who have lost their lives or who find themselves without shelter or sanitation. This has been a difficult time for the diaspora here at home. It is vital that the Government show global leadership not just in aid but in helping people to get out if they need to. Will the Government consider a new expedited temporary visa scheme, as has been introduced in Germany, for those with relatives here in the UK so that they can come and stay with their families and get the support that they desperately need?
Mr Mitchell
We have no plans to introduce a scheme of the type that the hon. Lady describes, but the visa centre in Adana is now open again. The consular services that we are able to offer, particularly in Turkey, were back up and running very quickly after the crisis struck. I hope that she will feel that, although we cannot make any commitment to such a scheme, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the normal consular and visa services are available.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, this is a humanitarian disaster on a massive scale. I commend my right hon. Friend for his work, as I would expect, given his long experience in this field. The British people have been incredibly generous, as he said, with £100 million donated. Given that all our condolences and thoughts are with the families of those affected by the earthquake, what advice can he give to those who want to give money to ensure that it gets to the frontline? How do they give it, where do they give it, and can we ensure that organisations that might not be acting in the best interests of the people affected do not get the money?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend asks an extremely important question. People are still seeking to give donations because they can see the full scale of what has happened. The answer is that the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal is a highly effective way of getting money through to 15 immensely respected organisations that really can deliver on the ground. The details are available online. Money delivered to the Disasters Emergency Committee will get through to where it is really needed.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear about the Minister’s trip to Turkey and the continued aid support to Turkey and Syria. He will know that thousands of my constituents have been personally impacted by the earthquake, having lost loved ones and friends. Hundreds have written to me and to Government Ministers because they want to provide temporary relief for family members who have lost everything. Will the Minister tell me why the Government will not support their calls for an expedited temporary visa scheme?
Mr Mitchell
We do not believe that that is the right way to handle the situation in Turkey that the hon. Lady describes. I know that in her constituency she has many families who are suffering and to whom the whole House will want to send their condolences. What I can say is that I saw for myself, on my visit on 19 February to Türkoğlu, the quite extraordinary work by 150 British medical and military personnel on the ground, working with their Turkish counterparts not only in the field hospital set up by the MOD and the FCDO but in the two British emergency medical clinics. I can tell her that in terms of the need on the ground, Britain has been doing everything it can to help. I have seen for myself both the shattered towns and cities in the aftermath of the earthquake, and the brilliant work being done by Britain, together with our Turkish counterparts, to try to make things better.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive and reassuring statement, which demonstrates that the UK is more than playing its part in delivering vital humanitarian aid needed in Syria and Turkey. To that end, will the additional commitment he made to the Education Cannot Wait UK global fund mean that the amount of funding already announced is likely to grow in future as we hopefully move to a rebuild and recovery part of this disaster, because education will be key for many children who have lost their schools?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to make the point about the need to restore schools. Otherwise, on top of everything else, children will miss out on education, one of the key ladders for opportunity in their later lives. Education Cannot Wait, a charity Britain has been enormously supportive of, is a key area that can make an immediate effect. That is why we were so pleased to see it respond with $7 million of support in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Many people in the Wirral have been fundraising as well; it is so good to see Britain coming together. I know that because of that, the Minister will have given the thanks of everyone in this House to our brilliant civil servants who have been helping and to all those he has met who are engaged in the response. On what he said about the United Nations, does he think we can now get better collaboration and support in pursuit of safety and care for civilians in Syria?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She knows a lot about these difficulties and she rightly says that the United Nations is the key to restoring basic services and the ability of people caught up in this terrible earthquake in northern Syria to survive. I believe that Martin Griffiths and his colleagues across the six agencies actively taking aid into northern Syria have wrestled at speed, and with effect, with the early problems, some of which were as a result of the earthquake damaging the infrastructure of crossings. I think she can now have confidence, as I have confidence, that the UN is delivering on the ground.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber and giving us the statement. Natural disasters show the importance of having a well-funded crisis reserve that can provide timely emergency aid. Previously, that reserve totalled £500 million, yet today it is now only £30 million. Can the Minister explain how it has been allocated this year and whether he will use it to support relief efforts until the end of this financial year?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the importance of a crisis reserve. That is the reason why Britain set up the CERF, the fund I mentioned earlier which is now deploying $50 million, so she is entirely right about that. That is the multilateral spend. In terms of the bilateral spend, the humanitarian budget has a degree of flex within it. It is not as tightly restricted as the core international development budgets, so on the humanitarian side we are able to exercise our judgment on how to deploy limited funds to best possible effect.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The earthquakes in Syria and Turkey have shocked and appalled us all. For the Turkish and Syrian communities in Newcastle, that horror is particularly close. They want to know why so many died, why it was so deadly and what they can do to help. Can the Minister give us his understanding of why so many relatively new buildings collapsed? Will he also look at the issue of cross-border remittances, so that the proceeds of the extensive fundraising that diaspora communities are undertaking can be transferred as effectively, easily and quickly as possible?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her comments, in particular about the support her constituents in Newcastle have been giving. She asks me specifically what people can do to help. I think I have made clear that the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal is the right way for our constituents to assist. She asks me why so many have died and why so many buildings collapsed. That is primarily a matter for the Turkish authorities to address. It is clear from what the press in Turkey are saying that that is a point people in Turkey are themselves pursuing vigorously. On cross-border remittances, I will have a look at that and write to her. She is quite right that ease of remittance is extremely important. It is something we try to facilitate in many parts of the world and I will look to see whether we can do any more in that respect.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
All our thoughts are with those impacted by the horrendous earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. I commend all the brilliant community groups across the UK who are doing incredible fundraising work. I am due to attend one this weekend in Treforest in my constituency. It is currently estimated that 24,000 women are due to give birth in Turkey in the areas affected by the earthquake. There is very little specialised maternal and gynaecological support to help those women give birth safely. What more can the UK Government do to support those women with specific healthcare needs to help them give birth in a safe environment?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I hope she will pass on my thanks to the community groups she is seeing this weekend. On the 24,000 women in jeopardy in the way she describes, we have seen vividly on our television screens exactly how that can impact people who are caught under the rubble in awful circumstances. Our great intent has been to ensure that not only tents and thermal blankets get through, but hygiene kits, water and sanitation so that basic healthcare is restored. All those things will play a part in helping to address the problem she rightly brings before the House.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. As tragically demonstrated, earthquakes are hugely unpredictable. What preparation and contingency planning are the United Kingdom Government making for future earthquakes in that region?
Mr Mitchell
The Government consider all these matters in terms of humanitarian need and resilience not just in this region and with earthquakes but in many regions of the world facing many other challenges, most of which, but not all, result substantially from climate change. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that in all these matters of preparation, we are considering them every day and every week.
Point of Order
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the business and the 10-minute rule Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). During Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that Shell had not paid any taxes through the Government’s oil and gas levy. A simple Google can correct that fact, but unfortunately we do not necessarily know what the mechanism is to bring the Leader of the Opposition back to the Dispatch Box to show that the oil and gas levy is working, and that Shell paid record levels this year and is set to pay more next year. How can we clarify that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am assuming he has informed the Leader of the Opposition of his intention to raise it. However, he will know that it is not for the Chair to verify the accuracy or otherwise of comments made by hon. and right hon. Members. That is a matter for Members themselves. If a mistake has been made, the record can be corrected, but in the meantime the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, so I think we will leave it at that.
Bills Presented
Air Pollution (Local Authority Audits) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Christine Jardine and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to make provision for local authorities to conduct annual audits of air pollution in their area and associated emissions by public and private entities; to require those local authorities to prepare reports on those audits; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on those audit reports; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 257).
National Insurance (Voluntary Class 2 and 3 Contributions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of extending to 5 April 2025 the period for which voluntary Class 2 and 3 National Insurance contributions may be paid in respect of one or more of the tax years 2006-07 to 2016-17; to require the Secretary of State to publish certain information about the performance of the Future Pension Centre in providing advice about voluntary Class 2 and 3 contributions in relation to the state pension; to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for increasing public awareness of voluntary Class 2 and 3 contributions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 259).
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (Status) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dame Maria Miller, supported by Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Chris Elmore, Steve Brine, Julie Elliott, Harriett Baldwin, Bob Blackman, Layla Moran, Taiwo Owatemi, Sir James Duddridge and Dr Lisa Cameron, presented a Bill to provide for corporate status of and for certain privileges and immunities to be accorded to the international inter-parliamentary organisation of national and sub-national legislatures of Commonwealth countries known as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to its Secretary-General; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 260).
Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bob Blackman, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Nickie Aiken and Sarah Champion, presented a Bill to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961 to increase the maximum term of the lease that may be granted to the Zoological Society of London in respect of land in Regent’s Park; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 261).
Sexual Offences (Prohibition of Name Change)
Wednesday 1st March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sexual Offences (Prohibition of Name Change) Bill 2022-23 View all Sexual Offences (Prohibition of Name Change) 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
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit a person subject to notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from changing their name; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is one of several steps that need to be taken to fix safeguarding in this country, and to ensure that those who have committed some of the most heinous crimes—including rape, assault by penetration, indecent photographs of children offences, and sexual communications with a child—are not able to use a loophole to change their names to escape scrutiny and the authorities, and, in some cases, end up working with children and vulnerable people.
As is so often the case, my attention was brought to this situation by a constituent’s casework. They know who they are, and I will say no more, other than that they are very brave and what they have been through is horrific and unimaginable for most of us. However, the person who is responsible for their pain is in prison and wishes to change his name. I could not believe that this was possible, but it turned out to be the tip of the iceberg. Further research led me to the excellent work on the issue done by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and, in turn, to the Safeguarding Alliance’s superb research, and also the advocacy of my right hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). I pay tribute to their work, and from here on in steal many of their arguments and research.
The crux of the situation is this: registered sex offenders are able to change their names by deed poll, both enrolled and unenrolled, allowing them to go under the radar of the authorities and putting society’s most vulnerable at risk. Bizarrely, the onus for keeping details up to date on the sex offenders register lies with the offender, rather than the onus being on the police and other authorities to keep a close eye on the offender. It is illegal not to notify the authorities if you do change your name, and it can result in a sentence of five years in prison, but there is an automatic right for sex offenders out of prison to be able to change their names. It does not take a genius to realise that sex offenders are not the most trustworthy group. The Safeguarding Alliance’s report of April 2021 revealed that 16,000 offenders had breached notification requirements in the past five years and 905 had gone missing between 2017 and 2020, and this morning the BBC News website released new figures showing that 729 had gone missing between 2019 and 2021.
Rose West, Ben Lewis, Vanessa George and Ian Huntley all changed their names. The Bichard inquiry of 2004, set up in response to Mr Huntley’s horrific crimes, identified name-changing as a problem that needed solving, yet it remains unsolved. The same inquiry led to the establishment of the Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS, of which many of us will be aware. It is meant to provide an assurance for employers that an employee or volunteer is safe, but a sex offender can now change their name and, with little difficulty, receive a passport or driving licence with their new name. At no point will they be asked whether they have a criminal background. In some cases, that can in turn lead to a DBS check under their new identity, and too often we find these people working in schools, care homes and elsewhere.
A few years ago there was a debate in the House on whether prisoners should have the right to vote, and it was agreed that they should have no such right. The Bill seeks to extend that principle, providing that someone who commits a heinous crime and is on the sex offenders register must in turn surrender their right to change their name while they remain on the register.
Last Monday, the Government announced several new and very welcome additional measures on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Two in particular are worth mentioning. Those who receive a sentence of 12 months or more for coercive and controlling behaviour will now be added to the sex offenders register, and the domestic violence disclosure scheme—or Clare’s law, as it is better known—will be put on a statutory footing. However, both measures are redundant if offenders can change their names and slip off the system. The same problem applies to the child sex offender disclosure scheme, or Sarah’s law, which, again, relies on accurate records. This is a major safeguarding breach at the heart of a system that is meant to protect us.
I think most people would be horrified to discover that this loophole exists. There are different approaches to fixing it, as I am sure we will discover during tomorrow’s Backbench Business debate initiated by the hon. Member for Rotherham; but that the current system is not fit for purpose and needs urgent change is beyond doubt. Too many of us have constituents who need us to act, and I hope that a solution will be central to the forthcoming Victims Bill.
Imagine being a young person and having the most horrific thing happen to you. Imagine that offender saying to you, “If you ever tell anybody, I will come for you.” Imagine living with that for decades. Imagine how the parents of that young person feel over decades. Imagine finding out that that offender may be changing their name and bringing back all those memories and that fear that they will come for you again. This Bill is about being on the side of victims and making sure that they do not have to go through that.
Again, I pay tribute to my very brave constituents, who I know are watching the debate, for bringing this mind-boggling matter to my attention; to the Safeguarding Alliance for all the work that it has done on this; and to all my colleagues who have supported the Bill, particularly the more than 50 Conservative Back Benchers who have supported it both publicly and privately. I cannot mention them all today. In particular, however, I draw the Government’s attention to the fact that two former Home Secretaries and a former Justice Secretary have supported the Bill, as does the former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Safeguarding is about ensuring that our most vulnerable are protected, and we must end the real, immediate and significant risk of harm that this loophole creates. We cannot wait for another inquiry to tell us what we already know: that the law, and the system as it stands, are not fit for purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mark Fletcher, Sarah Champion, Priti Patel, Alicia Kearns, Caroline Nokes, Paul Holmes, Mr William Wragg, Sir Chris Bryant, Sir Robert Buckland, Mr David Davis, Alex Davies-Jones and Sajid Javid present the Bill.
Mark Fletcher accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 258).
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting—
(1) The Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Michael Gove relating to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] not later than 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and
(2) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Penny Mordaunt relating to Estimates (Liaison Committee Recommendation).—(Jacob Young.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we come to the motion relating to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords], I have a brief announcement to make. Under section 107(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by section 2 of the Wales Act 2017, it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales. The Clerk of the House has been informed today that Senedd Cymru has agreed a legislative consent motion for this Bill. The Senedd agrees that the provisions of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office. It has also been published online at the Bill’s web page on the parliamentary Bills website.
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding that such provision could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] to provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying action that registered providers of social housing must take in relation to hazards affecting housing provided under a lease and providing for breach of such regulations to be a breach of a leasehold covenant.—(Jacob Young.)
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 1st March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 View all Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 1 March 2023 - large print - (1 Mar 2023)
16:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 276 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
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:
Amendment (a) to new clause 1, after “Social housing leases:” insert “prescribing and”.
Amendment (b) to new clause 1, after “comply with all the prescribed requirements” insert
“under regulations made under this section and section 10B”.
Amendment (c) to new clause 1, after “regulations under subsection (3) insert “or section 10B”.
Amendment (d) to new clause 1, after “sections 68 and 72 of that Act).”, insert—
“(8) Any provision of a lease or of any agreement relating to a lease (whether made before or after the grant or creation of the lease) is void to the extent that it purports—
(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the lessor under the covenant implied by section 10A(2), or
(b) to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the lessee any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the lessee enforcing or relying upon those obligations.
(9) Where in any proceedings before a court it is alleged that a lessor is in breach of an obligation under the covenant implied by section 10A(2), the court may order specific performance of the obligation (regardless of any equitable rule restricting the scope of that remedy).
(10) Where a lease to which this section applies of a dwelling in England forms part only of a building, the implied covenant has effect as if the reference to the dwelling in subsection (1) included a reference to any common parts of the building in which the lessor has an estate or interest.”
Amendment (e) to new clause 1, leave out line 50.
Amendment (f) to new clause 1, leave out lines 79 to 81.
These amendments seek to strengthen Gov NC1 by clarifying the relevant prescribed requirements at 10A(2), making clear the extent of their application, inserting non-avoidance and non-penalisation provisions and detailing where courts may order specific performance of certain obligations.
Government new clause 2—Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members.
Government new clause 3—Action after inspection.
Government new clause 4—Secretary of State’s duty to give direction about providing information to tenants.
New clause 5—Persons engaged in the management of social housing to have relevant professional qualifications—
‘After section 217 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (accreditation), insert—
“217A Professional qualifications and other requirements
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide that a person may not engage in the management of social housing or in specified work in relation to the provision of social housing unless he or she—
(a) as appropriate professional qualifications, or
(b) satisfies specified requirements.
(2) Regulations specifying work for the purpose of subsection (1) may make provision by reference to—
(a) one or more specified activities, or
(b) the circumstances in which activities are carried out.
(3) Regulations made under this section may, in particular, require—
(a) the possession of a specified qualification or experience of a specified kind,
(b) participation in or completion of a specified programme or course of training, or
(c) compliance with a specified condition.
(4) Regulations may make provision for any of the following matters—
(a) the establishment and continuance of a regulatory body;
(b) the keeping of a register of qualified social housing practitioners;
(c) requirements relating to education and training before and after qualification;
(d) standards of conduct and performance;
(e) discipline and fitness to practise;
(f) removal or suspension from registration or the imposition of conditions on registration;
(g) investigation and enforcement by or on behalf of the regulatory body, and appeals against the decisions or actions of the regulatory body.”’
This new clause would require managers of social housing to have appropriate qualifications and expertise.
New clause 6—Application of Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers—
‘Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must by order designate registered providers of social housing as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
This new clause would bring registered providers of social housing within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
New clause 7—Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety—
‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 92K insert—
“92KA A Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(1) Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure tenancy or assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and
(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.
(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—
(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy; and
(b) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—
(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;
(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;
(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—
(a) the registered provider,
(b) the tenant, or
(c) any member of the tenant’s household.
(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.”’
This new clause would require the regulator to ensure that tenants whose safety is threatened are granted alternative accommodation by their housing provider on equivalent terms to their existing tenancy. It also requires the regulator to ensure that a provider which is unable to provide appropriate alternative accommodation co-operates with other providers to do so.
New clause 8—Regulator duties relating to supported exempt and temporary accommodation—
‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 192 (Overview), in paragraph (a), after “social housing” insert “, supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation”.
(3) In section 193 (Standards relating to consumer matters), in paragraph (a), after “social housing” insert “, supported exempt accommodation and temporary accommodation”.
(4) After section 195 (Code of practice) insert—
“195A Regulation of codes of guidance issued by the Secretary of State
The regulator shall have a duty to inspect local housing authorities as to their compliance with any code of guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the Housing Act 1996”’.
This new clause would enable the regulator to set standards for the provision of supported and temporary accommodation, make the regulator responsible for enforcing any Code of Guidance issued by the Secretary of State relating to local authorities’ duty to provide temporary accommodation, and give the regulator the ability to inspect local authorities for compliance.
New clause 9—Review of impact of this Act—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, carry out a review of the impact of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must make an assessment as to whether the Act has improved the safety and quality of social housing both in its own terms, and in comparison to the safety and quality of housing in the private rented sector.’
This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review of the impact of this Act.
Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(da) to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless in relation to the provision of social housing.”’
This amendment would add to the regulator’s remit an additional objective of safeguarding and promoting the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless in the context of the provision of social housing.
Amendment 42, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(2) In section 92K of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (fundamental objectives), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) In undertaking its objective under subsection (2)(b) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State at least every three years on whether the provision of social housing in England and Wales is sufficient to meet reasonable demands, and must make recommendations to the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the provision of social housing is so sufficient.
(3B) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any reports prepared by virtue of subsection (3A).
(3C) In undertaking its objective under subsection (3)(a) the regulator must report to the Secretary of State on the progress of the removal of unsafe cladding and the remediation of other fire safety defects in social housing, and may make recommendations to the Secretary of State on further action required.”’
This amendment would include in the regulator’s objective a requirement to report to the Government on the removal of cladding. It would also require the regulator to report to the Government on the adequacy of the stock of social housing, and lay a copy of any such report before Parliament.
Amendment 37, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) The Panel may provide information and advice to the Secretary of State about, or on matters connected with, the regulator’s functions and wider issues affecting the regulation of social housing (whether or not it is requested to do so by either the regulator or the Secretary of State).”
This amendment would enable the Panel to provide information and advice and to proactively raise issues affecting social housing regulation more generally directly to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 38, page 1, line 19, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (2) and (2A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 37.
Amendment 36, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(8) The Panel must be chaired by a tenant of social housing.
(9) The Chair is responsible for setting Panel meeting agendas.
(10) The majority of persons appointed to the Panel must be tenants of social housing.”
This amendment would ensure that tenant representation on the advisory panel is mandatory and that tenants are able to influence effectively what information and advice is presented to the regulator in respect of issues affecting social housing regulation.
Government amendments 4 to 10.
Amendment 39, page 17, line 16, leave out clause 21.
Government amendments 44 to 47, 11 and 12.
Amendment 40, in clause 28, page 23, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—
“(a) the inspection of every registered provider within four years of the commencement of this Act,
(b) the inspection of every registered provider at intervals of no longer than four years thereafter, and”.
This amendment would ensure that the regulator is required to carry out regular inspections of every registered provider.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 28, line 39, leave out “24” and insert “48”.
This amendment is intended to probe why an authorised person must only give 24 hours’ notice to tenants under this section, whereas providers are given 48 hours’ notice.
Government amendments 13, 2, 15 to 34, 14, 35, 1 and 3.
Dehenna Davison
I am proud to be here today opening the Report stage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. The Bill has been long awaited, but I hope we can all agree that the time we have taken to engage with tenants and stakeholders has helped us to ensure that the Bill is as robust as possible. I am grateful that Grenfell United, Shelter and others are able to join us today as the Bill reaches its Report stage. I must pay tribute to them for their steadfast campaigning on this crucial legislation. I am also grateful to Members from across the House for the incredibly constructive way in which they have approached this legislation. Thanks to the strength and breadth of engagement, we have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses to reinforce the Bill even further, and I will begin with new clause 1, on Awaab’s law.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
As one of Rochdale borough’s two MPs, I thank the Minister’s Department for the speedy and sensitive way it has dealt with this, and I am sure that that would be echoed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who sadly cannot be here for this debate. Can I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that once this legislation is passed, social housing tenants can have confidence that the homes they are provided with are fit for habitation in a way that simply has not been the case up to now?
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for his contribution today but for the way in which he engaged with us following this incredibly tragic case. This legislation is designed specifically to ensure that terrible cases like that faced not only by Awaab but by the Grenfell United community do not happen again, and that tenants have the protection and the respect they deserve from social housing providers.
I know I am not alone in saying that I was deeply shocked by the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. The death of a child is always heartbreaking, and its having been entirely preventable makes it even more devastating. My thoughts remain with Awaab’s family in the difficult time that they have been going through. This terrible case has thrown into sharp relief the need for this Government to continue steadfastly in their mission to drive up the quality of this country’s social housing and, crucially, to rebalance the relationship between tenants and landlords. Within the Government we are well aware that, unfortunately, damp and mould are not the only hazards that can pose a threat to social residents’ health. For example, excessive cold and falls caused by disrepair in homes are among the top five hazards found in homes in England.
That is why the Secretary of State has tabled the Government new clause for Awaab’s law, which not only addresses the concerns underpinning the Awaab’s law proposals but goes further by enabling the Government to introduce new requirements on landlords to act on a broader range of hazards. We will take a power for the Secretary of State to set out in secondary legislation requirements for landlords to rectify hazards or rehouse residents within a certain time. Our new clause will empower tenants to challenge their landlords for inaction. It inserts an implied covenant into tenancy agreements that landlords will comply with the requirements prescribed in regulations. This will empower landlords to deal with hazards such as damp and mould in a timely fashion, knowing that if they fail to do so they can face a legal challenge from residents.
It is crucial that any new measures to address the issues of damp, mould and other hazards putting residents’ health at risk are proportionate and evidence-based and deliver the right outcomes for social residents in the long term. That is why we intend to consult on these new requirements, including time limits, within six months of Royal Assent and to lay the secondary legislation as soon as possible thereafter.
We are also tabling new clause 4 and Government amendments 1 and 11 to 14, which will ensure that the Regulator of Social Housing sets standards for landlords and provides tenants with information about how to make complaints and about their rights as tenants. To demonstrate our commitment to this, we have included a duty for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to this effect within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
I turn now to the important matter of professional standards in the sector. Grenfell United has long campaigned for mandatory qualifications to be introduced in the sector to ensure that professional standards are consistently high across the sector and to bring social housing into line with other frontline services such as social work, teaching and health and social care. At the earlier stages of the Bill I made it clear that we had to proceed cautiously on mandatory qualifications, as there was an identified risk that requirements could lead to housing associations being reclassified by the Office for National Statistics to the public sector, which in turn would hamper their ability to invest in improving the quality of existing homes and in building new stock.
However, I have made it clear in this process that we are here to listen and take on board comments from stakeholders and Members from across the House. We took heed of the arguments made by Grenfell United and Shelter and by those who spoke so passionately in both Houses on this matter. The tragic death of Awaab Ishak also underlined how vital it is that we use every lever at our disposal to deliver the consistently high level of professional standards that tenants deserve. Since the Commons Committee stage, we have worked incredibly hard to find a solution. I am grateful to Grenfell United and Shelter for their ongoing work with us on this issue and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and my noble Friend Baroness Sanderson. I am proud to stand here today having tabled Government amendments 44 to 47 to deliver qualification requirements to improve the experience of social housing tenants.
We agree with the Government that the regulator should retain a high degree of operational independence and flexibility in formulating and implementing the inspections plan now required by clause 28, but we believe the Government are making a mistake in refusing to mandate the two basic requirements that we have proposed: namely, an inspection for all landlords irrespective of size at least once every four years.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On new clause 6, he knows that I have an interest in freedom of information, and I introduced a private Member’s Bill to do just this. The Freedom of Information Act applies to housing associations in Scotland, the Information Commissioner supports that, and there were endless examples in what the Campaign for Freedom of Information gave us in preparation for this debate of housing associations just refusing or ignoring requests from tenants about fire safety, damp and mould and other issues. Why should they be treated differently from council tenants, and why will the Government not adopt the FIA, which is designed exactly for this purpose, rather than use their own scheme, which would do a pale reflection of that in trying to enable tenants can find out basic information about their own safety?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I could not have put it better. We are seriously concerned that clause 22 does not have the same effect as bringing providers within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. We think that tenants, and tenant representatives and those acting on their behalf, should be able to enjoy those rights, so that they can get information of the kind that, as he rightly says, providers regularly refuse to give to tenants.
Before turning to the Government amendments that have been tabled since the Bill left Committee, I wish to speak briefly to new clauses 7 and 8, which stand respectively in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I turn first to new clause 7, or “Georgia’s law”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has named it, in reference to a constituent of hers who was forced into temporary accommodation for an extended period as a result of her teenage son being threatened by gang members at their family home.
In our view, new clause 7 is a sensible and proportionate amendment that would make a real difference to a small but significant minority of tenants in England who find themselves in the exceptional circumstance—I must stress that fact—of a police referral as a result of being subject to the threat of serious violence. Its effect—the protection of existing tenancy rights in the case of a forced move linked to a threat of violence and greater co-operation between registered providers to rehouse those affected in a social home—is clearly not unduly onerous, and the Government’s argument that such a measure would cause insurmountable problems with local authority allocations policies is entirely unconvincing.
The Minister gave a guarantee in Committee that the Government would work with my hon. Friend
“to see what more can be done in this area to prevent any more cases like that of Georgia and her boys emerging.”––[Official Report, Social Housing (Regulation) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 66.]
It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the Government have not been willing to bring forward an amendment of their own to ensure that others do not have to experience what my hon. Friend’s constituents were forced to go through. As such, if my hon. Friend pushes her new clause 7 to a vote, we will of course support it.
We also support new clause 8, because while we recognise that the Government are taking steps to address the issue of unscrupulous providers of supported accommodation by means of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), we are in full agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that the regulator should have the ability to inspect temporary accommodation. There is statutory guidance designed to ensure that existing minimum standards are met for all temporary accommodation, but we know that in practice bed and breakfasts, hotels and shared houses used by local authorities across the country to house homeless families are frequently substandard and often hazardous, because that guidance is rarely adhered to.
The truth is that with almost 100,000 households, and now more than 125,000 children, living in temporary accommodation, according to the Department’s own figures, local authorities have little leverage when it comes to deciding what standards they are willing to accept. A huge amount needs to be done to decrease the demand for temporary accommodation across the country, most of which is well outside of the scope of this Bill. But in the short term, stronger regulation and inspections could make a real difference, and in the most extreme cases they could save lives. On that basis, we support new clause 8.
Finally, I turn to the Government amendments that have been tabled in recent weeks. The bulk of them are uncontroversial and largely technical, and we support their incorporation into the Bill. I do, however, wish to touch upon Government new clause 1. Awaab Ishak’s untimely death from prolonged exposure to mould in the house his parents rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing should never have occurred and the fact that it did, frankly, shames our country. The coroner was right to call it a “defining moment”, but it falls to this House to ensure that it truly is. It is therefore essential that we legislate to compel landlords to act quickly to remedy hazards of the kind that ultimately killed Awaab.
The regulator’s initial findings on damp and mould in social housing, published on 2 February, estimated that up to 160,000 social homes have notable problems with it, and a further 8,000 have hazards so severe that they pose a serious and immediate risk to health. Given the scale of the problem, landlords who fail to proactively review the homes and buildings they manage or lease for hazards, who deal with tenant complaints relating to such hazards ineffectively, or who blame damp and mould on lifestyle choices and myriad other factors, rather than taking responsibility, cannot be tolerated.
Government new clause 1 is a laudable effort at amending the Bill to ensure that social housing providers are forced to investigate and deal promptly with hazards that are a danger to the health of tenants. As the Minister said, it would allow the Secretary of State, by regulation, to set timescales to which social landlords must adhere in respect of remedying hazards or be in breach of a tenancy agreement, as well as specify what kinds of action must be taken. Enforcement will, of course, depend on access to legal representation, and in many cases legal aid, Government new clause 1 nevertheless provides an enforceable right that enhances the provisions contained in the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). We commend the Government for tabling the new clause and we support it in principle.
However, we are convinced that Government new clause 1 could be strengthened in several important respects, and to that end we have tabled amendments (a) to (f). Taken together, they would set out on the face of the Bill the location of the relevant prescribed requirements at proposed new section 10A(2); make clear the extent of their application; detail the circumstances in which any provision of a lease or any agreement relating to a lease is void; and clarify where courts may order specific performance of certain obligations. We believe those changes would improve the clarity and functionality of Government new clause 1 and thereby make it stronger, and we hope the Government will give serious consideration to accepting them.
To conclude, this is without question an important and urgently needed piece of legislation, and we are extremely pleased it will complete its passage today. Everyone has a basic right to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home, and it is our sincere hope that by overhauling the regulation of social housing by means of this Bill, we will better protect the health, safety and wellbeing of social tenants across the country. We welcome the numerous concessions that the Government have made throughout the passage of the Bill, but we believe it is not yet the most robust piece of legislation that this House can possibly deliver, the achievement of which has been our objective from the outset. We will shortly have the opportunity to amend it further so that it is, and I urge the House to come together to that end.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
May I start by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, in particular, my role as a vice-president of the Local Government Association? That is an important starting point for why I so strongly welcome this Bill and commend the Government team, especially for new clauses 1 and 2, which are going to be the main focus of my contribution this afternoon.
It was immensely useful, and terrifying, having served as a London local authority councillor and as an office holder in the LGA, to see the things that we learnt about the regulation of our housing market following the Grenfell disaster. Local authorities across the country will welcome the fact that this Bill begins to bring a degree of definition to the situations where regulation that perhaps in the past had been vague could apply, and a greater degree of rigour, which enables a greater degree of accountability in respect of landlords who may be falling short in their responsibilities.
I wish to flag up the fact that some issues remain to be addressed, because although the model of Ofsted as a regulatory framework is a good one, the weakness of Ofsted is that it focuses its inspections through the role of the local authority and the local authority’s powers in a diverse and complex education market are limited, just as they are in the context of a very diverse and complex housing market. I would simply say that, following the situation at Grenfell where large numbers of landlords suddenly realised that they would be required to address quite serious safety issues, we saw a number of examples around the country where private landlords with substantial blocks that were entirely occupied by tenants on social leases through the local authority essentially put those blocks into liquidation and walked away. Therefore, there was a need for a local authority in those kinds of situations to step in. How we deal with perhaps sharp business practices by landlords, who may seek, under a single brand, to register large numbers of individual properties or developments separately to try to evade—at least to some degree—the scope of regulation will be an ongoing challenge, and one that we already face in the buy-to-let market.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the consultative way in which she has guided the Bill through the House. Having gone through the Lords and now reached Report, the Government have tabled four new clauses and a substantial number of amendments. What consideration is she giving to the consultation that will be needed on those new clauses with the organisations involved, to make sure we get the regulations right when she brings forward the secondary legislation?
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his intervention but for the constructiveness and diligence with which he conducted himself in Committee, which we can all agree was done with the best of intentions to get the best for social housing tenants. He is right that we need to make sure the process is done correctly, which is why we will be working with the sector and key stakeholders to get this absolutely right, while committing to ensuring that professional qualifications are required for the executives and managers of social housing providers to make sure that tenants get the experience they deserve.
The qualification requirements will be delivered through the competence and conduct standards, for which we have already made provision in the Bill. The new provision will require housing managers and senior housing executives to have, or to be working towards, a housing management qualification at levels 4 and 5 respectively. Qualifications must be independently regulated by Ofqual or, in the case of senior housing executives, can be a foundation degree. Relevant staff who are not already qualified will have to enrol on and complete the appropriate qualification within a specified timescale, which will be set following consultation.
We are setting qualification requirements for housing managers and executives because they are responsible for, and are best placed to drive, the delivery of high-quality professional services through their management of frontline housing officers, repairs and maintenance staff and customer service staff; through the day-to-day decisions they make about the delivery of services to tenants; and, crucially, through their ability to drive culture and change across their organisations. It was imperative that we found a way to introduce requirements that will not increase the risk of reclassification. By tightly defining the roles in scope and the qualifications that will be required, and by enabling staff to gain qualifications in post, we have been able to achieve that.
Importantly, the new requirement for managers and senior executives will work in tandem with the competence and conduct standards, which already require that the standards will have a broad application, requiring landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure all their staff involved in the provision of housing management services, including housing officers and repairs and maintenance staff, have the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours needed to deliver professional, high-quality services to tenants.
The combination of competence and conduct standards for all staff and qualification requirements for all housing managers and senior executives will drive change throughout organisations. Together, they will deliver the transformation of the sector’s culture, staff professionalism and service standards that we all want to see.
New clause 3 adds requirements relating to the production and publication of an inspector’s report following the completion of an inspection. Currently, following the completion of an inspection carried out under section 201 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, the inspector is required to produce a report and the regulator is required to share that report with the registered provider. The new clause provides that, instead, the inspector must produce a summary of findings, as well as a report, on any matters specified by the regulator. The regulator will then be required to share the summary and any report with the provider, and it may also publish all or part of these documents.
Crucially, new clause 3 gives the regulator the flexibility to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a full inspector’s report is necessary or whether a shorter summary of the inspector’s findings is sufficient. The changes also allow the regulator to specify matters for the inspector to report on, allowing it to use its expertise and understanding of a provider’s risks to determine the nature of inspections that should be carried out. The regulator continues to develop its approach to inspections and will work closely with the sector in this process.
New clause 2 and Government amendments 2 and 3 will give the ombudsman explicit statutory power to issue and publish guidance on good practice, alongside the power to order landlords to complete a self-assessment if the ombudsman has received a relevant complaint about the landlord. We believe these amendments are necessary in the light of the recent tragic case of Awaab Ishak. The housing ombudsman can play an important role in raising awareness of the key issues it sees within the complaints it receives, such as on damp and mould. This power will enable the ombudsman, following a complaint, to challenge social landlords to consider and improve their service to residents by ordering them to complete a self-assessment against the good practice guidance. This provides greater weight to the good practice guidance and should prevent further issues from arising. It will also mean that a great number of issues should be resolved at an earlier stage.
Government amendments 4 to 10 and 15 to 34 concern housing moratorium procedures, as set out in the 2008 Act, and restrictions on insolvency procedures imposed by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The powers of the Regulator of Social Housing in the event of a provider experiencing financial difficulty offer important protections for the social housing sector and protect social housing tenants by helping to ensure they can remain in their home. The housing moratorium provides time for the regulator to work with a provider and secured creditors to produce the best outcome in such a scenario.
It is essential that the legislation works as effectively as possible, and that we use this opportunity to make some technical changes that will help to ensure this. Amendment 4 will ensure there is no gap between the occurrence of an insolvency-related event and the beginning of a moratorium so that a provider cannot dispose of land. Amendments 6 and 8 make it clear that the regulator can both extend the moratorium and impose a further moratorium where it has made inquiries but has been unable to locate any secured creditors of the registered provider.
Amendment 9 relates to the process by which proposals about the future management of a registered provider made during a moratorium are put in place. It clarifies how the process works in a scenario where the regulator is unable to locate any secured creditors to agree the proposals. Not every registered provider will have secured creditors and, as such, the amendments will ensure that legislation continues to work effectively and that processes are clear in those cases.
Amendments 15 to 34 concern the giving of notices. They contain provisions on the signature and content of notices, and they provide powers for the regulator to deal with notices that have not been validly signed. Amendment 35 is a technical amendment relating to data protection, and it introduces a provision that clarifies the relationship between data protection legislation and part 2 of the 2008 Act.
I hope hon. Members see the importance of all the Government amendments before the House today and will support them, because I firmly believe they will make the Bill even stronger to deliver the high standards that we are all looking for in social housing and that we know all tenants deserve.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name. I join the Minister in welcoming Grenfell United, Shelter and others to the Public Gallery.
There is a shared recognition across the House that the lives of far too many social housing tenants are blighted by poor conditions and that, although there are good social landlords, too many still routinely fail their tenants. That shared understanding has underpinned the consensus across both sides of the House that the Bill is both necessary and urgently required.
Since the moment the Bill was finally published in October 2022, the Opposition have been clear that we support it and that we wish to work constructively with the Government to see it make rapid progress. Yet at every stage, we have been at pains to convey our strong feeling that the Bill could be strengthened in a number of areas, and to urge Ministers to approach our suggested improvements with an open mind and in the constructive spirit in which they were offered. That was how we approached Committee, and it is why we worked with the Minister to secure the Bill’s speedy passage out of Committee.
We pressed a range of amendments in Committee, including on three key objectives: the need to expedite the professionalisation of the sector; the need to ensure that the Bill provides, in practice, for the Ofsted-style inspections regime to which the Government are ostensibly committed to introducing; and the need to further empower social tenants. I shall take each in turn.
On professionalisation, we welcome the concession made by the Government in the other place regarding professional training and qualifications, and the resulting addition of clause 21 to the Bill, but we pressed in Committee for that clause to be strengthened so that it not only provides the regulator with the ability to set standards on the competence and conduct of individuals involved in the management of social housing, but includes requirements to ensure social housing managers have appropriate objective qualifications and expertise. Our reasoning was simple: as a result of the progressive residualisation of social housing over the past 40 years, it is now overwhelmingly let to those most in need and often least able to challenge poor conditions, not least because the chronic shortage of social housing in England leaves most with few, if any, options to move if they receive an unprofessional service from their landlord.
The circumstances leading up to the fire at Grenfell Tower in June 2017 and those surrounding the death of Awaab Ishak in December 2020, as well as countless other instances of negligence and neglect that will have gone unreported, make perfectly clear what can happen when staff do not listen to their tenants, do not treat them with respect, do not respond to their concerns with empathy and understanding, do not deal appropriately with their complaints, and in some instances actively discriminate against them. In our view, it is therefore essential that those managing the homes of social tenants are properly qualified to do so; that they have undergone the necessary training to ensure that they are treating tenants fairly and providing them with the necessary support; and that they undergo continuous professional development—just as we expect those in other key frontline services to do.
In Committee, the Minister stressed the Government’s concern that giving the Secretary of State the power to stipulate mandatory qualifications for social housing managers through regulation could risk the Office for National Statistics reclassifying housing associations to the public sector. We never dismissed such a risk out of hand, but neither were we convinced it was an impediment to strengthening clause 21, not least because we have never seen any evidence that suggests that mandating qualifications would automatically trigger a reclassification. To underscore how strongly we felt about using the Bill to expedite the professionalisation of the sector, we tabled new clause 5. However, true to the commitment that the Minister gave in Committee to explore in good faith whether there was scope to go further without risking reclassification, the Government tabled amendment 47 and others just before the deadline on Friday afternoon.
The Minister mentioned frontline social housing managers, unless I am mistaken. While we would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the definition of “relevant manager” in that amendment and others encompasses all those in frontline roles involving extensive resident engagement, such as neighbourhood housing, customer service and antisocial behaviour managers, and also a commitment that the Government will set out a timeline for implementation in the not too distant future and that the new burdens doctrine will apply in relation to local authorities, we are satisfied that amendment 47 and others address the concerns we raised in Committee. On that basis, we are happy to support them. I take the opportunity to once again praise Grenfell United and Shelter for helping to convince the Government to make the concession.
Turning to the issue of inspections, we welcomed the concession made by the Government in the other place to impose a duty on the regulator to publish, and take appropriate steps to implement, a plan for regular inspections. I once again commend the efforts of Lord Best and Grenfell United in achieving that outcome. However, while recognising the need for the regulator to have a significant degree of discretion in formulating that inspections plan, we pressed in Committee for clause 29—which was then clause 28—to be made more prescriptive in two important respects. First, we believe it is essential that the Bill makes it clear that all registered providers, large or small, will be subject to inspections by the regulator. Secondly, we believe it is essential that the Bill ensures that every registered provider will be subject to routine inspections.
In resisting our amendment in Committee, the Minister made two principal arguments: first, that it would be unreasonable to bind the regulator’s hands by specifying that the inspections plan must include those two minimum requirements; and, secondly, that basing the system of inspections on a provider risk profile determined principally by size will ensure those landlords at greatest risk of failing tenants are accorded greater oversight. In our view, both those arguments are flawed.
On the argument that we should not bind the regulator’s hands, the Minister must surely appreciate that the Government cannot on the one hand commit to introducing an Ofsted-style inspections regime, and then resist specifying any minimum expectations as to how that regime should operate, however reasonable they might be. If the Government’s intention were to give the regulator unlimited operational flexibility in relation to the inspections plan, they should have been clear about that fact, rather than promising tenants that they would introduce an Ofsted-style regime, with the obvious connotations that that has in terms of universal coverage and a defined regularity of inspection.
On the argument that a risk profile based on a size threshold will best ensure tenants are protected, the Government have not provided any evidence as to why they believe that landlords with a stock of 1,000 homes or more are at the greatest risk of failing in terms of standards. We appreciate entirely the case for prioritising larger landlords with a stock of over 1,000 units, given that that will cover the vast majority of social homes in England, but there is no evidence to suggest that landlords with fewer than 1,000 homes are less likely to fail their tenants; indeed there are cases listed right now on gov.uk of such smaller landlords having been served regulatory notices for breaches. Nor can we understand, given that these smaller landlords are responsible for just 4% of England’s social housing stock, what the Government believe are the benefits of allowing them to escape regular inspection, given that doing so is unlikely to significantly reduce the burden on the regulator and carries the obvious risk that one or more smaller providers will fail their tenants as a result of the lack of oversight.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Greater Manchester and, indeed, the rest of the country was shocked and horrified by the tragic death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale. His little lungs had been exposed to deadly damp and mould in the flat that he lived in with his family. They battled against it for a number of years, and even filed disrepair claims against the housing association. I think we are united in this House that, in one of the richest economies in the world, that should never have happened. I cannot imagine the pain and heartache that Awaab’s family must feel every single day. Today, we embark on the first step towards making sure that no family should ever have to experience what they have experienced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) cannot be with us in person owing to his ongoing treatment, but it should be noted that he has worked relentlessly with campaigners, with Government and with me and other colleagues across the House to ensure that the robust amendments needed to the legislation were made to honour Awaab’s name and ensure the health and safety of all social housing tenants.
I also thank the amazing organisations that have been the ultimate driving force of the Awaab’s law campaign: the Ishak family, their legal team, the Manchester Evening News and change.org for spearheading the campaign, and Shelter and Grenfell United for committing such energy, compassion and knowledge.
Very briefly, the campaign has four clear asks: to require social landlords to investigate the causes of damp and mould within 14 days of complaints being made, and report findings to tenants; to give social landlords seven days to begin work to repair a property where a medical professional has flagged a risk to health; to ensure bids for new social housing properties are treated as a high priority if a medical professional has recommended a move; and to mandate social landlords to provide all tenants with the information that they need, in simple English and other languages, on their rights, on how to make a complaint and on what standards they can expect.
I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and their team for speaking directly with the Ishak family, with campaigners and with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and me, and for tabling new clauses 1 and 4, which help towards those key goals. Indeed, new clause 1 provides that the Secretary of State “must make regulations” that ensure that landlords have to remedy hazards such as mould and damp in a timely fashion. Although I appreciate that the Government want to consult on the final form of those regulations, I cannot stress enough that they must include provisions, as the Awaab’s law campaign set out, to set clear minimum safety standards, clear minimum timeframes for remedying any hazards, and an urgent priority move if the property is found to be unsafe. I am confident the Secretary of State will agree those are not unreasonable requests, and I hope that he will work hard throughout the consultation process to ensure that they are reflected in the final regulations.
I also support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), which seek to strengthen new clause 1 by protecting tenants from repercussions when calling on the new obligations, and by expanding court powers. I welcome, too, that Government new clause 4 gives direction that registered social housing providers must provide their tenants with information about their rights in making complaints. That is good, but it does not specifically commit to ensuring wider language accessibility. I trust that the Secretary of State and the Minister will address that point in the regulations.
In complement to the Awaab’s law campaign, I also support new clause 6, which embodies Greater Manchester Law Centre’s calls to make social housing providers subject to freedom of information requests. Without that change, social housing providers can and have refused to be transparent about important elements of their business practices, even though they are receiving public money in rent and support.
I also support new clause 5 and Government amendment 47 which detail that social housing managers must gain professional qualifications to protect residents and raise standards in the sector. That is a commitment that many have wanted to see since the Grenfell tragedy. I also support new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation. The new clause would enable the regulator to set standards for supported and temporary accommodation. I know that my hon. Friend will speak at length about that in due course, but it is an important change. I am a member of the all-party group, and research that the group commissioned, led by Justlife and the Shared Health Foundation, found widespread and horrific examples of the conditions in which temporary accommodation residents were forced to live. In many cases, their accommodation was not fit for human habitation but they were frightened to say anything about it because of the risk of being made homeless. That is unacceptable.
I hope that the House will support all those amendments today, continuing the productive cross-party ethos that has been embodied in the passage of the Bill. It is important to state, however, that this legislation is one small element in a national moment of reckoning on the state of rented housing in this country. Citizens Advice suggests that more than half of private renters in England are struggling with damp, mould, excessive cold or a combination of those factors. Some 1.6 million of those affected are children. Private renters do not have access to the housing ombudsman for their complaints to be investigated independently, so millions of suffering families have no voice. They are trapped in homes that will ultimately put their lives at risk. I ask the Government to urgently introduce an equivalent Awaab’s law for the private rented sector alongside an urgent, state-funded, national housing mission to build new social homes and bring existing ones up to a decent standard.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. First, I want to put on the record my role as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
New clause 7 would protect the tenancy rights of social housing tenants who have to make an emergency move from their home because they or a member of their household are threatened with violence. It would be a small change in the law, but it would make a big difference. Losing the right to a secure, affordable home is a price that no one should have to pay for being a victim of crime. Yet that is what happens to far too many people who have to make an emergency move because the police say that it is not safe for them to stay in their home.
It is what happened to my constituent Georgia, an NHS employee, who had been very happy living in her housing association home with her children for nine years. One day, neighbours told Georgia that while she was at work, there had been loud banging on her door at home. She eventually coaxed her teenage son into telling her that he had been threatened by gang members. Georgia reported that to the police who told her that the matter was extremely serious, that they thought her son’s life was now at risk and that she needed to leave her home immediately. So Georgia approached her local council who provided temporary accommodation in another borough. At that point, Georgia effectively joined the bottom of the housing waiting list.
The current priority needs system does not automatically award high priority for being a victim of a threat of violence. In the context of an intense shortage of social housing, that meant that Georgia effectively faced a wait of many years to be offered a new home comparable to the one she had been forced to leave. In the meantime, after she had been in temporary accommodation for six months, her housing association began the process of formally ending her tenancy.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for mishearing the names earlier. I add my support for Georgia’s law, and draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have recently been appointed as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I rise to speak to new clause 9 and amendments 41, 42 and 43, which stand in my name. On Second Reading, I put on record that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the Bill. We will be supporting it, despite the fact that it has taken a long time to arrive, and we also broadly welcome the amendments tabled by the Government today. The amendments that I have tabled and will speak to today are intended to improve the legislation in the spirit of co-operation, and to ensure that there is fairness and accountability for people living in social housing and that, ultimately, everyone has a decent and safe home to return to at the end of each day.
Data from Shelter estimates that there are over 270,000 homeless people in the UK, and that a significant cause of those cases is a lack of social housing provision. Tragically, many people who become homeless find that there are no available social homes, and are often placed on long waiting lists for safe, permanent accommodation. Sometimes, they have nowhere to turn to other than charities, relatives or, indeed, their local Member of Parliament. Housing issues are one of the biggest and, frankly, most upsetting topics in my casework, and I know that my experience is not unusual among colleagues.
Amendment 41 would give the regulator the additional objective
“to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless”
due to a lack of social housing provision. On its own, that measure would not eradicate homelessness, but it would create an additional focus on finding a solution to what is an unacceptable situation. This country has a chronic shortage of social housing, which is forcing families to live in dangerous and unsuitable conditions. Just this week, while I was out canvassing in my constituency, I chatted on the doorstep to a lady whose daughter uses a wheelchair, but they do not have any level access to their house. Her need has been assessed and she is in the gold band, at the top of the list for an alternative, but there is simply nothing available in North Shropshire at the moment that meets her family’s requirements. I have been dealing with a similar situation in relation to a constituent with breathing difficulties whose flat has just been treated for mould. Again, she has been given the right priority for a move with her family, but no suitable alternatives are available.
With nearly 1.2 million people on social housing waiting lists, it is not surprising that we all have examples in our casework such as those I have cited. I have spoken previously in this place about ensuring that when social housing is sold under the right to buy, the housing association or local authority receives 100% of the sale proceeds, in order to increase the likelihood of maintaining social housing stock at at least current levels. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of today’s Bill, but amendment 42 would require the regulator to provide a report to the Government about the adequacy of social housing stock, and to
“make recommendations to the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the provision of social housing is…sufficient.”
It would mean that this House has the opportunity to understand the state of our social housing stock, and to hold the Government of the day to account in ensuring that that stock is adequate.
Amendment 42 would also require the regulator to report to Government on progress with the removal of cladding and, again, make recommendations to ensure that progress is finally being made on that critical issue for people living in social housing. The tireless campaigning by so many after the Grenfell tragedy is the reason we are all here today debating this Bill. In my view, the Bill is a good opportunity to make sure that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that social housing is safe and that progress is properly scrutinised. I do not think that these measures are onerous in nature. They would provide valuable information to the Government, and I hope that the Minister will consider accepting amendment 42, which I intend to move formally later.
Moving on to amendment 43, I note that in its current form, the Bill presents a discrepancy in notice periods before the Regulator of Social Housing conducts a survey. The registered provider of the premises is granted 48 hours, while the tenant is given a notice period of only 24 hours. Amendment 43 would ensure that registered providers and occupiers of the premises were treated equally. A similar amendment tabled by colleagues in the other place had cross-party support. The amendment would help to ensure parity in the relationship between tenant and housing provider and would not place an additional onerous requirement on any party, so I urge the Minister to consider adopting it.
The Bill has been brought forward as a result of the terrible tragedies at Grenfell and, more recently, the harrowing death of Awaab Ishak. I welcome the Secretary of State’s intention to prevent a repeat of such incidents in the future. New clause 9 would allow the Government to ensure that the Bill achieves its objectives and improves the safety and quality of social housing both in its own terms and in comparison with the safety and quality of housing in the private rented sector. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on that point. The new clause provides an opportunity to identify areas for improvement and unforeseen consequences of a change in the regulatory environment.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome this legislation. We fully support the objective of empowering those living in social housing to ensure that their homes are decent and safe, and we have put on record our view that we would have liked to have seen the Bill sooner. I urge the Government to adopt new clause 9 and amendments 41, 42 and 43. It is my view that they would improve the legislation in a manageable way and ensure that we improve not only the condition, but the availability of social housing and that we hold the Government of the day to account in making these improvements happen in reality.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I rise to support new clause 8, which stands in my name and that of a number of other Members. The amendment is simple. It would make the regulator responsible for ensuring that local authorities enforce the homelessness code of guidance for temporary accommodation. It proposes that local authority housing departments are inspected in the same way as schools and children’s social services departments are inspected by Ofsted to ensure that the standard required by the guidance is being met and that families who have been accepted as homeless, but cannot be placed in a permanent home due to shortage, are provided with suitable temporary homes.
Temporary accommodation is defined formally as being provided to people who are either awaiting the outcome of a homelessness application under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 or waiting for an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. I find it hard to believe that any Member of this House who represents a constituency in London, the south-east, Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle is not aware of the sort of accommodation in which homeless families are often placed in an emergency. With access to permanent social housing and private rented properties at an all-time low, councils are under extreme pressure to find temporary accommodation. The best national estimates we have are that around 1.6 million households are waiting for social housing. Over the past 40 years, the overall social housing stock has declined by 1.4 million homes.
In my authority of Merton—not known for being under the extreme pressure of other London boroughs—last year the council only had 72 two-beds, 34 three-beds and two four-bedroom units to offer all year. At the same time, the number of families in temporary accommodation has risen by 41% since April, from 243 to 343 households. Merton is not alone or unusual. Most London boroughs count their homeless families in temporary accommodation in the thousands. Tonight, there will be 99,270 families, including 125,760 children, sleeping in temporary accommodation at a massive cost of £1.6 billion. That is an increase of 71% between 2012 and 2018, and a further increase of 41% between 2018 and 2022. Hard-pressed local authorities are seeking out ever more temporary accommodation that is uninspected and further away. The code of guidance specifies the nature and location of temporary accommodation. We all know that those are laudable aims, but they are not being met.
Throughout my speech, I will provide examples of where the code of guidance has specific standards that are not being met in practice. I want to make it clear that I do not blame councils for the situation they find themselves in. They are in a bind: they do not have access to enough social housing units, their funding has been consistently cut, they do not have access to the number of environmental health officers they need, and they have a never-ending list of homeless families that they are desperate to house. This is a toxic mix with tragic consequences.
David Simmonds
The hon. Lady refers to securing children’s education during a move. I have constituents who have moved into the area, often after fleeing violence in other places, for whom that has been an issue. Does she agree that the proposed regulation of multi-academy trusts might be able to address that? At present, local authorities do not have any powers to direct an academy to take a child in order that they can sit examinations. If we restored that power to local authorities or introduced such a requirement on academies as an element of inspection, it would at least guarantee that parents who have to move could find a school in the new area at which their child could sit their GCSEs or A-levels.
Siobhain McDonagh
I would have no problem with changing the rules for multi-academy trusts, but I do not think that that alone would resolve the difficulty. Most schools would be loth to take a child in year 11 or year 13 because they would be in the second year of their exams and the curriculums would not match. Schools of all statuses are concerned about their performance.
The 26,000 families I described are forced to travel an estimated 400,000 miles each year to access temporary accommodation—the equivalent of going 16 times around the globe. On one day at the civic centre in my constituency, the only temporary accommodation that could be offered to families was in Telford, 170 miles away from their home borough, and that is not unique. How can someone possibly start putting their life back together when they are 170 miles away from the borough they have been living in? And that was in Merton, which does not have the same problems as other London boroughs.
Across the UK, as I said, the total temporary accommodation expenditure has reached £1.6 billion, of which three quarters was funded by housing benefit. That is not money well spent. If we moved each family out of temporary accommodation and into social rented housing, we would save £572 million a year. As the Public Accounts Committee put it, not only is temporary accommodation
“often of a poor standard”,
but it
“does not offer value for money.”
I am aware that the Government have supported the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), which would try to raise standards in exempt accommodation, but it is important to note that exempt accommodation is distinct from temporary accommodation. Exempt accommodation provides accommodation with extra support for more marginalised groups such as recent prison leavers, care leavers, those fleeing domestic violence and homeless people with substance dependence or mental health issues. Exempt accommodation is a problem of its own, with landlords exploiting the housing benefit system to profit from vulnerable people, but it should be noted that temporary accommodation is different. It represents people who are either awaiting the outcome of a homelessness application under the 1996 Act, or awaiting an offer of suitable accommodation.
I will finish by saying that, after nearly 30 years of Ofsted, we know that unless a school knows that Ofsted is coming, problems begin. A substantial proportion of outstanding schools that were not inspected for five years have recently been graded as needing improvement. Organisations—the best organisations—need to know that somebody is coming, and in a reasonable time. The same is true of councils that are meant to be ensuring that the standards and code of guidance are met. The Government clearly think that schools and children’s social services departments should be independently inspected. What is different about temporary accommodation for homeless families? The Government provide a national curriculum for schools. They do not just say, “That’s okay—I’m sure the curriculum is being followed.” They actually check to see that it is happening. We can talk about what we are going to introduce, such as different pieces of guidance for councils, but unless local authority housing departments are inspected in the same way that schools and children’s social services departments are, we can never expect the standards in temporary accommodation to be safe.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak again on this important Bill. I do so as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and as a former shadow Housing Minister.
I would like to focus my remarks on the amendments relating to inspections. I also want to reiterate the importance of tenant empowerment, on which the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and the Minister spoke eloquently. I think it is clear that, across the House, this legislation is considered to be highly significant, highly needed and certainly long overdue.
I welcome, as do other Members across the House, the constructive approach to the Bill, which will address the issues that matter to local authorities, housing associations, residents and, vitally, tenants. It will improve their access to swift and fair redress through stronger and more proactive consumer and citizen regulations. I hope that the cross-party work with key stakeholders will ensure that the Bill is effective and addresses the real issues of tenants, including through the professionalisation of housing management in the social housing sector. A number of new clauses and amendments in that regard have cross-party support.
I have said throughout the progress of this Bill that it is the voices of tenants and residents that should take centre stage. It is vital that we have a system of social housing regulation that puts the rights and interests of residents at its heart, and that deals with the historical stigma that social tenants have faced for years, as was highlighted by Grenfell United, by Shelter and, in tragic circumstances recently, by Awaab’s family.
Like the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, I would like matters to go further, to empower tenants and ensure that their voices will never again go unheard. I was disappointed, as was my hon. Friend, that the Government rejected a number of amendments in Committee. I therefore strongly support amendments 36 and 37 and new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would ensure that much-needed representation of tenants on the advisory panel.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee held an inquiry into social housing regulation. I think we are waiting for a Government response to our report from several months ago, although we have had one from the housing ombudsman and the regulator. It was far from clear whether inspections by the regulator will go further than simply inspecting the framework of the organisations, instead going into properties and looking at what is done. The regulator had not quite taken that step in its response.
Mike Amesbury
As always, I have the utmost respect for the Chair of the Select Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that powerful and informed point.
We are in a social housing crisis. Tenants deserve so much better—the very best public housing that this country could provide. That is where we should be going, whether the Government of today or a Labour Government in the not-too-distant future. Tenants deserve so much better. We should not hold back when it comes to the safety, health and wellbeing of tenants and residents. We must make the most of the Bill and act collectively with key stakeholders so that we do not have a repetition of the disasters of the not-too-distant past, such as the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy and the most recent tragic death of Awaab, which has been referred to across this Chamber—my heart goes out to his family.
Everyone should feel safe in their home. It should be a place of sanctuary, not anxiety and worry. Let us not waste this opportunity as the Bill goes through its passage in the House. Let us be bold. Let us work together in this place.
Dehenna Davison
With the leave of the House, I will try to address the concerns raised by Members across the House. First, I thank hon. Members with all sincerity for their thoughtful and considered debate, not just today but throughout the passage of the Bill. We have dealt with things in a constructive manner, ultimately to try to strengthen the Bill to its fullest extent and provide the maximum protection for social housing residents.
I will seek to answer as many questions as I can, starting with Awaab’s law. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who is not here today, for their constructive engagement following the devastating case of Awaab, which touched them and many of us in this House incredibly personally.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for amendments (a) to (f) to Government new clause 1 relating to Awaab’s law. However, we are clear that our current proposals already sufficiently achieve what the hon. Member is seeking to do. Prescribed requirements are already defined in new clause 1 and therefore do not need to be defined in the alternative way proposed. Moreover, new clause 1 already gives us the power to make provision ensuring that social housing providers’ duty to meet requirements cannot be overridden or circumvented by the terms of the lease. We also think it important to be able to make provision enabling the landlord to inspect the property to ascertain whether there are any hazards present, provided reasonable notice is given if it is to be under an obligation to rectify prescribed hazards.
As I have made clear, we will consult on Awaab’s law within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent. The consultation will inform the detail of the regulations that the Secretary of State will set for Awaab’s law, including timescales and details on the prescribed hazards themselves. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who raised concerns on that point. I reiterate the importance of setting requirements that deliver the best outcomes for residents, while being achievable, proportionate and evidence-based. I assure the House that with new clause 1, landlords will have no choice but to comply with new regulations and to take action to ensure homes are free of hazards that pose health risks to their residents. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.
On professionalisation, on which many Members expressed their concerns and passion, I am incredibly grateful for the broad support across the House for our amendment. I believe our approach is the right way to drive up professional standards in the sector, but we will of course carry out further engagement with the sector, including landlords, tenants and professional bodies, as we develop our approach to implementation. I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is no longer in his place but who raised that point earlier.
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, seeks to extend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers of social housing. I am grateful to him, and to the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Salford and Eccles for raising their concerns. I think we can all agree that increasing transparency in the sector is hugely important, but I do not believe that new clause 6 is necessary or advisable at this stage. Development of the access to information scheme, one of the Government’s commitments in the social housing White Paper, is already well under way. Through the scheme, private registered providers will have similar obligations as they would under the Freedom of Information Act. The tenants of providers, and their representatives, will be able to request information from their landlords in much the same way. I am also concerned—I am sorry to raise this point on another issue—that extending FOI to registered providers would increase the level of Government control exercised over the sector and may lead to the Office for National Statistics reclassifying housing associations. That is something we are incredibly concerned about.
On new clause 7, relating to Georgia’s law, I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for campaigning on this matter and for raising the really sad case of Georgia and her family. I am grateful to her for engaging with me in a really constructive fashion as we sought to find a middle road that the Government could accept in line with the new clause she is proposing. Unfortunately, we are unable to support it today, and I will explain why that is the case. I note the hon. Lady’s additions to bring assured tenancies within the scope of her new clause, but I reiterate my concern, raised in Committee, about the new clause itself—if not its intent, which I think we can all agree is incredibly admirable. I remain concerned that binding housing providers with policies that remove flexibility to choose who they give tenancies to is not the right course of action. Those decisions are devolved for good reason.
Helen Hayes
Does the Minister accept the facts of the situation, which are as follows: the tenants who would benefit from this provision remain social housing tenants for the first six months that they are in temporary accommodation? We really are not talking about a shifting of priority among people who are on the housing waiting list; we are talking about rehousing existing tenants. The home that they vacate would then become available much more quickly precisely for those people who are genuinely on the housing waiting list.
Dehenna Davison
The hon. Lady raises a really strong point. As I outlined, our concern is about removing flexibility from social housing providers. Every social housing provider and every area faces very different challenges. We want to ensure that they have the maximum flexibility to deal with those challenges. That is why, unfortunately, we cannot support new clause 7, but I thank her again for campaigning on this issue.
New clause 8 was tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), and I am grateful to her for meeting me to discuss her proposal further following Committee. I know how passionate she is about this issue, and her expertise has certainly brought a great deal to my knowledge and understanding of some of the problems faced by residents of temporary accommodation. She is right to say that we must drive up standards for all tenants, but what concerns me, as it did in Committee, is that this measure would be outside the scope of the Bill. We will certainly explore it with her to make sure that we drive up standards in temporary accommodation as well, but this Bill deals specifically with social housing, and we want to keep it tight to ensure that it achieves its desired aims.
Amendments 36, 37 and 38 deal with the advisory panel that will advise the regulator on a wide range of matters relating to social housing. As I said in Committee, I do want to see tenants at the heart of the changes we are delivering through the Bill—I am firmly committed to that—but I do not necessarily think the amendments are the best way to achieve that. The purpose of the advisory panel is to provide independent and unbiased advice to the regulator. I believe the separate resident panel that we have established is better placed to share views directly with the Government and Ministers. Its members have been asked to tell us what they think about our approach to improving the quality of social housing, and whether our interventions will deliver the changes that they want to see. We think that our approach is the right one.
A number of Members spoke about inspections, including the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The introduction of regular consumer inspections will be a key part of the proactive consumer regulation regime. It will strengthen the regulator’s oversight of the sector, ensuring that he or she can identify issues early and take effective action when necessary. The system that we propose will be based on a robust risk profile, ensuring that when landlords are at the greatest risk of failure, or when such failure would have the greatest impact on tenants, they are subject to greater oversight. As the shadow Minister knows, we have already amended the Bill to require the regulator to publish, and take reasonable steps to implement, a plan for regular inspections. When developing the plan, the regulator will engage closely with the sector, including tenants, and it is right that we do not pre-empt that process.
Let me turn briefly to amendment 41, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). The Government are absolutely committed to preventing homelessness. Significant work has already been done to address this important issue, including the publication of the Government’s bold new strategy “Ending rough sleeping for good”. We are investing £2 billion in measures to deal with homelessness and rough sleeping over the next three years, and our work in this area is already making an impact. Since the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, more than half a million households have been helped to move into secure accommodation. I cannot accept the amendment, as I believe that the existing legislation can achieve the outcome that the hon. Lady is seeking.
Mr Betts
In an earlier intervention I mentioned the Select Committee’s report and the fact that we are still waiting for a Government response, several months later. One of the issues that arose was the need to address problems such as damp and mould in properties. Some housing associations and councils will need to regenerate whole estates substantially and probably rebuild them, but in doing so they will be hit by Homes England’s “no net additionality” rule. Homes England cannot fund any scheme that replaces poor homes with good ones if more homes are not provided. Will the Minister agree to look into that? It can be an obstacle to many important ways of addressing these problems.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, and for bringing his intense expertise to the debate. I will certainly do that, and I will chase up the response to the Select Committee’s report as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) also brought considerable expertise to the debate, and I thank him for his support for the Bill. He asked about unscrupulous providers seeking loopholes. I hope I can reassure him by saying that we have deliberately designed the Bill to tighten the existing economic regulatory regime in order to prevent new types of provider from taking advantage of possible loopholes in the system and to ensure that we are future-proofing it against such issues.
I would like to thank hon. Members across the House who have spoken here today and particularly those who have been involved in the earlier stages of the Bill. Cross-party, this shows that we are all committed to driving up standards in social housing and to empowering tenants to ensure that we never again see an incident like the tragedies of Grenfell and Awaab Ishak. Together we have strengthened the Bill substantially, and with our amendments today will do so even further.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members
“(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In the italic heading before section 51, for ‘complaints’ substitute ‘ombudsman’.
(3) After section 51 insert—
‘51ZA Power of housing ombudsman to issue guidance to scheme members
(1) This section applies where a scheme is approved by the Secretary of State under Schedule 2.
(2) The housing ombudsman may issue to the members of the scheme guidance as to good practice in the carrying on of housing activities covered by the scheme.
(3) Before issuing, revising or replacing guidance under this section, the housing ombudsman must consult—
(a) the Regulator of Social Housing,
(b) members of the scheme, and
(c) individuals who may make complaints under the scheme.
(4) If the housing ombudsman issues, revises or replaces guidance under this section, the housing ombudsman must publish the guidance, the revised guidance or (as the case may be) the replacement guidance.
(5) Subsection (7) applies if—
(a) an individual makes a complaint against a member of the scheme,
(b) the complaint is made under the scheme or the conditions in subsection (6) are met in relation to the complaint, and
(c) it appears to the housing ombudsman that the complaint relates to a matter to which guidance issued by the ombudsman under this section relates.
(6) The conditions referred to in subsection (5)(b) are that—
(a) the complaint is made to the member of the scheme,
(b) the complaint is one that the individual could subsequently make under the scheme, and
(c) the individual has notified the ombudsman about the complaint.
(7) The housing ombudsman may order the member of the scheme to—
(a) assess whether the member’s policies and practices in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (5)(c) are consistent with the guidance issued by the ombudsman under this section in relation to that matter, and
(b) within a period specified in the order, submit to the ombudsman a written statement of the results of the assessment.
(8) If a member of the scheme fails to comply with an order under subsection (7) within the period specified in the order, the housing ombudsman may order the member to publish in such manner as the ombudsman sees fit a statement that the member has failed to comply with the order.
(9) If a member of the scheme fails to comply with an order under subsection (8), the housing ombudsman may—
(a) take such steps as the ombudsman considers appropriate to publish what the member ought to have published, and
(b) recover from the member the costs of doing so.
(10) In this section, “the housing ombudsman” means the housing ombudsman appointed in accordance with the scheme.’”—(Dehenna Davison.)
This new clause confers a power on a housing ombudsman to issue to scheme members guidance as to good practice in the carrying on of housing activities. The new clause also provides that in certain circumstances where a complaint is made against a scheme member the housing ombudsman may order the scheme member to assess whether its policies and practices in relation to a matter to which the complaint relates are consistent with the guidance.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Action after inspection
“(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 202 (inspections: supplemental), omit subsections (1) to (3).
(3) In section 203(12) (definition of ‘inspector’), after ‘this section’ insert ‘and section 203A’.
(4) After section 203 insert—
‘203A Action after inspection
(1) After an inspection of a registered provider is carried out by an inspector under section 201, the inspector must produce—
(a) a written summary of the inspector’s findings, and
(b) a written report about any matters specified by the regulator.
(2) The summary and any report must be in the form specified by the regulator.
(3) The regulator may specify matters, or the form of a summary or report, for the purposes of inspections generally or for the purposes of a particular inspection or description of inspection.
(4) The regulator must give the registered provider a copy of the summary of the inspector’s findings.
(5) The regulator must also give the registered provider—
(a) a copy of the inspector’s report, or
(b) a notice confirming that no matters were specified for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).
(6) The regulator may publish—
(a) all or part of the summary of the inspector’s findings,
(b) (where relevant) all or part of the inspector’s report, and
(c) related information.’”—(Dehenna Davison.)
This new clause replaces and changes provision about what the inspector and the regulator must do after an inspection. It enables the regulator to determine whether the inspector must produce a report (rather than just a summary of findings) and, if so, what matters the report must cover.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Secretary of State’s duty to give direction about providing information to tenants
“(1) The Secretary of State must give a direction to the Regulator of Social Housing under section 197(2A) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 about setting a standard under section 194B of that Act (standards relating to information and transparency) for the purpose of securing that registered providers of social housing are required to provide their tenants of low cost rental accommodation with information about—
(a) their tenants’ rights in connection with the low cost rental accommodation and with facilities or services provided in connection with that accommodation, and
(b) how their tenants can make a complaint against them.
(2) The Secretary of State must give the direction before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) In this section—
‘low cost rental accommodation’ means accommodation which—
(a) is low cost rental accommodation (as defined in section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008) provided by a registered provider of social housing, and
(b) is not low cost home ownership accommodation (as defined in section 70 of that Act);
‘tenant’, in relation to low cost rental accommodation, includes other occupiers.”—(Dehenna Davison.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State, within 6 months of Royal Assent, to give a direction to the regulator for the purpose of securing that registered providers of social housing are required to provide their tenants of low cost rental accommodation with information about the tenants’ rights and about making complaints against their landlord.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
‘(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 92K insert—
“92KA A Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(1) Duty to ensure continuity of secure and assured tenancy in cases of threat to safety
(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure tenancy or assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and
(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.
(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—
(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy; and
(b) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—
(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;
(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;
(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.
(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—
(a) the registered provider,
(b) the tenant, or
(c) any member of the tenant’s household.
(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.”’—(Helen Hayes.)
This new clause would require the regulator to ensure that tenants whose safety is threatened are granted alternative accommodation by their housing provider on equivalent terms to their existing tenancy. It also requires the regulator to ensure that a provider which is unable to provide appropriate alternative accommodation co-operates with other providers to do so.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dehenna Davison
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank the Department’s Bill team, its policy and legal officials, and my amazing private office team, who have worked hard to deliver this legislation through both Houses. I also thank the House authorities, parliamentary staff, Clerks, Doorkeepers and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have participated in the debate today and at previous stages.
In particular, I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his time and his thoughtful contributions. Although we have disagreed about one or two aspects on the path to Third Reading, I hope that he will agree that the Bill delivers welcome change for millions of residents across the country by strengthening the powers of the regulator and empowering social housing tenants to hold their landlord to account.
The Bill is integral to this Government’s ongoing commitment to learning lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire and ensuring that such an appalling tragedy never happens again. I remain incredibly grateful for all the contributions from the community throughout, as well as their ongoing engagement with the Department. Specifically, I know that Grenfell United has long campaigned for mandatory qualifications to be introduced to the sector, bringing it in line with other sectors that provide frontline services. We have been listening, including to those in both Houses who spoke so passionately on the matter, and have been working hard to find a solution. I am very proud to stand before the House today having amended the Bill to deliver that critical change in the sector in order to benefit the experience of tenants.
At this point, it would be remiss of me to not acknowledge the coroner’s report that shone a light on the heartbreaking case of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in Rochdale. Words alone cannot help his family to hear from such an unimaginable and inexcusably preventable loss, but I hope they can find some degree of comfort in the amendment to the Bill made in his name, which will make clear to landlords that hazards such as damp and mould have absolutely no place in their tenants’ homes. We must do more to ensure that people are safe in their own home, and that starts with landlords providing high-quality accommodation and a high-quality service to all of their tenants. I sincerely hope that the residents and families of Grenfell, including Grenfell United, as well as the Ishak family can look on this Bill as part of their own legacy of delivering real change in the social housing sector for the people living in that sector, because they really need it.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Matthew Pennycook
I start by thanking the Clerks, the House staff, and Library specialists for facilitating our debates on this important piece of legislation, and all the external organisations—including Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing, and the Greater Manchester Law Centre—that have engaged extensively with us on it.
Eddie Hughes
I apologise for the very early intervention, but as the Minister who was partly responsible for overseeing the transition from White Paper to Bill, I just wanted to thank the incredible team who sit behind the Minister in the Box for their work. I see some very familiar faces, belonging to some very committed individuals, and I was certainly very grateful for their contribution. I am sure the Minister was, too.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I certainly thank that team, and I thank him for all the work he has done in this area as well.
I also thank the Minister for the constructive tone with which she has approached the legislation, as well as all hon. Members who have contributed to our proceedings at all stages, particularly those who took the Bill so ably through Committee. Lastly, I pay tribute on behalf of the Opposition to the work of Grenfell United and the Grenfell Foundation, which have pushed at every turn for this legislation to come forward and to ensure it is strengthened, and to the family of Awaab Ishak, who with dignity and fortitude have campaigned for—and will now have secured—a change in the law that I have no doubt will save lives.
We know from the circumstances leading up to the Grenfell Tower fire, those surrounding the death of Awaab Ishak, and countless other appalling cases that never attracted media attention that poorly maintained and managed social housing can literally kill. That is why it is so important that we overhaul the regulation of social housing, and that this Bill passes. It is almost six years since 72 men, women and children lost their lives at Grenfell. More than four and a half years have passed since the Green Paper was issued, and more than two have passed since the White Paper was published. There is no question that it took the Government far too long to bring us to this moment, but we are extremely pleased that this necessary and urgently required Bill will complete its remaining Commons stages today.
The Opposition were determined to see the Bill strengthened in a number of areas, so that standards in social housing markedly and rapidly improve, tenants are able to pursue effective redress, and those tenants are empowered and their voices truly listened to. We welcome the various concessions and revisions that the Government have made, which without question have improved the Bill. However, as things stand, we do not believe that it is the most robust piece of legislation that this House could have delivered for tenants. We support the passage of the Bill tonight, because millions of those living in social homes across England need action now to address the plight of poor conditions and neglect and negligence at the hands of their landlords, but we hope that the Government will reflect further on the compelling arguments we have made for changes to further strengthen this vital piece of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Business without Debate
Estimates (Liaison Committee Recommendation)
Work of the Law Commission
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is my pleasure to speak in this slightly early Adjournment debate on the work of the Law Commission. By that, I mean the Law Commission of England and Wales, as opposed to the Scottish Law Commission, founded in 1965, which does excellent work north of the border, and the Northern Ireland Law Commission, which sadly has not been functioning since 2015. On that note, as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I very much hope that as part of the normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland, we see that body working and contributing to better law and law reform in Northern Ireland. It is to the Law Commission of England and Wales that my remarks relate, and I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Minister in his place.
First, I will talk about the purposes of the Law Commission. It is nearly 60 years since it was created by one of my predecessors, the noble Lord Gardiner. Since that time, it has enjoyed the stewardship of many distinguished senior judges and dedicated lawyers and civil servants. Its objectives remain clear: first, simplification and modification of the law; secondly, the law’s codification; thirdly, the removal of anomalies in the law; fourthly, the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments; and, finally, the consolidation of legislation. Its objectives have been restated in recent years in its reports, and they are worth stating here on the Floor of the House. They are as follows:
“To be the authoritative voice on law reform; To make a difference through our law reform work; To be proactive in promoting the need for law reform in key areas and achieve ‘good law’;”—
a term that I will adopt—
“To have a strong reputation in the UK and abroad for being effective in the delivery of law reform; To attract the best talent and be an excellent place to work.”
I am pleased that as part of the Law Commission’s developing reform, back in 2020 when I was Lord Chancellor, I agreed a return to a full funding model for the Law Commission, with a focus on where law reform is most needed, rather it being a question of where the finances were available. While the cross-Whitehall funding source model, where other Departments were encouraged to work with the Law Commission on projects, was an interesting way to try to develop new initiatives on political priorities, it seemed to me that it did not provide the level of certainty needed for a longer-term view, for the retention of quality lawyers and researchers, and for the Law Commission to be able to plan with confidence over several years, rather than from year to year. The Law Commission works not just with the United Kingdom Government, but with the Welsh Government in Cardiff, and I will raise a very good example of that in a little while.
I draw the House’s attention to the important contribution that the Law Commission has made to the law as it has developed over the past few years. When the issue of the abuse of intimate images—a sensitive issue particularly affecting many women and girls and young men in our society—raised its head, the Law Commission was asked to review the law and publish its final recommendations last year. It created a new proposed framework that dealt with a range of issues that went well beyond the reform that we made to the law on upskirting, to deal with deepfake images and the like—current, relevant and important concerns of the general public. I am glad to say that the Government adopted those recommendations and that we now see them in the Online Safety Bill.
The Law Commission has fresh recommendations that merit close examination by Ministers in the Home Office. Last November, it produced a series of recommendations to reform the system for the recovery of the proceeds of crime—again, a germane and relevant issue when it comes to the need for those who profit from criminality to repay the proceeds of that conduct. In particular, I was struck by its sensible recommendations to accelerate confiscation proceedings, to allow the taking of assets if a particular order was not paid—a much stronger approach to enforcement—and to strengthen restraint orders themselves, which are so important at the early stages of confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The proposals in that report merit immediate adoption by the Government—if not in this Session than certainly in the final Session before the end of the Parliament.
I was struck by a report that the Law Commission published in 2020, which was compiled for the Commission by independent economists. They revealed in their analysis that if the Law Commission’s recommendations were implemented for five key projects that they examined, the economic value of that implementation would exceed £3 billion over a period of 10 years. That is a striking amount of money involving only five projects. There are many more projects that the Law Commission has commissioned and completed, and I suspect the overall financial benefit to our country would significantly exceed even that hefty sum. In a wider analysis of 11 projects completed by the Law Commission, the independent analysts discovered that those projects would positively contribute to the lives of well over 27 million people in our country. This is therefore not a niche issue or a dry matter just for lawyers; it is a matter of public good and public benefit.
One of those five projects was the adoption of the sentencing code. For many years, the law of sentencing in England and Wales has been—from my own professional experience—a miasma of conflicting laws of various ages. It has often been more of a challenge for judges and lawyers to work out which provision applies in which area than it has been to focus on the outcome of sentencing, which surely has to be the justice of the case and the need for condign punishment.
The Law Commission’s work on developing a consolidated code, which would be much easier for judges and lawyers to use and would reduce the danger of mistakes or the need for appeal, was very much the preoccupation of the Court of Appeal, and something that I thought merited reform. I am glad that, as Lord Chancellor, I helped drive through both the paving Act and the Act that established the sentencing code in 2020. Why did I do that? Again, it was not just because of an obsession with neatness, though I do like neat and tidy laws; it was because the estimate of the reduction of costs was a grand total of up to £256 million over a period of 10 years. That is no small beer when it comes to the criminal justice system, and I am proud that the Ministry of Justice did that during my time as Lord Chancellor.
There are many other examples of how the Law Commission has benefited this country. The creation of the Fraud Act 2006, which simplified the law of fraud, making it easier and more straightforward to understand and use in prosecutions, was the work of the Commission. The Care Act 2014, which ensured that the rights of carers and their families were better enshrined in law—again, something I was involved in as a Back Bencher—was also the product of Law Commission work. This is not merely dry talk for lawyers; this is about good law and good law reform protecting citizens and saving resources.
Law reform can ensure that new technology is better and more safely used and that the environmental protections we need in the light of climate change are in place to promote sustainable growth. Good law can lead to improvements in wellbeing and welfare by opening up opportunities and helping to improve health outcomes. Good law leads to clear and streamlined processes. It reduces inefficiency and increases predictability, which is great for businesses and good for investors, for our public sector and for all our citizens. There is a strong economic case for good law. Above all things, it helps to maintain the integrity of our legal system and of the rule of law itself. Achieving greater certainty in the law will reduce the need for litigation or challenge via the courts, which is a powerful way of ensuring that not only access to justice, but justice itself, is strengthened and deepened.
A busy Government with a packed agenda will say—I heard this many times during my long service on the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee —that there is no time in the legislative programme for such worthy projects. My argument is simple: let us make the time, and let us make this a priority. I am not sure that it is simply a question of having more hours during the week to do the work; I think it is much more about our sense of priorities. To allude to something Aneurin Bevan said in another context, it is about the religion of priorities. For example, if the Government made a couple of slots for law reform available in each King’s Speech, alongside the well-worn phrase that comes at the end of the Gracious Address about “other measures”, it could be incredibly helpful to business managers.
Law Commission Bills start in the Lords, where there is a special, well-established Committee procedure for suitably expert Members of that House to scrutinise and refine proposed legislation. In this House, we have Standing Order No. 59, which allows us to fast-track Law Commission Bills by referring them to a Second Reading Committee
“unless the House…otherwise orders”.
That is a very good head start, but I am not sure that it is enough for getting Law Commission Bills through this place.
Where the context and content of Law Commission Bills is entirely uncontroversial, there is no difficulty. Sometimes, however, although the content may not be controversial, the context is. There is always a danger present in the minds of business managers that the scope of such a Bill may be just wide enough to allow amendments of a controversial nature. Let us take firearms legislation as an example. The criminal legislation on firearms is a mess: we have very good, tight firearms legislation in this country, but anybody who has read the Firearms Act 1968 understands that it needs consolidation and a thorough spring clean to make it much more comprehensible to practitioners and the general public. That seems uncontroversial, but inevitably there might be amendments to such a Bill that would be very controversial indeed. That is just one example that I am sure business managers would be concerned about, and no doubt the Leader of the House would have a view.
The Minister will say that these are matters for the House, not for the Government, but I think it would be helpful if he took the message to the Leader of the House —I know he will do so, because he is a former Paymaster General and knows the machinery of government—and asked her to work with the Procedure Committee. They could look again at how Standing Order No. 59 and the fast-track procedure in Standing Order No. 58 could allow Law Commission Bills to go straight from Second Reading to Third Reading without the need for a full Committee stage. That would be a sure-fire way to ensure that we can use Law Commission’s recommendations more frequently and make good law more regularly.
I pray in aid a very good example from Wales. The Law Commission’s report “Regulating Coal Tip Safety in Wales”, which was laid before the Senedd on 24 March last year, is very important in the context of the management of disused coal tips. I can tell the House from considerable knowledge, as a former Secretary of State for Wales and a proud Welshman, that the issue is very resonant and salient in many parts of south Wales, particularly the old coalfield.
The Law Commission report then allowed the Welsh Government to produce their White Paper in May last year. A full response is coming this month, and I hope that primary legislation will follow in this current Session of the Senedd. That is a good example in Wales of everybody working together. We also do it well here in the United Kingdom Parliament, or we can do it well, but I do think we need more moments such as that when sensible provisions, such as the ones I have outlined—and there are many more that the Law Commission has proposed—can be done.
Before I end, let me say that I am particularly pleased that the Government are going to act on a very important Law Commission recommendation on economic crime. We debated that legislation some weeks ago, and it is currently before the other place. That is another example of how we can use its work to great effect.
Finally, all the arguments we had about the law of nuisance were strengthened by the fact that the Government were acting on a Law Commission recommendation to codify the common law of nuisance and put it into statute. Those were the arguments that I deployed when I was at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is now law. There are many other examples I could give.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response, will pay more than lip service to what his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are saying. I know that he, as a supporter of the Law Commission and the work of Sir Nicholas Green and all the team there, will want to shower praise on them, and rightly so. What I am looking for from my Government is a sense of commitment to making sure that we can create more good law, and that law reform is not a mere adjunct for the lawyers, but is at the heart of what it will take to make this economy grow and make this country more productive in the future. That, of course, is the key challenge for our Government and, indeed, future Governments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for securing this important debate and, more broadly, for his contribution to this country’s criminal justice system as a lawyer, somebody who sat on the bench, a Justice Minister, a Solicitor General, and a distinguished and reforming Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. There is much from his tenure in that office of which he should rightly be proud. I also had the privilege and the pleasure, when an Under-Secretary of State for Justice, of serving under his leadership. I will also highlight at the outset, in response to one of his comments—and with more than a nod to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones)—that many things are done very well in Wales.
Let me start by offering my thanks on behalf of the Government to Sir Nicholas Green and his team for the hugely valuable work that the Law Commission undertakes, working with experts and the public to make sure the law in England and Wales remains modern, simple and fair. The sheer scale and variety of its contribution to law reform since it was established is extremely impressive, and it is difficult to find an area of the law that has not been improved in some way at some time by its work and its recommendations.
As my right hon. and learned Friend has set out, the Law Commission was created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of recommending reform to the law. It is a statutory arm’s length public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and its principal objective is to promote the reform of the law by reviewing given issues and making appropriate recommendations for change. In making those reform recommendations, its main aim is to seek to ensure that the law remains fair, modern, simple and cost-effective.
A number of specific types of reform are covered by the 1965 Act and have been enacted by the Law Commission through its work. They include the simplification and modernisation of the law through recommendations on codification, the removal of anomalies, and the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments. Its remit also covers the consolidation of legislation and the streamlining of overcomplicated law, as well as the formulation of new legal approaches to emerging high-profile social policy issues.
When determining what reforms to recommend, from time to time the Law Commission consults widely, taking views from judges, lawyers, Government Departments, the voluntary and business sectors and the general public, to help draw together new programmes of law reform that are then submitted to the Lord Chancellor for their approval before undertaking the work. It can also take on individual ad hoc projects referred by Government Departments.
Before the Law Commission decides to review an area of law reform, it considers them against certain criteria, including their importance or the extent to which the law is unsatisfactory and the potential benefits of reform. It considers whether the independent non-political organisation is the most suitable body to conduct a review of the law in that area. Lastly, it considers resources, so that full consideration is given to whether the valid experience of its commissioners and staff is engaged, whether funding is available and whether a project would meet the requirements of other work, if included as part of a programme.
It is fair to say that the Law Commission has a strong and well-founded reputation for considering immensely technically complex areas of the law, which can be significant for individuals and businesses. Its independence and commitment to open consultation is a key asset when trying to build consensus on sensitive issues across a broad range of different interests.
My right hon. and learned Friend rightly alluded to the economic value of the Law Commission’s work. In analysis undertaken by two independent economists in 2020, the figures are impressive. Its five largest projects over recent years have generated a net present value of more than £3 billion over 10 years. Even its most technical codification projects can save money. For example, the sentencing code reforms enacted in the Sentencing Act 2020 are estimated to generate savings in the justice system of up to £250 million over 10 years. The Electronic Trade Documents Bill, based on Law Commission recommendations, is an example of the Law Commission’s value and influence on Government business currently before Parliament. The impact assessment for the Bill estimates net benefits to UK businesses of £1.137 billion over 10 years when enacted. These are not insignificant sums.
Recommendations from at least four of its recent criminal law projects are currently in or about to be before Parliament. They include the protection of official data project, leading to new espionage offences in the National Security Bill; the modernising communications offences project, which has led to communications offences in the Online Safety Bill; the intimate image abuse project, alluded to by my right hon. and learned Friend, where the Government have publicly committed to partial implementation in respect of the sharing offences in the Online Safety Bill, reflecting the scope of that legislation; and the corporate criminal liability project, from which the Government have publicly committed to including a new “failure to prevent fraud” offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill.
On the implementation of the Law Commission’s work more generally, my right hon. and learned Friend has set out his concerns—if I can put it that way—that there can sometimes be unnecessary delays implementing its recommendations, and some may remain unenacted after publication. There are many reasons why some recommendations are not taken forward. Sometimes, there is a simple change of ministerial priorities or possibly, in recent years, of Ministers. There may be a lack of parliamentary time.
However, in addition to ministerial commitments, as he alluded to, a new parliamentary procedure was introduced for uncontroversial—if I may put it that way—consolidating Law Commission Bills. This procedure helps to reduce the time that this type of Bill spends on the Floor of the House, by providing for certain stages to be carried out in Lords Committee. That makes perfect sense where a Bill consolidates existing provisions without making substantive changes, and where that consolidation has been done by the experts at the Law Commission to accurately reflect the existing law passed by Parliament.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Standing Order No. 59 and its procedures. I hear what he said, but any changes to Standing Orders would be a matter for the House to consider. He may wish to raise this matter with the Lord President of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), and I will ensure that her office is made aware of what he has said. The Procedure Committee may also wish to take a view on that. I am fortunate in that my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), is a member of that Committee, so I am sure he will be able, in that capacity, to ensure that it is aware of the views that my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed today.
Implementation rates can, of course, vary wildly year on year, depending on a number of factors. It is not unusual for implementation to happen some time after the publication of final reports. If we look at implementation over the last 10 years since 2013, 61 projects have been completed but only 13, or 21%, have been implemented, although 22, or 36%, have been accepted by Government either in full or in part. In the last five years since 2018, 27 projects have been completed, with only one, 4%, implemented in full or in part, although 12 reports have been accepted either in full or in part.
The more recent statistics are reflective of the fact that the last five years, as I think right hon. and hon. Members will agree, have certainly not been typical in parliamentary terms, in relation to the nature of what this House has had to deal with—hence the vast majority of projects that still require further consideration before they receive a Government response. Looking over a longer period, the overall figures on the implementation of the Commission’s work are very impressive. In fact, between 1965 and 2022, 64% of Law Commission law reform reports were implemented, in whole or in part, with only 13% rejected or 5% superseded. Therefore, in total, about two thirds of all Law Commission recommendations have been implemented to date, with only a small fraction being explicitly rejected by Government.
Full details of the implementation status of all Law Commission reports—whether they have been implemented, are still awaiting a response or are in the process of implementation—will be set out in the next edition of the Government’s implementation report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be published shortly. Until it is published, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that I cannot pre-empt the status of any particular project, but I know he will take a close interest in it when it is published.
Impressive though the overall implementation rate is, there is always room for improvement. One obvious and immediate opportunity might come out of the increased engagement that the Government will have in the formation of the Commission’s next, and 14th, programme of law reform. As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware—he certainly should be aware—that is the result of the new funding and operating arrangements he introduced in 2020 as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. They create a new model to give the Commission better financial stability during the year so it can better prioritise resources on established projects, while seeking new work. To facilitate that, the Commission now receives 100% of its funding directly from the Ministry of Justice. My right hon. and learned Friend has ensured that the Commission’s foundations in respect of its resourcing are sound and provide a solid base from which it can move forward.
The majority of the work that the Commission undertakes is in programmes of work submitted for approval to the Secretary of State for Justice, as its sponsoring Minister, every four to five years. The Commission recently announced that it had decided to extend the timetable for finalising the content of the programme in view of the Government’s focus on priorities for the remainder of this Parliament. Given the time remaining, it simply does not consider that now is the right time to establish a new long-term programme of work that would cover the next five years and beyond.
However, thanks to the new arrangements that my right hon. and learned Friend put in place, the work on it current and 13th programme, launched in 2017, can continue at pace, including on projects such as smart contracts, electronic signatures, automated vehicles, intermediated securities and modernising trust law. Others focused on the way in which the law works for the individual or businesses, such as on surrogacy, residential leasehold, unfair terms in residential leasehold, disposing of the dead, simplifying the immigration rules, employment law hearing structures, administrative review, museum collections and liability for chancel repair. I think that gives a sense of the breadth of the work undertaken by the Commission.
I am happy to report that the new model has already proven extremely successful since it was introduced, suggesting a fair degree of foresight on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend, allowing the Commission the flexibility to undertake more ad hoc work for Government, as well as the capacity to continue to work on any projects from its current 13th programme that are either yet to be started or completed. It is currently working at full capacity and is likely to remain so for some time. Given that the new funding model will rely on increased and proactive engagement between the Department and the Commission during its planning and development, more thought can be given to the prospect of implementation during the process.
The Commission has already consulted publicly on ideas for the projects that the 14th programme might contain, in addition to its own ideas on themes such as emerging technologies, the law following our exit from the EU, the environment, legal resilience and other ideas for simplification or codification of the law. It has continued to refine and develop those and all other ideas received since then. That in itself should present a much clearer picture to the Government of the likelihood of eventual implementation when they ask the Commission to take forward a piece of work in the new programme.
Let me end by reassuring my right hon. and learned Friend—my friend, indeed— that implementation will be a closely considered part of the approval process for the next programme of work, and that the Government still fully intend to agree a new programme with the Commission in due course, allowing it to build on its work to date and the strong foundations put in place by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2023.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. The instrument was laid before Parliament on 2 February. It deals with two important issues. First, I will touch on the deprivation provisions. Maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe are of paramount importance to the Government, and that is why deprivation of citizenship when it is conducive to the public good is deployed for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm.
The power to deprive an individual of their British citizenship has existed in law for over a century, since the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914; it is currently found in section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. When passing deprivation measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the House agreed that in cases when the Secretary of State intends to make a deprivation order without prior notification, on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good, an application must be made to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which will consider the Secretary of State’s reasons not to give notice.
To implement that process, we first made amendments to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 in November last year. Those amendments gave the Lord Chancellor the power to amend procedure rules in relation to those applications. Using that power, we now intend to make the necessary amendments to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003. That will set clear guidelines for the Secretary of State and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when dealing with applications under the new process.
The instrument will specify the information that must be included in applications and make provision for the Secretary of State to vary or withdraw an application. It also confirms that
“the Secretary of State is the only party to proceedings”,
and makes provision for the Secretary of State to appeal a determination of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The instrument also sets out that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission must give a determination within 14 days of receiving the application or its variation. That reflects the fact that the Secretary of State might have to act very swiftly in the interests of national security.
The instrument is the final stage in implementing the safeguards relating to section 10 of the Nationality and Borders Act, which the House agreed to during the passage of the Act.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister has given an excellent explanation of the safeguards in the process, which will be enhanced by the instrument. Does he recall some of the scaremongering during the Nationality and Borders Act debates about how there would somehow be no oversight of how the deprivation provisions would be used? Actually, this is about dealing with some of the worst threats to our national security—who may literally be in war zones, where it is impossible to serve a notice on them.
Robert Jenrick
I certainly do. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was my predecessor and played a critical role in the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act. He is right to say that the suggestions made during the passage of that Act were spurious and wrong and also that the power will be used in the most judicious way to tackle some of the gravest threats to our national security. Examples might include an individual who our security services have reliable evidence is a secret agent acting against the interests of the United Kingdom, whose passport and citizenship we would want to remove, but who—for obvious reasons—we might struggle to locate. Therefore, we would have to use this special procedure to remove their citizenship at short notice.
As I hope I have made clear in my opening remarks, my hon. Friend is also right to say that the special procedure comes with a very clear safeguard: before the Secretary of State issues any of these notices, it will go before a specialist tribunal judge, who will make a statement on the case saying it is clearly correct and valid.
I turn to credibility statements, the second element covered by the statutory instrument. Sections 19 and 22 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 create additional behaviours that should result in an asylum or human rights claimant’s credibility being damaged. That includes a requirement for decision makers to consider the late provision of evidence without good reason in response to an evidence notice or a priority removal notice as behaviour that should be damaging to a claimant’s credibility.
As part of the suite of measures being introduced to encourage the timely provision of evidence in support of asylum and human rights claims, sections 19 and 22 of the Nationality and Borders Act establish a new requirement in the procedure rules of both the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. When judges dispose of asylum and human rights decisions, and when credibility issues arise, they must include in their decisions a statement of how they have taken into account all the potential credibility-damaging behaviours.
The changes to the procedure rules of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission effectively secure what judges are already required to do according to current case law. However, this instrument and the creation of new procedure rules will make it abundantly clear what judges are required to do, and that will ensure that there is clear and efficient decision making in these important matters. I commend the draft rules to the Committee.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I wish you and all hon. Members present a happy St David’s Day.
On 7 November last year, a Delegated Legislation Committee, of which I was a member, considered regulations that marked the first in a series of steps necessary to implement provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 on deprivation of citizenship. The provisions relevant to today’s debate address the area of decisions made by the Secretary of State to deprive a UK national of their citizenship without prior notice. During the passage of the 2022 Act, Parliament added safeguards to ensure that the scope of those powers would be restricted to cases where a deprivation order was strictly necessary on grounds of national security, and that appropriate levels of judicial oversight would apply.
Under the legislation, the Secretary of State is required to apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when making an order to deprive someone of their citizenship. That application must, among other things, provide an explanation as to why it is necessary for the order to be made without providing notice to the individual concerned. It is then up to the SIAC to determine whether the Secretary of State’s reasoning is “obviously flawed”.
The process set out in the 2022 Act, and in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022, which we approved last November, began with enabling the Lord Chancellor to make rules setting out in detail how that process would work. As the next step in the process, the draft rules under consideration today incorporate that detail, and as such provide a framework for the SIAC to use when considering future cases of that kind.
The Opposition continue to support the implementation of the provisions, subject to the appropriate safeguards being in place and observed. I do not have much to add to the Minister’s comments, beyond a couple of questions. Will the Minister elaborate on what further legislative steps, if any, need to be taken before the relevant sections of the Nationality and Borders Act will fully enter into force? If possible, will he give the Committee a sense of when he expects the first applications for deprivation orders to be made? Alternatively, when does he expect the SIAC to be able to begin considering the substance of any applications that the Secretary of State may decide to submit under these rules?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Happy St David’s Day to all who are celebrating today.
I thank the Minister for setting out his reasoning. I am mainly concerned about a point in the explanatory memorandum, which says:
“No public consultation was undertaken on this instrument but the Home Office has consulted the SIAC Chairperson on the drafting of the amendments to the procedure rules.”
In that context, there has been no wider scrutiny of the statutory instrument. Quite late in the day, I received some information from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which believes the rules to be problematic because they do not do anything to secure an extension of the time to appeal for the pre-commencement deprivation orders; they introduce a non-adversarial fast-track paper process that was not stipulated in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022; and there is no provision for a special advocate to be appointed.
I would also query the part about determinations on paper. Proposed new section 25E states:
“The Commission must determine the application on paper without a hearing before the Commission.”
Does that give adequate scrutiny of such decisions on paper? I am not certain how that process will work in detail, so I would be grateful for a fuller explanation from the Minister.
Robert Jenrick
Happy St David’s Day to you, Sir Robert, and the other Members present.
I will answer some of the questions that hon. Members asked. I am grateful to the Opposition for their support for these important measures. The Government view British citizenship as a privilege that, in the most extreme circumstances, can be revoked where individuals have chosen to take a course of action that poses a grave threat to national security. The hon. Member for Aberavon can be assured that the Home Secretary—and, I suspect, her successors—will take that duty extremely seriously and apply it only in cases that command broad support. It is right that there is appropriate judicial oversight, and that is the purpose of this statutory instrument.
As the hon. Gentleman says, this measure will ensure that a highly experienced judge will hear the case prior to any steps being taken by the Home Secretary; that judge will decide whether it is obviously flawed, to prevent any cases that do not meet the evidential bar from proceeding. It is right that that should happen, because this is a very significant step.
We do not believe that further steps are required before we can move forward and begin the implementation and operationalisation of the process. The first applications will flow in time; I do not have a particular date because that is not the nature of this case load. If he looks back on recent years, the hon. Gentleman will see that the numbers are highly sporadic. They depend on events in international affairs. Particular conflicts have sparked more proposals to the Home Secretary, and there have been periods when there have been fewer applications.
Home Secretaries very rarely bring such matters forward themselves. Most cases come to the Home Secretary from the security services, which have specific intelligence about individuals and ask the Home Secretary to consider it and act as swiftly as possible. This Home Secretary, like others, will of course consider it in due course.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Is the Minister confident that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the security services have the right person?
Robert Jenrick
I am confident. It is the duty of the Home Secretary of the day to read the evidence that is presented to him or her by the security services, consider it carefully, ask appropriate questions, probe that work, and then make a decision. The purpose of this instrument is to provide a further check to that important decision. It ensures that an experienced judge hears the evidence, either in public or in private. That is ultimately a decision for the judge, depending on the evidence presented. It may be a mixture of the two, given that some evidence clearly cannot be heard in open court. It will ultimately be for the Home Secretary to decide to proceed.
Valerie Vaz
Obviously, there is a turnaround time of 14 days. Is the Minister confident that there are sufficient judges? Are more going to be appointed?
Robert Jenrick
I have not heard any suggestion that there are insufficient judges. This type of case would be heard by the most experienced judges in SIAC, as the right hon. Lady would expect, given that these are some of the most complex cases that will ever come before them.
Kevin Foster
The Minister will obviously be aware that these decisions are taken on the basis of extensive files and evidence. On disapplying the notice requirement, for example, there is still a full appeals process so that if someone feels that the decision is incorrect, they can appeal it. To be clear, there are plenty of opportunities for oversight and ensuring that the decisions are proportionate and fair. As the Minister rightly said, this is done only in the most serious cases.
Robert Jenrick
That is absolutely right. Individuals who are subject to one of these orders will be able to appeal. We may well not have been able to serve on that individual, so a degree of flexibility will be applied. If the individual were to attempt to return to the United Kingdom at a later stage, we would offer them an opportunity to appeal at that point, when their whereabouts become known to us—even if that is some time after the order has been made.
On the other questions that the right hon. Member for Walsall South asked, legal aid is available for individuals in this position. There is not a suggestion that those subject to one of these orders will be without legal representation. Clearly, the nature of these cases means that in most instances they will be out of country and unable to make direct representations; otherwise, we would not be serving a notice in this manner. As I said, when they resurface and make their whereabouts known, there will be further opportunities for them to make an appeal if they wish to do so.
I hope that I have answered the majority of Committee members’ questions. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
On the points about housing support, I am working with colleagues at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on quality and provision. My party strongly continues to focus on opening up the benefits and freedom of home ownership and all that it gives. The 2020 local housing allowance rates were raised to the 30th percentile—a significant investment of £30 billion—and we have since maintained that increase.
[Official Report, 21 February 2023, Vol. 728, c. 189.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies):
An error has been identified in the speech I gave on Second Reading of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill.
The correct statement should have been:
Mims Davies
On the points about housing support, I am working with colleagues at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on quality and provision. My party strongly continues to focus on opening up the benefits and freedom of home ownership and all that it gives. The 2020 local housing allowance rates were raised to the 30th percentile—a significant investment of £1 billion—and we have since maintained that increase.
Petitions
Child Support Act
Detachment of Earnings Orders
Child Support (Enforcement) Bill
Wednesday 1st March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 View all Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind colleagues to switch electronic devices to silent, please. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled, and we will have a single debate on all the clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I am grateful to you and to all the Committee members for joining me to look at the Bill in more detail.
This Bill is dry and technical, but it is important to say that child maintenance has a massive impact on the families who are reliant on it. All of us as constituency MPs will have cases coming across our desks and, as a family law solicitor, I know that the issues go far beyond ensuring that child maintenance gets to children and helping in situations of poverty. They can also sometimes affect whether children see their parents, because issues with child maintenance can have an impact on prolonging the conflict between parents and on other difficulties.
I am thankful to the Department, which is working so hard on child maintenance and on the Child Maintenance Service, and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) who sponsored the Bill before she was made up to be a Minister. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to fix any problems that we see.
The Bill will enable a more efficient process to enforce unpaid child maintenance. It has only six clauses, but I am sure all hon. Members will recognise the Bill’s importance, as it will help to get much-needed money to children more quickly. Before going into more detail, however, I will recap briefly how the CMS works, just in case any hon. Members present whom I have pulled in to help in Committee are unaware.
The purpose of the CMS is to facilitate the payment of child maintenance between separated parents who are unable to reach their own agreement following a separation. That is an incredibly challenging job, done in difficult circumstances. Once parents are in the CMS system, it manages child maintenance cases through one of two service types: direct pay or collect and pay.
For direct pay, the CMS provides a calculation and a payment schedule, but payments are arranged privately between the two parents. That is by far the most favourable way to proceed. Where necessary, for collect and pay, the CMS calculates how much child maintenance should be paid, collects the money from the paying parent, and pays it to the receiving parent. Cases in collect and pay tend to involve parents where a more collaborative arrangement has either failed or not been possible to achieve, or there are high levels of conflict. Paying parents on collect and pay are therefore considered to be less likely to meet their payment responsibilities.
The difference child maintenance payments make to children’s lives is critical. I defer to charities such as Gingerbread, which does so much for single parents, mothers in particular. The Child Maintenance Service takes action to tackle payment breakdowns at the earliest opportunity, to re-establish compliance and to collect unpaid amounts that have accrued. Where compliance is not achieved and the parent is employed, the CMS will attempt to deduct the maintenance, including any arrears where appropriate, directly from their earnings. Employers are obliged by law to co-operate with such action.
Enforcement powers also allow for deductions to be taken directly from bank accounts, including joint and business accounts, either as a lump sum or a regular amount. That is a useful power where the parent is self-employed and deducting from their earnings is not possible. All the time, we still meet parents who do not know that the system is available or do not know its reach—that when their ex is self-employed, they can still have help.
Where such powers prove to be inappropriate or ineffective, under current legislation the Child Maintenance Service must apply to the magistrates or sheriff courts to obtain a liability order before the use of other enforcement powers, such as instructing enforcement agents or sheriff officers, or even more stringent court-based enforcement actions such as forcing the sale of a property, disqualification from driving or holding a UK passport, or commitment to prison. The Bill will amend uncommenced primary legislation to enable the DWP to take further enforcement action without the need to apply to the magistrates or sheriff courts, instead allowing the Secretary of State to make an administrative liability order.
This power, once enacted, will allow enforcement measures to be used more quickly against parents who have failed to meet their obligation. At the moment, to even get a liability order is taking about 20 weeks, and we all know that the courts are under increasing pressure, particularly post covid, so we will try to remove that step.
Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. Clause 1 gives an interpretation of the primary legislation being amended by the Bill and defines the Child Support Act 1991 as “the 1991 Act” and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 as “the 2008 Act”. Clause 2 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make a liability order where the paying parent has failed to pay an amount of child maintenance and a deduction from earnings order is either inappropriate or has been ineffective. The clause provides an assurance that administrative enforcement measures will be appropriately considered before more stringent measures are taken.
Clause 3 expands the power to make administrative liability orders by setting out in regulations provision for the variation of a liability order—for example, where the amount of arrears upon which the liability order is based is subsequently amended as more information about the paying parent’s income is obtained. That works both ways. Sometimes the responding and paying parent needs to say, “I’m not earning as much as you think I am. I need to make a change.” Equally, the other parent may say, “Actually, he or she has more cash than they’re claiming”, so the clause is important.
Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to set out in regulations provisions that relate to a parent’s right of appeal against a liability order. Those provisions will include the paying parent’s right of appeal to a court, the period within which the right of appeal may be exercised, the powers of the court in respect of those appeals, and for a liability order not to come into force in specified circumstances.
As with liability orders issued under current legislative provisions, in the event that a paying parent does appeal, the court will not be able to question the child maintenance calculation itself. Appeals about the maintenance calculation are dealt with via the appeals tribunal. A paying parent can ask the CMS to reconsider any calculation within 30 days of the calculation decision being made, through the mandatory reconsideration process. They can also report a change of circumstances that could lead to their calculation being amended at any time. It is therefore right for the role of the court when considering a liability order to be, as now, to satisfy itself that the debt is properly owed, and owed by the individual named in the order.
The provisions in clause 4 will prevent court time from being used to consider day-to-day CMS business that can be completed operationally—again, speeding things up—and it aims to strike a balance between giving a paying parent a reasonable window to appeal and the CMS moving swiftly to enforcement measures. The provisions will therefore not place any additional or unreasonable constraints on a parent’s ability to seek an appeal. I have acted for a number of fathers who came to me in a complete pickle, particularly in the old Child Support Agency days, because the calculations were wrong or allegations were made about their income. It is very important that a paying parent has the right to appeal. My dad had quite a lot to say about his own child maintenance payments when we were growing up—don’t get him started on that!
Clause 5 sets out minor and consequential amendments. Finally, clause 6 sets out standard but crucial information covering the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, which will bring it into force.
I want to say a few words about the devolved Administrations, as it is important that we think through these issues. Primary child maintenance legislation is a reserved matter in Great Britain, but it is devolved in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has traditionally maintained parity with Great Britain by mirroring our child maintenance legislation. In respect of administrative liability orders, Northern Ireland has similar uncommenced provisions to those in Great Britain that it plans to commence, thereby enabling it to use and enforce administrative liability orders, so we are expecting Northern Ireland to get there. However, with the Northern Ireland Assembly suspended, it is not possible for Northern Ireland to match the changes that we are making through the Bill today, but it intends to do so as soon as it is able.
In Scotland, child maintenance is reserved but the judicial system is devolved. As such, the Scottish Government are engaged on the impact of the Bill in Scotland and exactly how its provisions will work in the Scottish court system.
The Bill is of great importance to ensuring that the Child Maintenance Service can make the necessary improvements to enforcement processes and get money to children more quickly. We are fortunate to have cross-party support, and I am grateful to the Government for backing the Bill and seeing the value in making these changes. We must ensure that when someone asks for help through CMS, they get help quickly and in a way that makes them feel supported. We must also ensure that parents who are messing about know that there will be sanctions and action against them, thereby providing a deterrent to other parents. I am grateful to the Minister and will be happy to hear from her today.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud on securing cross-party support for this important Bill. Members may want to know that this is not the first time that she has campaigned on this topic; she campaigned on related issues even when she was a local councillor in my patch. I did not vote for her, but I recognise that she was a very good councillor and she has a long history of campaigning on issues relating to support for children.
Last year’s report by the Public Accounts Committee concluded that in the 10 years since the Child Support Agency was replaced by the Child Maintenance Service, there had been no improvement in the system for parents, children and families. The Committee’s shocking report found that around half of children in separated families—1.8 million children—receive no support at all from their non-resident parent, and that enforcement is just too slow to be effective, as the hon. Member outlined. That is a serious failing in the child support system, and we all know that it is often mothers who pay the price.
A mother in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn wrote to me to explain that her child’s father had not paid child support for three years. She had contacted the Child Maintenance Service on numerous occasions, but for three years there was simply no progression in her case at all. Eventually, she came to see me. Members across the Committee will know that our constituents come to see us in our surgeries as the last resort, having gone through everything else. I applied significant pressure as her MP and, in the end, the Child Maintenance Service launched an investigation. But it should not have come to that; it should not have been so difficult for my constituent in the first place.
Sadly, as I am sure Members across the Committee will know, that experience is far from uncommon. It has probably happened to everyone’s constituents at some point. Mothers and children across the country are missing out on the payments that they so desperately need to get by.
The implications for child poverty are particularly concerning. The Nuffield Foundation—a social mobility charity—estimates that as many as one in five single parents on benefits are lifted out of poverty by receiving child maintenance payments. That is to say nothing about the severe impact that non-payment of child maintenance can have on the mental health of children and families. That is why the Bill is so important to me and people across this country. It is completely right that absent parents honour their full child maintenance payments. When they fail to do so, there must be adequate enforcement to force them to pay, so that people’s lives are made easier.
Before I conclude, I have one question for the Minister. Enforcement action was significantly affected by the national lockdowns. Child Maintenance Service staff were redeployed to manage the surge in universal credit claims, and the courts were closed. But the number of enforcement agency referrals now in process is still less than half the figure before the pandemic. Can the Minister give me some information about what the Government are doing to address the backlog?
I fully support the Bill. I hope that it is successful and that it forms part of a wider strategy to ensure that the child maintenance system is fit for the 21st century.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Stroud for bringing forward the Bill. As she has explained, the territorial extent and application applies to England, Wales and Scotland, as it is a reserved issue.
I would like to briefly express my wholehearted support for the Bill. Most of us will have seen, through our casework, just how frustrating CMS cases can be, particularly when the paying parent does not uphold their financial responsibilities. I am dealing with a number of such cases at the moment.
I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for setting up the child maintenance services all-party parliamentary group, of which I am a Member. We will continue to have meetings of that APPG, and hopefully push our casework forwards.
The changes that this Bill will make to enable the CMS to take stronger action in serious cases are very necessary. Many parents, survivors of domestic or economic abuse, have been telling us for far too long that the system is weaponised by their ex-partners to continue to perpetrate abuse. It is not acceptable that it is so easy for abusers to deliberately delay or frustrate payments.
Ultimately, the most important thing is that any changes benefit the children at the heart of what can often be very difficult and emotionally charged situations. I put on record again that I believe that this Bill has the potential to do that, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
That was very swift; I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank hon. Members for joining us this morning, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who has made a brilliant contribution and covered the importance of this Bill in great detail.
As highlighted by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, the Bill is vital for securing money for children more quickly from those parents who fail or simply refuse to give support to their own youngsters. Child maintenance payments, as we have heard, can play an effective role in helping to lift children out of poverty, and can help to enhance the life outcomes of children in separated families.
I take this opportunity to say a few words about what the CMS is doing more widely to improve its service—as we have heard from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn—and ensure that it is supporting our youngsters and protecting the most vulnerable citizens. I would like to reiterate the work that we are doing, and hopefully give some comfort in that regard, because I know and understand that this is a matter of concern for many of us who, as constituency MPs, receive complaints and concerns from constituents who perhaps feel that they have not received the level of support or service they believe they should from the CMS.
As Members will know, until recently the day-to-day policy of the Child Maintenance Service sat with my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Stedman-Scott. The Baroness was truly strident in her desire for the CMS to be at its best and worked to that end, and I know that that view is shared greatly by my noble Friend Viscount Younger of Leckie, who has taken over overall ministerial responsibility for policy on CMS, and I am working strongly with him.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud on bringing this important Bill before us. I think the Minister will know that, since the agency was set up 11 years ago, almost £500 million has not been paid. That is 80% of the total accruals in deficit, in effect. Will she bring forward in due course facts, statistics and information to show how this Bill may be reducing that figure as time goes by? It is important that we monitor that this Bill, brought by the hon. Lady, is giving us information and showing that action has been taken and that young children, and mainly women, will benefit from it.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that challenge and for making that important point. I was about to say that I am working strongly on the policy and its focus on supporting lone parents. I am happy to write to Members and share what we believe the outcomes will be. We will be looking strongly at this. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that other Bills are in progress, and we are certainly seeking to increase and strengthen the impact of the CMS. We know how much it lifts youngsters out of poverty and, as we have heard this morning, it matters greatly to families. That is an important challenge, which I am happy to take up.
Siobhan Baillie
I thank the Minister for her remarks and support, and I thank all Members present, particularly those I grabbed in various different places in the Palace to ask to serve on the Committee. I also thank the DWP officials and parliamentary officials for their guidance and support, and I thank you, Ms Bardell, for your excellent chairmanship.
The hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn and for Bootle were right to express concerns about the record and arrears, as highlighted in the National Audit Office report and by the Public Accounts Committee. I serve on the Work and Pensions Committee and we are investigating child maintenance. The Department and the Minister know that I am incredibly concerned about that because of the impact on families and children but, having met the officials, I know that a lot of work is going on. The DWP is given a hard time, but it is one Department—one arm of the state—that has such a direct impact on children and families.
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who does an incredible job with the APPG.
Yesterday, I was talking to an academic—an incredibly eloquent young woman—about family breakdown and the impact on women, and the impact of family breakdown as a feminist issue, which we do not often hear about. She said there has never been such a good time in history to be a deadbeat dad. I winced at that, because I know hundreds of fantastic dads and that there are millions of fantastic dads all over the country. But unfortunately, we discover in this work that the paying parents and the non-paying parents are invariably fathers, and if we scratch off a lot of that, a lot of absentee parents are fathers. We should not be shy about having these conversations and recognising what the Child Maintenance Service can do and the effect of improvements such as those in the Bill on family stability and children, and on their own relationships when they grow up, and on and on. We should not be shy about accepting that there is a wider benefit to change of this type.
I thank everybody who has been involved and all Committee members for coming in and sitting through our proceedings; I know how busy they are.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Powers of Attorney Bill
Wednesday 1st March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Powers of Attorney Act 2023 View all Powers of Attorney Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues will appreciate it if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection list for the sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on all the clauses and the schedule.
Clause 1
Lasting powers of attorney
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, I think for the first time. I also give my huge thanks to all the Members who have turned out to help with this short but important Bill.
Clause 1 will facilitate three things: first, improvements to safeguards in creating a lasting power of attorney; secondly, a simpler process for making and registering an LPA, increasing access for all involved; and, thirdly, making the Office of the Public Guardian more sustainable.
My Bill will increase access by allowing LPAs to be made and registered electronically, while—I emphasise this—also facilitating a new paper process. It is important not to overcomplicate the service, to ensure that everyone who wants an LPA has access to make one. In the new system, donors, attorneys and others involved will be able to use the channel—digital or paper—that best suits their needs. It will be a fluid system.
The new system must be balanced against the need for suitable safeguards, which my Bill also provides for through the introduction of identity verification; changes to the objection process, to ensure a more straightforward process aligned with the system that the Public Guardian operates now; and restricting who can apply to register the LPA to just the donor.
Finally, to ensure the sustainability of the Office of the Public Guardian, it is vital to reduce its reliance on paper. My Bill allows for a future system in which the LPA will be registered as an electronic document, and that electronic document will be used as evidence of registration, while still allowing physical proof for those who need it. The combination of changes realised by the schedule will enable the development of an easier but more secure process for people wishing to make and register a lasting power of attorney.
Clause 2 amends section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 to enable chartered legal executives to certify a copy of a power of attorney. The process to certify a copy of a power of attorney does not require specialist legal skills, yet, under the existing legislation, chartered legal executives—lawyers who provide mainstream legal services—are not included among those who are able to do that. That does not make any sense and is not in line with the evolution in the legal services sector that has allowed chartered legal executives to carry out many of the same functions as solicitors. Indeed, during the pandemic, the Land Registry used its discretionary powers to accept copies of lasting powers of attorney certified by chartered legal executives.
For clarity, clause 2 extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government’s position is that no legislative consent motion is needed as the changes are consequential to the legislation in England and Wales. By amending the current legislation and enabling chartered legal executives to certify copies of powers of attorney, we will remove the barrier facing chartered legal executives in the provision of this service, increase the channels through which consumers can certify a copy of a power of attorney, and promote consumer choice and generate competition in the legal services market.
Clause 3 confirms the Bill’s short title, makes provision for the Bill to come into force and sets out its territorial extent. Clause 2, relating to chartered legal executives, will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions, which relate to modernising lasting powers of attorney, will come into force by regulation.
Clause 1 and the schedule extend to England and Wales, save in respect to evidence of registration, dealt with by paragraph 8 of the schedule, which extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland. That relates to what can be accepted as evidence of an LPA registered in England and Wales and so aligns the new provisions for evidence with the territorial extent of the existing provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that are being amended.
Clause 2 also extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland, because it is about the acceptance of certified copies of powers of attorney made in England and Wales and therefore has the same territorial extent as the provision in the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 that is being amended.
Overall, the Bill relates to the process of making and registering an LPA in England and Wales. It will not affect the making of LPAs in Northern Ireland and Scotland, as they have their own mental capacity legislation, which makes similar provisions in those territories.
I will now talk in detail about each of the changes set out in the schedule, which fall loosely into five categories: simplifying the process of applying to register a lasting power of attorney; changing how people are notified that a lasting power of attorney has been submitted for registration; introducing identity checks; streamlining how objections to the registration of an LPA can be made; and providing for electronic evidence of the LPA, alongside physical evidence.
To make the application process simpler for donors, I am introducing three changes. My Bill removes the ability of an attorney to apply to register an LPA, thus maintaining donor control of the process. In the future, the donor will apply at the point they execute the document, and the signatures of other parties will be co-ordinated through the Office of the Public Guardian. The Bill also allows the fee to be taken at a different point. In combination, these changes will facilitate a hybrid system that allows different actors to use different channels and will therefore improve access to LPAs.
My Bill makes a small but necessary change to the notification process by requiring the Public Guardian, instead of the donor, to notify named persons, donors and attorneys when a completed LPA is ready to start the registration process. That simplifies the process for those applying to register their LPA and means that the Public Guardian can be certain that notifications have been sent to all parties so that they have the opportunity to raise any objections. That is a key safeguard. In exceptional circumstances, the Bill will allow the donor to ask the Public Guardian to disapply the notification requirements.
The change that will have the biggest impact on enhancing safeguards for the donor is the introduction of identity verification. My Bill gives the Public Guardian the ability to conduct identity checks on individuals involved in making, or who are named in, the lasting power of attorney, as a condition of its registration. If the identity cannot be verified, the LPA must not be registered without a direction from the Court of Protection. Regulations will set out the detail of who will be checked, when and how. I am confident that this will reduce the chances of any fraudulent LPAs being registered, and ultimately increase user confidence in LPAs and the system as a whole.
The Bill also strengthens safeguards through changes to the objection process. To simplify the process and to avoid discouraging genuine objections, I am introducing three changes. My Bill will allow anyone with an objection to register it. All objections will be directed to the Public Guardian in the first instance to be triaged and investigated where necessary. That formalises the process that the Public Guardian already operates. Additionally, third parties will now be able to lodge an objection from the time the Public Guardian is aware of the donor’s intention to make an LPA. Conditions for that will be set out in regulations. These changes will strengthen safeguards for the donor, particularly against abuse and undue pressure, by providing a clearer and more streamlined process for anyone objecting to the registration of a lasting power of attorney.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I commend the work that my hon. Friend is doing on this important Bill. I declare an interest as a former solicitor. Having prepared many hundreds of lasting powers of attorney, I strongly welcome the changes that the Bill will make in terms of safeguards and improvements in processes.
However, I recently met Age UK, and I share some of its concerns about keeping access to paper-based systems for those who are digitally disadvantaged or not familiar with digital processes. Could my hon. Friend reassure us that those systems will remain accessible? I would also be failing in my duties as a lawyer, with my years of experience, if I did not put on record the recommendation that legal advice should, wherever possible, be taken to look at these documents.
Stephen Metcalfe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes two important points. On the first, I emphasise that there is no intention at all—in my Bill or in any other thinking—to do away with the paper-based system. People will still be allowed to apply for an LPA using the paper-based system. However, the Bill introduces an electronic system, which will hopefully streamline the process and reduce the paper burden on the Office of the Public Guardian, making it more sustainable in the long term.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, seeking legal advice is a sound recommendation in many areas, but, particularly when creating something as powerful as a lasting power of attorney, it cannot be a bad idea to seek the advice and guidance of someone with professional qualifications and experience. For many people involved in making a lasting power of attorney, it may well be the first time they have done anything like it. Seeking the advice of an expert is sensible.
Finally, as we all know, LPAs are currently paper documents. To reduce reliance on paper, the schedule provides that all future LPAs will be electronic documents accessed through electronic means, as well the paper channel. The effects of that change will be increased efficiency, accessibility and confidence for users in the new system.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill, which is an example of the much-needed modernisation of legal processes and—as he said—the efficiency and ease of access that digitalisation can bring. Does he agree that in addition to maintaining the paper route and providing efficiency and ease of access through the digital route, it is important to put greater emphasis on increasing digital literacy, particularly for under-represented groups?
Stephen Metcalfe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I say that deliberately, because she is—for her intervention, and I completely agree. We are moving to a digital world, but we are not all moving at the same pace, so it is important that we all promote digital awareness and digital accessibility where we can and help people to become digitally aware who have not had the opportunity before. We should always be thinking about how we can make people more aware of the services they could access if they had basic digital skills. This is an example of where, with digital skills, we can streamline the process, and that is important.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock on bringing forward the Bill and securing Government support. I have a few brief comments to make. Power of attorney provisions are increasingly valuable and necessary as the population ages and our interactions with different authorities and agencies become more complicated. The Bill’s simplification of the application process and introduction of further safeguards for applicants and donors are very welcome.
As the hon. Member recognised, the legal system in Scotland is devolved; in fact, it has had its own legal system since the Acts of Union. The aspects of the Bill that apply north of the border are largely technical and consequential in nature—for example, relating to the recognition of chartered legal executives. There are certain differences in how power of attorney arrangements work north and south of the border—for example, in how the application is witnessed and certified—and Scotland has its own Office of the Public Guardian. It is important that both systems are robust and that everybody—donors, or granters as they are known in Scotland, attorneys and the institutions they interact with—has full confidence in the integrity of the system.
I understand that there are some issues with mutual recognition north and south of the border. I am not sure whether the Bill is the correct vehicle to tackle them, but I wonder whether there is an opportunity to explore that before Report. If there is an opportunity to simplify and clarify the law in this area and ensure that there is mutual recognition north and south of the border, it is important that we take it. There are often cross-border issues for families and individuals and their attorneys. Many of us, myself included, have had constituency casework related to the complications that can arise when a family is in one part of the United Kingdom but care is being received or properties have to be managed in another part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps that could be considered before Report.
I am extremely glad that there is consensus on the Bill, and I am glad to be able to take part in the Committee and help it to progress. It cannot cover everything, and there are some wider issues that could be considered in the longer term—not least the variation in the charges that solicitors often apply when providing advice in this area. Ensuring that more people can safely and with confidence provide for a power of attorney in the long run will hopefully help people to save money and, more importantly, save some of the stress and confusion that can arise when a relative is incapacitated. We should all be working to raise awareness of the value that having the power of attorney in place can bring. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock again, and I look forward to the progress of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I will try not to detain the Committee for long. I want to express my wholehearted support for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, and I thank him for introducing it.
It is my privilege to be the Minister responsible for mental capacity, and I am particularly aware of how necessary these provisions are. A lasting power of attorney, or LPA, ensures that a person’s wishes and preferences can be considered and reduces the stress and burden on families when capacity is lost unexpectedly. However, despite the intention, the reality is that a lot of people find the current paper process for making LPAs stressful, confusing and bureaucratic. Having had experience of trying to put an LPA in place for both my mother and my mother-in-law, I can testify to how confusing, bureaucratic and difficult the process can be.
It is ever clearer that modernisation is no longer just an option, but an absolute necessity. It will help the Public Guardian to respond to changing societal needs and ultimately make the process for making and registering LPAs safer, simpler and more accessible. No doubt the introduction of a digital channel and an improved paper route will help to make an LPA more accessible for more people. The hybrid approach will provide flexibility between digital and paper channels to create a single LPA. However, it is the changes to the application process that my hon. Friend explained, such as removing the ability for anyone other than the donor to apply to register an LPA and allowing the Public Guardian to co-ordinate the completion of the document, which allow for that flexibility.
My hon. Friend outlined that in the new system, the LPA will be registered as an electronic document and accessed digitally; therefore, proof of an LPA can be provided and accessed instantly. Of course, as my hon. Friend also mentioned, physical proof of an LPA can still be requested for those unable to access a digital service. More generally, chartered legal executives will also be able to certify copies of any power of attorney, including LPAs, which they are unable to do under the current legislation. That will remedy an anomaly in the process that allows Chartered Institute of Legal Executives lawyers to participate in the creation of a power of attorney, but then renders them unable to certify as genuine a copy of the same document. Along with modernising the LPA, that will help to make sharing and using all LPAs, whether old or modernised, easier in the future.
As my hon. Friend covered, those measures relating to evidence of the LPA or power of attorney are the only sections of the Bill that extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I therefore want to take the time to affirm that it is the Government’s position that no legislative consent motion is needed, as changes are consequential to the legislation in England and Wales. I take the point the hon. Member for Glasgow North made, and if he wishes to contact my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock or myself afterwards, we will see if we can address any specific concerns he may have about the application in Scotland.
So far, I have spoken about the benefits of the Bill for the access and use of LPAs and powers of attorney generally, but digitisation will also help the Public Guardian to become more sustainable. Digitisation reduces the Public Guardian’s burden to scan, process and store enormous volumes of paper—11 tonnes at any one time. Manual checks can be automated and happen earlier; I am confident that that will create a speedier process, help to reduce errors in the LPA that prevent registration and ensure the Public Guardian is fit for the modern world.
As my hon. Friend has so eloquently explained, the Bill will guarantee access to a system that is simple to navigate and easier to complete. However, that must be balanced against the need for suitable safeguards. That is partly achieved through changes made by the Bill to notification and objection. Currently, the Public Guardian trusts that the applicant has notified people of their ability to object. Having the Public Guardian inform parties means it can be certain that notifications have been sent, increasing the protection provided.
What is more, the Bill simplifies the objection process by providing a single route for all objections, starting with the Public Guardian and ending at the Court of Protection. If required, the Court of Protection can step in. I share my hon. Friend’s view that formalising the existing process will increase protections for donors, due to clarity about where and how to express concerns about the registration of an LPA.
I am also delighted to see the introduction of identity verification for certain parties. That will help to protect donors and wider society from unauthorised access to people’s assets by reducing the risk of fraud. It is a significant increase in safeguards. The introduction of identity verification, alongside the changes to notification and objections, is a driving factor in why the Government support the Bill. It will embed robust safeguards throughout the process for making an LPA.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock for sponsoring this important Bill and confirm the Government’s continuing support for it. This may not be a long Bill, but its impact is far-reaching. It is therefore vital that we support the measures, and I am grateful to the Committee members who have spoken so helpfully. I look forward to engaging more as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
Stephen Metcalfe
I will add a few thanks to the Minister’s, in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and for Glasgow North for their contributions, and to all Members for their attendance and support. I thank the Minister for his positive support, all the officials who helped to bring the Bill to this stage, and you and your team, Mrs Murray, for keeping us all on track.
As the Minister and I have said, this is a relatively small and short Bill. It is tight in its provisions and scope, but it will have a huge impact on people’s ability to make a lasting power of attorney and it will introduce some particularly welcome safeguards. I am grateful for the support, and I hope that everyone will continue to support the Bill as it moves through the House.
My final thank you is to all the external organisations that have been in contact with me throughout the process of sponsoring the Bill. I thank them for their advice, their views and their general support for what we are trying to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
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
Health and Wellbeing Services: East of England
(1 year, 9 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
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered health and wellbeing services in the East of England.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to have secured this important debate, and to be joined by my colleagues from the east of England across all parties to highlight and discuss the many substantive issues relating to health and wellbeing in the east of England. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Care, who will be familiar with some of these issues from the deluge of correspondence she has no doubt been receiving and the recent debates in this Chamber.
This debate follows the excellent one secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on 31 January on the progress towards the Government’s levelling-up missions in the east of England. He cannot join us for this debate, but I thank him for championing the levelling-up agenda in our region and other colleagues who have supported this, particularly those on the all-party parliamentary group for the east of England.
Today I will speak about some of the regional issues and the specific health and wellbeing issues that are relevant to Essex and my Witham constituency. The Minister will be familiar with the “Levelling up the East of England: 2023-2030” report and its commentary on health and wellbeing matters. The report highlights that, while many areas in the region excel, there is a significant number of places and communities where deprivation is affecting outcomes and opportunities and where we need to focus our efforts.
With the 2021 census data showing the east of England to be the fastest growing region in terms of population—up by 8.7% or just under 500,000 to 6.3 million people—it will come as no great surprise to Members that our region is, frankly, pressed. It faces challenges from the health and wellbeing pressures associated with a growing and ageing population. The Office for National Statistics projects that by 2041, the number of people in the region aged over 65 will have increased by more than 450,000.
In particular, the report highlights the data on healthy life expectancy. Both men and women are spending over one fifth of their lives in less than good health. In 2018 to 2020, average healthy life expectancy for men in the region was 64.6 years, compared with average life expectancy of 80.2 years; and for women, average healthy life expectancy was 65 years of an average 83.3 years. The challenge speaks for itself. Some of the figures are gradually improving, but this is a significant concern across the region. The scale and beauty of our region masks a number of health inequalities.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for leading the debate. One of the challenges we have had in my part of Essex for many decades is the difficulty of recruiting doctors, in part because no doctors were ever trained in Essex. It was fantastic news when, five years ago, thanks to the Conservative Government’s policy and support, a new medical school opened in Chelmsford, training doctors in Essex for the first time. The first doctors will graduate in just a few weeks, and I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that the drop-out rate on that course is only 3%—the average across the country is 8%—and many of those new doctors want to stay working locally in our area, which is fantastic. Will she and the Minister join me in supporting Anglia Ruskin University’s campaign to double the size of the medical school in Chelmsford?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is correct. I remember having the opportunity to support the business case for the medical school around seven years ago, and I pay tribute to everyone who was involved in establishing that amazing medical school. In Essex in particular and in the east of England region, we are very proud to have the Anglia Ruskin University medical school. I have seen the campus—the size, the scale, the facilities—but also the enthusiasm of the students there. My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that we have to grow our own in Essex, and in the eastern region, and we need those students to be placed locally in GP practices to grow the footprint locally. I will come to that, particularly when I speak about primary care.
The point about the medical school, healthy life expectancy and the delivery of good health outcomes speak to the challenges we face in the region, which include heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, lung cancer, stroke, depressive disorders, falls and drug-related deaths. As our population grows, on top of the age profile changes that we are experiencing and will continue to experience, we will need more qualified GPs, but also medical specialists to serve those individuals and to support the community. The difficulties that we face comprise not only demographics, but the scale of the health challenges and, I say to the Minister, the issue of geography. The east of England is a diverse part of the country, and its rurality and coastal nature put pressure on services.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that since we have been devolving powers and money to local integrated care systems, centralised NHS England appears deeply inefficient in many ways? In Clacton, we have private dentists up and ready to serve with the NHS, but they are unable to do so. The integrated care boards are going to absorb new commissioning powers, but without flexibility in NHS England rules, will we not just be shuffling a deck of cards?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is the voice of common sense on this. He will recall that we covered some of those issues in the debate we held here on, I think, 31 January. I spoke about the state being very inflexible and centralising too many resources, which need to be cascaded downwards to meet the needs of patient care.
My views on the size of the state are well known, but on this issue I think that, yet again, the centralised approach is wrong. It is simply not delivering the patient outcomes and the care that we need. We need more flexibility. ICBs are brand new, and they are finding their feet right now. We as Members of Parliament have to support them so that they can establish themselves and work with us to understand the needs of our constituents and communities. There is nothing worse than central Government funnelling cash to another centralised organisation and bureaucracy within a region, and that money going on, for example, NHS managers and bureaucracy, not the healthcare that is needed.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Let me pick up the point about NHS dentistry, the commissioning of which, I am told, is about to be transferred to the ICBs. We probably all have a pretty grim constituency experience of people trying to access NHS dentistry. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it might have been a good idea to hand that power back to local areas quite a long time ago?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is right. For years, I have spoken about local healthcare provision. Practitioners know best, and it is not for central structures to dictate the needs of a local community. With that, there is the issue of access to services that matter so much. Dentistry has been controversial for too long. As a result, children are not accessing dentistry in the way they should, and health outcomes are absolutely shocking and appalling, particularly in young children.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. I recently had a meeting with Dr Nick Stolls, who for 20 years ran the local dentistry committee in Norfolk and Suffolk and is now the professional lead for dentistry and wellbeing for the integrated care board. He described work done by the British Dental Association that points out that Norfolk is almost a dental desert, with no dentists able to take contracts, in some cases because of NHS England’s inflexibility. Does my right hon. Friend agree that reform is needed? Will she invite the Minister to agree that, as the British Dental Association said, fundamental reform of the NHS dental contract is urgently required to truly address the challenges that patients, dentists and the wider NHS are experiencing?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The British Dental Association has been pressing for reform probably for as long as I have been in Parliament, and I am very familiar with its case. My hon. Friend speaks very clearly about access and inflexibility. Importantly, if there is no flexibility in the system, there is no opportunity to provide services to meet local need accessibly and in a way that means people do not think they will be charged or subject to barriers to access.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady. She was a very effective Home Secretary and it is good to see her just as active on the Back Benches—well done. This subject does not affect me personally, but I want to ask her about a similar issue: face-to-face GP appointments. It is vital for a GP to assess what they see as well as the words they hear. My constituents wish to have face-to-face appointments, but they seem to be restricted. Is the right hon. Lady experiencing the same problems? What would she suggest should be done to solve them?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have a whole section of my speech on GP access, particularly in the Witham constituency. That has been a contentious issue throughout my entire time as a Member of Parliament. He is absolutely right, and I have no doubt that his constituents and constituents in the east of England and across the country are facing the same challenges. There is a range of reasons for that, which I will touch on.
I think the Minister will be interested to know that in the east of England—this relates to facilities and access to care—per capita spend is £2,889, which is the lowest of any region and below the national average of £3,236. Like so much of the rest of the country, we face challenges. Ours is an ageing part of the country—our population is getting older—so we face disproportionate health and social care challenges and workforce demands. The east of England has the smallest number of nurses per 1,000 people of any region in the country. I urge Ministers to review not just the flexibility of dentistry contracts, but the east of England’s metrics on healthy life expectancy—this comes back to the levelling-up report—and provide more certainty to the region to address the disparities, which affect constituents across the board.
I also ask the Minister to look at what can be done to reduce ill health and early death, particularly as a result of preventable factors. Prevention is rightly a significant feature of the NHS, but we have serious issues in the east of England. Health providers and local authorities across the region would be really keen to engage with the Government on that. I am going to volunteer them all, because they offer themselves up constantly for new pilots and initiatives; we are very proactive. I pay tribute to Essex County Council, which has done a great deal of work on this issue, and other key providers that have the ability, capacity and capability to provide services.
As well as support for the region’s levelling-up ambition on healthy life expectancy, we are very keen to see improvements in wellbeing, where social prescribing comes into the mix. I say to the Minister and all our colleagues here today and people across the region that it is incumbent upon us to start to narrow that gap from top-performing areas. We need to start closing the gap, so that we start to see equity across these big challenges. As the levelling-up report has demonstrated, this is a difficult health indicator and target to measure, but we have the opportunity now to be innovative, and to work with new providers as well as our county council in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) has spoken about—a less bureaucratic and more flexible way that helps to drive local outcomes with our partners.
Vicky Ford
In my part of Essex, great work is already being done on levelling up. For example, it was never possible for people to get IVF in Mid Essex due to lower levels of funding, but that has now been levelled up, so that from 1 April, women will be able to get IVF treatment on the NHS in Mid Essex, which is really important to so many women who want to start a family
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments.
I have some very specific Witham issues. The Minister and the Department will be familiar with my bundles of correspondence on the Witham health centre. One of the most important ways that health and wellbeing in Witham, in Essex and across the East of England can be improved is by strengthening accessible services that are delivered within the local community. We have already touched on this point. That applies to the provision of health services in Witham.
I never tire of raising the needs of my constituents across the constituency and in Witham town; it is growing as a constituency and a community, and we are very proud of that. We have seen some amazing outcomes—for example, in education, in our rail services and in the infrastructure that we have been pursuing—but there is more to do. We have seen hundreds of new homes being granted planning consent and thousands of homes being built, with more residents coming to my constituency. Ours is a fantastic part of Essex—I do believe that the only way is Essex. Importantly, we now have a blend of new families and families who have lived in Witham for many generations. Like many towns, we have a growing population of elderly residents living in care homes and homes around the town, and of young people as well—we are a commuter town—with young families. With that blend and that increase, we need a new health centre.
Since the start of the pandemic three years ago, the four GP surgeries in the town have seen their patient lists increase by nearly 3% to almost 32,000 people. Between the four surgeries, there are just 13 full-time equivalent GPs, giving an average patient to GP ratio across the town of about 2,440. That is about 50% greater than the national average. The patients to GPs ratios across those four surgeries range from 2,045 patients per GP to 3,150 patients per GP, and each surgery is well above the national average.
With so many patients—in fact, this has been the case throughout my entire time as Member of Parliament for the Witham constituency—many constituents regularly report not getting appointments, and far too many are unable to take action when it comes to dealing with their own health concerns. Cancer risks are being picked up too late. In the light of the health disparities that I have already raised, serious and debilitating health conditions will not be serviced and attended to in a timely manner.
This will be no great surprise to the Minister or anyone in the Department, and I apologise to no one for the vigorous way in which I keep on raising the need for a health centre. It is one of the key projects that I have campaigned for during my time as Member of Parliament. The money has to come directly to Witham town. With four GP surgeries and more than 30,000 patients, there is a clear and compelling business case. I have offered to write the business case for the GPs myself. I have done everything to facilitate the GPs coming together, which has been rather challenging; the Minister will be well aware of the business models that mean that GPs do not always want to reach agreement and work together. I am sorry to report that those models have been a major underlying problem.
Having a new facility—this is the key point—would mean more specialist treatments and services delivered locally. It would give local constituents the greatest assurance that, whether they have young children or they are elderly, their needs will be taken care of within the town itself, and that there will be medical practitioners, therapists, nurses and others who can absolutely ensure that care is there for them. We should also bring in new providers and do much more on social prescribing. I am a great advocate of that, and we have to have a blended approach when it comes to access to primary care.
Giles Watling
On that point, I would like to bring up Clacton. We have a new community diagnostic centre, which is absolutely brilliant. I thank the Minister for that, but there was supposed to be a primary care hub, too. I had a meeting recently with one of our local GPs, and the primary care hub is not forthcoming at the moment. Hospitals such as the one in Clacton are very important because they take pressure off the bigger hospitals locally, such as those in Ipswich and Colchester. It is very important that we have a primary care hub, so I ask the Minister to respond to that.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about his beautiful constituency and the healthcare needs.
I want to press the Minister. For too long, my constituents and the residents of Witham have been waiting for a medical facility—a new health hub, as we have dubbed it—and I am afraid that there has been inertia in the way that people have come together locally to drive this outcome. I give credit to the new ICB and to one of our NHS colleagues heading up the ICB, Dan Doherty, who is trying to get GPs to come together. We are looking at a new practice centre and locations are being discussed, but enough is enough. We need this to come together, and it needs central leadership. We have spoken about the centralisation of money and resources. The one thing that central Government could do that would actually make a difference is to say that the project needs to go ahead, and then to tell the local ICB and GPs, “You will get the resources, the help and the support, because it is your job and your responsibility to deliver for local constituents and residents.” That is key.
We are, proudly, a growing constituency, and Tiptree is another major population centre where there are challenges in health provision. Tiptree is a very famous village, although its village status is sometimes questioned because it is growing and growing. The village is famous for its legendary jam-making business, which has a royal warrant, and we are very proud of Wilkin & Sons. The medical practice there has 12,000 patients registered but has just two practising GPs, so although the practice has a range of healthcare professionals working there, the level of GP provision is too low.
To come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, if we are to stop the pressures on A&E—for my constituency, the pressures are on Colchester Hospital, which is where Tiptree faces, and the pressures on the Witham side are on Broomfield Hospital, towards Chelmsford—we have to ensure that our local practices are supported and that we increase our GP ratios. That also speaks to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) about the need to bolster the medical school and ensure that its graduates come to work in our GP practices. That is hugely important, and we in Essex absolutely believe that there is a great opportunity to increase GP provision. The medical school is outstanding. We want that link to be made and we need more GPs to come through from Anglia Ruskin. I will put in a shameless plug: come to Witham and Tiptree, and use the area as a network, through a new hub in Witham town, to then go further.
There have been interventions about dentistry, and I reiterate the point about the BDA’s statistics: around 93% of dentists in the east of England are not accepting any new NHS outpatients, and the proportion for children is 81%. We should pause and reflect on those statistics, which I find astonishing because of the health and wellbeing implications. We see poor dental hygiene and tooth decay in children, which is simply unacceptable. The Government announced a package of measures to improve dental health and access to NHS dentists in November, but the issue seems to be deteriorating for lots of reasons.
I know that the Government are doing much more on prevention, but we need what we have seen from the Suffolk and North East Essex ICB, which provided funds for children aged between two and eight to experience supervised brushing in early years and school settings. I am a big believer in our schools, which can do so much for children’s health and wellbeing. I said that we were all for innovation and pilots, and initiatives such as that should be supported across other schools to improve health and wellbeing with regard to dental care, and to show children what can be done and how to look after themselves. If we cannot get it right in the early years, frankly, we end up picking up the pieces later in life. This is about not just costs, but the wider health implications. There is so much preventive work we can do at the outset.
I will also take this opportunity to comment on our ambulance services across the east of England. I am sure that all of us here today—including you, Mr Hollobone, with Kettering Hospital—are all too familiar with the challenges for our ambulance services. Ten years ago, in 2013—I am sorry to say that I remember this too well—the East of England Ambulance Service was in crisis. There was a lack of investment in ambulances and paramedics, devastating concerns over patient care and appalling mismanagement of the board.
I pay tribute to colleagues across the east of England back then, because we came together, spoke with one voice and campaigned, to the extent that we forced the board of directors to resign and brought in new management—such was the scale of what was going on; it was appalling. The trust was turned around and I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Earl Howe, who was a Health Minister at the time. Not only was he supportive, but he would sit in on meetings, come to the constituencies and sit with the ambulance trust. I also pay tribute to the successive chief executives at the trust who have improved plans and increased investment in ambulances and paramedics. It has been a slog, but we cannot overlook the hard work that has taken place over the past decade. I pay tribute to all those, in public service in particular, who gave up time with the trust to turn things around.
In January, I met the current chief executive of the trust, Tom Abell, and visited the call-handling centre in Broomfield, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will know. They are changing things. The call handlers are first class and I pay tribute to them; they are dynamic and so engaged. They are also smart, agile and triaging calls, which makes a tremendous difference. We want to support that and the right kind of patient outcomes, and they really care about patient outcomes.
We have to recognise that our paramedics and ambulances continue to face delays. That is preventing them from being out in the communities and reaching medical emergencies and injuries, so we still have complaints. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts and insights on the east of England, and where further actions can be undertaken to improve services. I mentioned Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford and Colchester Hospital for emergency care treatments. Importantly, those hospitals are part of the infrastructure and need to be reassured that the golden thread of integration reaches them, so that we do not see the appalling days of stacking that we saw many years ago and patients facing unnecessary delays.
Alongside that, we need reassurance and commitment from the Government to invest in and support hospitals, particularly in acute care settings in Essex and the east of England. I know that other colleagues will want to touch on that. An ageing population has more complex needs and our hospitals must be equipped to support that. Just as our ambulance service has been on a journey of improvement, the two hospitals have been on quite a journey of improvement. Broomfield was burdened with the most ridiculous private finance initiative costs when I became the Member of Parliament for Witham. I am afraid that those PFI costs—it was subjected to them by the previous Labour Government—were eye-watering, and the most horrendous debt had been put on the hospital at the time.
Colchester General Hospital has had one of the most interesting journeys. It spent long periods in special measures and required improvements, and it has now become integrated into the East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust. Many of the old issues have been resolved and there has been tremendous leadership there as well, notwithstanding the pressures faced during the covid pandemic. I pay tribute to everyone working at the hospitals who were involved in the turnaround plans. We have had periods pre and post pandemic with long waiting times.
Before the pandemic, Colchester hospital had a £44 million plan, which included the rebuilding of the day surgery unit and investment in a new orthopaedic centre. Those are important developments that we want to see come together. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who is welcome to come to the constituency—or the region, I should say—at any time to see the panoply of issues that we have. Services need investment. There are improvements, but at the same time we need to get that golden thread, the integrated care, totally integrated.
As well as speaking about GP surgeries and hospitals, I will also mention our pharmacies, which play a vital role in providing health services to our residents. Pharmacies are located in the heart of communities. I have many brilliant pharmacies, and there are fantastic pharmacists around the country. They are the unsung heroes in our communities. We should recognise that they are desperate to play a stronger role in primary care. They want to help people to get treatments and help with prescriptions. I urge the Minister to speak to community pharmacists. I was concerned when I recently met a community pharmacist in the wonderful village of Tollesbury, where I was informed that the funding that they had received over the past seven years has been squeezed by 30%. I have been in touch with the Department about that.
Community pharmacists say that without urgent intervention, pharmacies will close, because of pressures on funding associated with prescription drugs and the NHS tariff. Pharmacies are to a certain extent subsidising the prescriptions that they issue in the community. The concerns are such that we are now moving towards a large number of permanent pharmacy closures, putting the safe supply of prescription medicines at risk. I have also heard that there are opportunities for the Government to empower pharmacies to do more by providing a blueprint for the future of community pharmacy, but that has to be backed by investment, which we are not yet seeing—we are seeing a continuing squeeze.
This issue is a no-brainer. In any village, constituency or community that has a community pharmacy, people can go there to be reassured if they feel unwell and want advice, rather than putting pressure on local GPs or, worse still, hospitals. With the son of a pharmacist now our Prime Minister, there is a great opportunity for the pharmacy agenda to take greater precedence and priority across the NHS and in our communities, so I want to press the Minister on that.
As my Essex colleagues are still here, it would be remiss of me not to raise one of the most contentious subjects that we face in Essex: the pressures of mental health services in our county, which has been raised in this Chamber before. I am sorry to say this, but we have seen families left devastated when loved ones in the care of mental health services have lost their lives, and families are now frustrated when they seek answers from the bureaucratic side because of the lack of accountability and transparency in the NHS trust.
On 31 January, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford held a debate on the Essex mental health independent inquiry, and our concerns are not being allayed at all. The inquiry’s chair, Dr Geraldine Strathdee, has raised many concerns. I pay tribute to her for her diligent work and boldness in speaking out and raising concerns about the lack of transparency and people not providing evidence to the inquiry. Both she and the current chief exec of the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust are encouraging and supporting staff to come forward to participate in this inquiry.
The Secretary of State, to his credit, has shown strong interest. He is trying to give us assurances that the inquiry may be put on a statutory footing, and we welcome that. However—I say this as a former Home Secretary who has been involved in setting up public inquiries into some of the most devastating issues—we would prefer evidence and information for the inquiry to come forward as soon as possible. I am conscious that—and I have said this to many of the families and victims—when inquiries are put on a statutory footing, it sometimes becomes harder for people to feel that they can come forward. The disclosure of names and personal details can become subject to some contention.
The point is that, for too long, families have been fobbed off with excuses and have had a lack of support. They have not been treated with respect and seriousness when they have raised concerns about their loved ones. Many are victims that have experienced the most horrific abuse at the hands of the trust. We now need the inquiry to deliver the answers that everyone is seeking. I would like the Minister to give an update on where we are on that.
Let me turn to another important point that is linked to the inquiry. We are experiencing too many mental health issues across society, and that is devastating. There is much more that we can do now with a focus on mental health and wellbeing in our schools, colleges and universities. We must put a particular focus on our young people. I am deeply concerned to hear of young people self-harming. That is not the subject of this debate, but it has been a subject in the House around online safety, the forthcoming Online Safety Bill and the roles and responsibilities relating to the type of information that is put out on social media networks and things of that nature. This comes back to prevention, but there is more that we can do on education and awareness. However, we must have specialist practitioners locally and in the community to provide the essential support. I would welcome some insights from the Minister on what education providers are doing in this area.
As a former Home Secretary, I will take the liberty of raising the issue of policing and mental health. In the police and crime plan, the Government that I was involved in made it abundantly clear that the police should not be the automatic backstop and default in dealing with mental health cases and patients. That therefore uses valuable police resources and means hours spent sitting in hospitals and A&E because mental health facilities were just not accessible. That is changing thanks to the Government and the initiative that I and the former Policing Ministers put in place, but it speaks to the mental health ecosystem and the numerous pressures on it.
On education providers and schools, constituents have raised concerns with me about how the health services are supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Minister will be aware that health partners have a role to play in education, health and care plans for young students. However, the delays are not just cumbersome, but deeply stressful for pupils, families, parents and households. I am sure that all Members present can wax lyrical about the challenges in securing services, including speech and language therapy, to help young people and support them with their needs.
I go on about this a lot, but I believe that the money must follow the student. I still think we do not see enough of that. I have a terrible case of a youngster with very specific needs—high needs—as part of his education, health and care plan. However, the money that has gone to the school is just not following him in the way that it should for outcomes. We all know about delays in securing autism assessments. That is simply not good enough. We know it has been exacerbated by the pandemic, but we must do more to address the issue.
I will come to a near-conclusion by touching on a few other areas. I have already mentioned Essex County Council, which—all credit to it—has a strong record on investing in health, social care and wellbeing. I know that it would welcome details of its public health grant; it is that time of the calendar year when funding allocations come up. The council is also involved in piloting Active Essex, exploring what more can be done through prevention and enablement in health and social care systems to improve independence and health through increased physical activity.
On health and social care, I pay tribute to Essex County Council and Councillor John Spence. He is a remarkable individual who is really championing this area. If I may say so, central Government should spend some time with us in Essex to look at the innovative ways in which we are driving outcomes. The council has also transformed day services. It has established the “Meaningful Lives Matter” programme, and it is working with local employers to support adults with learning disabilities and autism. As a former employment Minister, I believe the more we can do to support people to get them into meaningful work, the better. It has great outcomes for health and wellbeing. We want more of that.
The council has a care technology service, which was launched in 2021 and is supporting 5,200 people. Of course, we all believe in making use of technology, and technology to improve health outcomes and independence is crucial. People do not want to be centralised or institutionalised; they want to be able to access services and live their lives. We are seeing good outcomes for people experiencing memory loss.
The council is working with the three integrated care systems that cover the county and supporting hospitals with discharges, which is obviously important from the social care perspective. The Essex Wellbeing Service has evolved. I emphasise that it is using both statutory and community service resources to support health and wellbeing outcomes. I invite the Minister to come to Essex to meet our colleagues—not just John Spence but the leader of the county council, Councillor Kevin Bentley. We are on the cusp of a good degree of innovation.
I am also keen to support new schemes that can help physical and mental health and wellbeing. I have touched on social prescribing, but I am also about to launch a new initiative with schools called “Get Witham Growing”. Among other things, I will involve schools in growing cosmos seeds from the national plant collection, as well as food seeds. We can get much more holistic outcomes, as well as the education, health and wellbeing benefits. Frankly, we can plant them now for future generations. I encourage other hon. Members to pick that up as well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned IVF support. Hormone replacement therapy treatments are also in the news. It is important to raise that point, because constituents have expressed concerns; people across the country would like reassurance from the Minister on that issue. I have already spoken about the health hub in Witham town, but phlebotomy services are something that we have raised consistently for over a decade. Access to blood tests is crucial; we want to see much more support in that area, both locally and across the region.
My final point is quite topical. I raise it because my constituency is growing. In fact, Essex is growing—not just from planting seeds; our population continues to grow. We have a lot of house building, with developments across Chelmsford, Clacton and Witham. They are not small. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has Beaulieu Park, which is a massive development in various phases. I have Tollgate, which consists of thousands and thousands of new homes. In Witham town we have phased development, which used to be the old Witham Lodge development. However, something is missing when it comes to planning.
That is the whole issue when we speak about pressures on local health services. We are not seeing developer contributions stack up to meet the needs of the growing local population when it comes to the moneys going to local councils, whether through the community infrastructure levy or section 106, to get long-term, sustainable investments. Currently, we see developers offer cash amounts based on a formula relating to the number of new dwellings being constructed. It is impossible to refuse applications on these grounds—that is a planning point. However, we need to ensure that the cash amounts made available to councils and the NHS for new facilities actually materialise, because the money is currently not following people and outcomes.
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the money for infrastructure that comes from developments needs to go to every sort of infrastructure that our households need. I was deeply shocked to learn that over the past four years, Chelmsford City Council, under Lib Dem leadership, has not allocated a single penny to the NHS. Indeed, neither of the two projects approved by the previous Conservative leadership—the Beaulieu Park and Sutherland Lodge medical centres—has moved forward under Lib Dem leadership. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is shocking, and yet another reason why we need to take back Conservative control of Chelmsford City Council this May?
Priti Patel
I absolutely agree. If I remember rightly, both my right hon. Friend and I have been involved in meetings with one particular health provider, which I will not name but which was totally inadequate, about Sutherland Lodge and another practice in my constituency.
The situation is untenable and totally unsustainable. I have pressed this point many times, but I would really welcome the Minister’s working with Ministers in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to secure those health contributions. It is a bone of contention—one that our constituents and their Members of Parliament are angry about. That Department used to be called the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. My constituency has been subject to proposals for a garden community on which millions of pounds were wasted, when money from central Government—from the old MHCLG—could have gone, via new homes, into our community to give us a health hub in Witham, which would have bolstered health services across the constituency and across Essex, because we are growing.
I have deliberately referenced many parts of the NHS and the challenges around health and wellbeing in the region. I hope that I have shown how interconnected many of these issues are; none of them sits in isolation. That speaks to a wider point raised in a previous debate. While the size of the state grows and grows, the lack of integration in our communities and at the grassroots is a sticking point. It is very challenging.
I thank colleagues for their contributions. Importantly, this is a real moment for the Government to start to integrate our statutory service delivery, not just through the integrated care boards, but across local councils, and hopefully drive better outcomes in health and wellbeing across Witham, Essex and the east of England.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate the APPG for the east of England on shining a light on how the east of England is getting a raw deal in Government funding for public services.
Nowhere is that raw deal more acutely felt that in health and wellbeing services. In the east of England, per capita spend on health is the lowest of any UK region or nation, at £2,889 compared with £3,236 nationally. Combine that with the fact that the east of England has the highest population growth of any region, at 8.3%, and it is not difficult to see why, after 13 years of Conservative mismanagement, people are waiting far too long for GP, hospital and dental appointments, and even for an ambulance to turn up to a category 1 call, where there is a threat to life.
Figures released yesterday by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine show that the east of England has been the worst performing NHS region for the last four months, when measured against the four-hour standard. One in 11 patients who were admitted to hospital in the east of England waited 12 hours or more in an emergency department after the decision to admit them was made. That means that the sickest and most vulnerable patients disproportionately experience delays to care, which is why the excess morality rate is going through the roof. Many of them are preventable deaths.
For years we simply have not had the investment in the workforce to provide enough medical staff, including doctors, nurses and midwives, to look after a growing ageing population with increasingly complex needs. Staff are burned out covering gaps in care, and exhausted after covid. The problems are so extensive that the Government do not seem to know where to start to fix the broken system. The urgent and emergency care recovery plan, announced just over a month ago, does nothing to get patients a GP appointment sooner, or to restore district nursing so that patients can be cared for in the community.
The Chancellor recognised the importance of investing in the NHS workforce while he was Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. It is a shame that he does not put his money where his mouth is now, and broker a deal with nurses, ambulance drivers, paramedics and junior doctors to end the strikes that are causing so much disruption and stress to staff and patients alike. East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust employees will strike next week for the first time.
Many public service workers cannot afford the cost of living. Why will this Government not listen to them and consider offering them a fair wage for a day’s work? This is not just any work; it is critical, life-saving and highly stressful work. My constituents in Bedford and Kempston want to see the end of these industrial disputes. They are sick and tired of the fact that nothing works any more in this country. They are tired of the Government blaming anyone but themselves for the state we are in. It is the Government’s job to sort the disputes out, so they should get on and do it.
Giles Watling
Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that it would be far better to have a 5% wage rise when inflation is down at 2%, which would make the rise much more effective? One of the most effective things that we can do right now is bring inflation down and make wages actually mean something.
Mohammad Yasin
The hon. Member must know that these people have faced real-terms pay cuts for years. They are critical workers in our NHS; they deserve better. After many years, for the Government to offer them 5% during this cost of living crisis is not good enough. They should be concentrating on work, but they cannot pay their bills, they have to choose between heating and eating, and they are worried about their families. That is the problem. These people deserve better working conditions and pay than they are getting from this Government.
I put on the record how pleased I was to see the East London NHS Foundation Trust people and culture team named team of the year at the Healthcare People Management Association annual awards. It is time that the Government got their act together to release the capital funding to give the trust the go-ahead to build the much-needed mental health village in Bedford. The number of mentally unwell patients, including young people, who are forced out of the area to access treatment is alarming, and it is growing. How much longer do they have to wait for the promised in-patient facility in their area? My constituents deserve better community care and hospitals need relief, so I urge the Government to finally release the funding to build the facilities desperately needed in my constituency.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I start by thanking and paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for securing this important debate and her continued pursuit of the issue, but also for painting a comprehensive picture of the health and wellbeing disparities in her constituency and across the east of England. I welcome her comments about and the enthusiasm she showed for further including pharmacies in the way we deliver health. I support that wholeheartedly.
May I praise the important contributions made by all Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin)? It is clear that patients are being failed in all aspects of health and wellbeing services in the east of England. We have heard about many aspects of those services, but let me start by talking about the front door of the NHS, the GPs. Primary care and GP services are struggling, and patients are struggling to gain access to primary care. The latest patient survey tells us that those who are able to get an appointment are less and less likely to see a GP because of staff shortages.
The right hon. Member for Witham mentioned that patient numbers and needs are growing in the area, but we know that the number of fully qualified GPs in the east of England fell from 3,263 full-time equivalents to 3,020 in December 2022. Across NHS England, there is a shortage of 4,200 GPs, so I welcome the call from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for the number of medical school places at Anglia Ruskin to be doubled, although I would go further and say that we should do that across the country, maybe every year.
There is also a quality issue. Essex has five inadequate GP services, according to the Care Quality Commission, which is second only to London. Maternity services are also failing communities in the east of England day in, day out. At Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, such services have been found by the CQC not to have staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep women safe from avoidable harm. Since last year, the use of gas and air pain relief at a hospital’s maternity suite has been suspended on and off following a botched repair, which exposed some staff to high levels of nitrous oxide, and routine testing of the maternity suite revealed that midwives had been exposed to excess nitrous oxide levels during their shifts.
It is heartbreaking that services for mothers are so poor, and maternity services are unable even to provide the basics. Access to gas and air pain relief should be a basic when someone goes into maternity, and it is really disappointing that it is not available to mothers in the area.
Giles Watling
A moment back, the hon. Lady mentioned inadequate GP services and how some GP services fail, but is it not the job of us MPs to get involved? There were failing GP services in poor practices in Clacton. I got personally involved, we got new management in, and we turned things around. We, the MPs, can get involved. We got involved with what was then the local health authority, and we changed things. We can do that by getting together and being united with our health leaders.
Feryal Clark
I welcome those points, and I absolutely agree.
On mental health, the stories that the right hon. Member for Witham set out are devastating. I offer my sincere condolences to all those affected by the loss of loved ones between 2000 and 2020 at Essex mental health services. I also pay tribute to the families and the local MPs—especially the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, who is no longer in her place—for fighting for justice for the loved ones. A mental health unit should be a place of safety for patients, and it is heartbreaking that that was clearly not the case in Essex. It is imperative that the truth of what occurred in Essex is finally heard. As the right hon. Member for Witham said, it is vital that the families and loved ones get answers about what happened, and above all lessons must be learned. That is why the work of the Essex mental health independent inquiry is so important.
Concerns were raised in January, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), said that he expected changes to be made. I will be grateful if the Minister can set out the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the inquiry can effectively investigate what went wrong and can make recommendations so that it never happens again. The inquiry is currently non-statutory. The Government said in January that they would not hesitate to change their approach if we do not see the change we need rapidly. Will the Minister tell us whether there have been any changes? Is there an update on that?
Although there are tragic extremes to health and wellbeing services in the east of England, they reflect issues that we see across the country, including patients not being seen on time and not receiving the care they need and deserve. That ultimately leaves them at risk at of adverse harm. Patients in the east of England—indeed, patients across the country—deserve more.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out the actions the Government are taking to improve care in the east of England and ensure access to primary care, safe maternity care and dentistry. Will she also give us a further update on the mental health inquiry?
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing it. She brought her legendary laser-like scrutiny to healthcare in her constituency and the wider east of England region. As we would expect, she covered a huge amount of ground with passion and insight. She forensically dug into the detail and asked many challenging questions of me and the Government more broadly.
Several other hon. Members from the east of England made contributions, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton (Giles Watling) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). From a little further afield, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is no longer in his place, but it always a pleasure to hear his frequent and well-informed contributions to healthcare debates.
I welcome the work that hon. Members are doing in their constituencies to support their constituents’ health and wellbeing. They are showing an interest in the activities of health and social care services in their areas, and are asking very pertinent questions. That is a very important way of driving improvement and holding the people closer to the frontline to account. I also thank them for the work they are doing, including in this debate and behind the scenes by lobbying Ministers such as me and others in the Department of Health and Social Care, to get the things that they rightly want for their constituents.
It was good to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham pay tribute to Essex County Council; her comments chime with my experience of working with it. I had a call with the council on Monday to talk about the work we are doing together to reduce the number of patients in hospital waiting for discharge. I know it is working extremely hard. Its data is better than the average data across England. I heard some really good things about what the local authority is doing, working with the NHS to help patients get out of hospital more quickly, and to avoid going into hospital in the first place, which we know is better in general, particularly for older people who can lose condition if they have a long stay in hospital. I, too, have been very impressed by Essex County Council and the innovative, proactive approach that it is taking in these areas.
My right hon. Friend covered a huge amount of ground. I will respond to several of her points, but if I do not manage to cover every single one—not all of her points address areas within my brief; it might also take a huge amount of time—I am happy to ask my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to follow up on those topics beyond my social care and community health brief.
I turn first to primary care, which is clearly a significant part of the points that my right hon. Friend and others have raised. She talked about the GP numbers in her area, in the context of a fast-growing population in the east of England. Nationally, we have an ageing population living with more health conditions, which is putting greater demand on our health services and, crucially, on GPs, who are not just the gatekeepers but also, in knowing the individual, have real expertise in understanding the complexity of people’s health conditions. Those relationships are really important.
The GP-patient ratio is a particular concern for my right hon. Friend and other east of England colleagues. We have been boosting the primary care workforce, as she will know. The Government are on track to deliver our manifesto commitment of 26,000 more people working in primary care by 2024. We have already recruited more than 25,000 of those 26,000. On GPs specifically, there are more than 2,000 full-time equivalent doctors in general practice as of December last year compared with a year before. We are increasing the numbers of people working in general practice.
I realise that the pressures still remain and it takes time to make these changes; I also realise that there are disparities in the numbers of GPs in different parts of the country. Within a particular area, from one town to the next, there can be very different levels of GP coverage. This is very much a work in progress, and of course it takes time to train doctors, as we all know.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford speak about the Anglia Ruskin medical school, one of five new medical schools that we have opened. It is playing its part in delivering a 25% uplift—a record uplift—in the number of medical students training in England. I know that my hon. and right hon. Friends supported the opening of this medical school, which is really important.
The school is not only important for its contribution to increasing the number of future doctors across the country, but also because it is located in the east of England. That is no coincidence. This and the other medical schools—there is one close to my constituency in Kent—are particularly located in areas where there is a relative shortage of doctors, because medical school graduates are more likely to work when they qualify in the area in which they have trained. We would expect to see graduates from Anglia Ruskin medical school sticking around in that area, to help to address some of the shortages of doctors locally.
Another point about the new medical schools is that they are looking at how they train the doctors that we need for the future NHS, where more care needs will be out of hospitals. We know that people will be living longer with multiple health conditions. Medicine is shifting, and therefore students in the new medical schools are particularly likely to spend time as part of their placements in primary care and community care settings, and so will be ready and trained to work in those settings and to address some of the gaps in primary care, for instance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham called for a new health centre; my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton also talked about a primary care hub. I have been in contact with the Minister for Primary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), during the debate. I assure my right hon. Friend that he stands ready to meet her to discuss the proposal for a new health centre in Witham. I am sure he will also be delighted to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton about his campaign. We know these facilities are really important. We clearly need to make sure that we have the workforce to meet the demand, but having the right facilities can make a real difference to what services can be provided closer to people’s homes as part of primary care and community care, rather than people having to go into hospital.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham and my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton and for South Norfolk spoke about access to dentists, which we know has been a huge challenge. Clearly, the pandemic has made a difficult situation harder, with a lot of appointments not happening during the pandemic because of the covid risks, so there is a backlog to make up. The Government recognised the challenge back in 2022 and made an additional £15 million of funding available for dentistry, of which £2 million was provided specifically to the east of England region. There has since been an increase in the number of dentists in the region. However, we recognise that there are ongoing challenges. Back in July last year, the Government announced a package of improvements to the NHS dental system as part of the plan for patients. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, has oversight of dentistry and continues to work on improving the dental contract in order to improve access to dentists, and I am sure that he will make further announcements in due course.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham talked about the Essex mental health independent inquiry. I know how important it is that the inquiry makes progress, because all patients deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and my thoughts are with those affected and their families. Following concerns from the chair, a discussion took place in January with the chief executive of the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which has been taking action to encourage more staff participation in the inquiry. The Government continue to believe that a non-statutory inquiry remains the most effective way to get to the truth of what has happened, but we must ensure that this approach works and exhausts all possible solutions. There is an ongoing problem with staff engagement, and if the inquiry finds that it is unable to access relevant records, the position will be reviewed. I can assure my right hon. Friend that Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the inquiry and with NHS England colleagues, who are working closely with the trust to review progress.
Giles Watling
This morning I met Paul Scott, the CEO of EPUT. He assured me that, even though it is has been cumbersome and there have been problems with staff reporting back and so forth, the trust is reaching out and wrapping its arms around them. Although I feel that sometimes EPUT is a large and cumbersome body, he feels confident. Is the Minister equally confident?
Helen Whately
It is very good to hear that update. I refer my hon. Friend to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who has oversight of mental health in the ministerial team and who can go further into the progress of the inquiry. It is good to hear that he is taking such an active interest in the work of the inquiry, because it is clearly important, and I thank him for that.
Hon. Members have touched on community diagnostic centres. We in Government see them as incredibly important, because we know that many patients across the east of England, and more widely across England, are waiting for a diagnosis for their condition. Waiting for a diagnosis can be one of the most worrying times, particularly if someone is concerned that they may have cancer, which is why the Government have been opening more community diagnostic centres across the country—an innovation to provide easier access to vital community diagnostic services and to speed up diagnosis. By separating some of these services from acute hospitals—the hot site, I suppose—we can ensure efficient processes to diagnose as many people as possible at pace. The good news is that we have recently announced the approval of two new community diagnostic centres via the mid and south Essex integrated care board, and there are more in the pipeline with other Essex integrated care boards. I encourage my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham and others to keep an eye on our progress with community diagnostic centres, as I am sure she is doing.
Finally, I want to talk about integration and the broader question of health and wellbeing in our communities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham spoke about the health challenges and disparities in her constituency and across the east of England. We see real differences and inequalities, not only in life expectancy but, crucially, in healthy life expectancy. That means people’s ability to work and have fulfilling, independent lives, to have relationships and the quality of life we would like for everybody.
The Government are determined to improve that—for instance, under the auspices of levelling up in healthcare. Crucial to achieving that is the work of our integrated care system, the integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships. They bring together all the organisations across the national health service, local authorities, social care and third sector organisations, which play an important part in our health and social care systems. Indeed, joining up NHS organisations is an important part of that in its own right. All of us who spend time with the NHS in our constituencies know that it is not one thing; it is multiple organisations. Bringing them together, along with the wider health and social care system, is important.
It is crucial for our integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships to look at the needs of populations, looking at the population as a whole, and to set out strategies for reducing health disparities and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham talked about, for closing the gap—levelling up for those with a lower healthy life expectancy. That is absolutely crucial to the work of integrated care systems. It is relatively early days for these entities. The extent to which they are established varies around the country, but we are seeing an excitement and a willingness in those organisations to come together.
I have spoken to many chief executives and chairs of integrated care boards, as well as local authorities around the country. We have talked about integration many times before; it has been a buzzword for decades in health and social care. What I am hearing from the frontline is that this time it really feels like it is working and making a difference. As part of those conversations, I have spoken to many about the work they are doing on looking upstream at prevention, crucially, and the steps we can take jointly between the health system and local authorities to prevent ill health.
Feryal Clark
The Minister mentioned prevention and the role of local authorities. She will know that the public health funding formula for local authorities was set in 2013 and has not been reviewed. There are real disparities across the country in how they are funded. Do the Government have a plan to review that, to ensure that areas such as the east of England get the fair funding they deserve?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady will know very well that we are under substantial fiscal constraints as a Government, recognising the extra spending we put in through the pandemic to keep our economy going and come out as strongly as we have. We also face challenges with inflation and the cost of energy. She will also know that in the autumn, against those constraints, the Chancellor showed the Government’s commitment to health and social care by putting an extra £14.1 billion into health and social care, including a record funding increase for social care of £7.5 billion over the next two years.
The Government’s commitment to health and social care should be clear to the h L. We are driving efforts behind the establishment of the effective working of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships, because of the importance of joining up the system. It is not just about the public health budget; what we need to do to prevent future ill health and reduce disparities is much broader than that.
In conclusion, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham and other hon. Members for this important conversation, which has shown the complexity and the interconnections in our health and social care system. It is important to have joined-up systems, not only to treat people in the here and now, but crucially to intervene earlier and prevent ill health. We want to achieve not only longer lives for our constituents, but healthier and happier lives.
Priti Patel
I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for chairing the debate, and all colleagues who have contributed today: my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and for Clacton (Giles Watling), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I want to reflect on the wide-ranging nature of the debate, including in my remarks. The NHS is enormous and covers a range of matters and the east of England is a very large part of the country. I thank the Minister for her comments, support and encouragement. The debate was very much premised on the “Levelling Up the East of England” report and the Government have to start addressing the fundamental disparities and issues.
I want to touch on a few points made by the Minister and a couple of other colleagues. It would be helpful to have some follow-up from other Ministers with direct responsibility. I mentioned the report on levelling up and there is more for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to do in this space. Producing reports is one thing, but we have to drive outcomes. We want less centralisation and more integration. We have the ICBs, but a role for local government and specialist health providers is essential. The state cannot do everything. No disrespect to Labour colleagues, but if money were the answer, we would have all the best outcomes right now. There is no doubt about that. We have to have integration.
The hon. Member for Enfield North mentioned the fair funding formula. In the east of England, devolution is taking place in Norfolk and Suffolk. Cambridge has already gone through it. That could change outcomes tremendously through NHS integration and addressing the disparities that the report mentions. I want to emphasise the need for the Minister to go back to DLUHC and challenge it, because it needs to be on the hook for a lot of this. All colleagues in her Department have been helpful. I pay tribute to everyone in the NHS as well.
The hon. Member for Bedford touched on something very particular to me: the number of practitioners in the NHS, which we have raised in this Chamber before. Broomfield Hospital has told me that it is going overseas to recruit doctors and nurses. As a former Home Secretary who bolstered the NHS health and care visa, I think that we have to stand firm and stand by that as well as growing our own talent. We definitely need that in our medical hospitals as well. The NHS is becoming more and more blended, but we have to ensure that the skills are fit for purpose and meet the demographics of our local communities and our region, as well as the challenges of the report on levelling up health.
Every Member who has contributed to the debate, including the shadow Front-Bench spokesperson and the Minister, recognise the interconnectedness of driving outcomes, but there is a greater role to play at a local level. As a participant and an observer for 12 years as the Member of Parliament for Witham, I genuinely believe now that although the funding comes from the centre, the centre has to do much more to follow the money, people and outcomes. It is driving the outcomes that Ministers, the Department and central Government must be obsessed with, because there is too much of a lack of transparency and accountability. Given the billions of pounds that goes into the NHS, we in the Witham constituency in Essex and across the east of England are simply not seeing the outcomes that match the large sums of funding, so I hope that will change, and I hope we will be back in this Chamber—and the main Chamber —to keep pursuing this agenda across Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered health and wellbeing services in the East of England.
Charity Sector Funding: Transparency
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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to an important debate on charity sector funding, and I call Craig Mackinlay to move the motion.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the transparency of charity sector funding.
It is always an enormous pleasure to have you chair a debate, Mr Hollobone.
The charitable sector has a long and proud history, with truly ancient charities still very much in existence, in particular in education and the almshouse sectors. There was a huge blossoming of philanthropy in the first Elizabethan period, and much of that tradition continues today, with service clubs, the Round Table, Lions Clubs, the masons, the Rotary and many thousands of other organisations, working daily through charity shops and a host of other activities to raise funds to assist in domestic and international projects, in particular at times of emergency, which we have seen in the situation in Syria and Turkey at the moment.
Domestically, charities have often filled gaps in society that Government could not, or perhaps should not even attempt to. We can safely say, however, that that has blurred over time, as we have moved to a situation where the demands and expectations of modern society are for the Government to meet and they are expected to solve, frankly, everything.
One of the oldest educational charities, the King’s School in Canterbury, which is just a few miles over the border from my constituency, dates back to AD 597, now faces threat after nearly 15 centuries because of Labour’s ambitions to tax such providers and users of education. I have numerous independent schools in South Thanet, the largest possibly being St Lawrence College, which is similarly under threat because of political game-playing and the usual politics of envy. I have called the debate not for that reason, but to question whether in some cases the “charitable” tag, with its incumbent benefits, is being stretched beyond credibility.
I have a number of strands for the Minister to consider. First, my fear is that too many charities, often financed by vast Government—that is, taxpayer-supported—grants that run into multiple billions annually are straying into the political arena. That is particularly true of many charities in the refugee and immigration sphere. I note one, Care4Calais, which receives no direct Government funding that I can see. However, there is complete opacity that I could not penetrate as to where its £1.6 million of funding—according to its most recent accounts—comes from.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. We all want to ensure that our charity giving goes where we expect it to go. As he may be aware—this is factual, not me saying it for the occasion—Northern Ireland is the most generous nation per capita in the world. This matter is therefore incredibly relevant in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that when people donate money after they see a registered charity number, there is a belief that the charity is accountable and that accountability means transparency and simple access to the accounts and spendings of any charity?
Craig Mackinlay
The hon. Member is quite right. That imprimatur of a charity registration number has always given people confidence that the charity has charitable aims and is being looked at properly by the Charity Commission and others, and it is often the reason that people are willing to give to such charities. I also note the extensive charitable sector in Northern Ireland.
Where does the income of many charities come from? It might often be from another charity, higher up the chain, which is a key thread in what I want to discuss. I note, too, that that Care4Calais charity has been under investigation by the Charity Commission since August 2020, but with no outcome as yet. We are getting towards the three-year anniversary, which in itself I find quite remarkable—the case of a £1.6 million institution is patently uncomplicated, and that leads to questions about the Charity Commission’s competence and ability to investigate properly.
Refugee Action received £2.2 million in Government grants and contracts in its accounts to March ’22. The British Refugee Council received £7.5 million in Government grants and contracts. That is close to half its revenue, yet I find that those selfsame charities, and many more, put up commentators to attack the Government—I have faced them regularly on the media—and in some cases take the Government to court on various migration issues, particularly the Rwanda situation. Care4Calais and Detention Action have got themselves involved in those activities.
I have no issue at all with whichever person, company or entity wishes to take the Government to court—that is a strength of our system that we do not see everywhere in the world—but the question for the taxpayer is, should such action be taken under the auspices of a charitable organisation whereby the donors receive tax relief, or indeed taxpayers themselves are in the funding chain?
Let me analyse what happened during the covid support period. There was £1,570 million—a truly exceptional sum—of Government funding under the culture recovery fund. That was distributed by the Arts Council. I found it bizarre at the time, although I do not know what other Members thought, that we were all provided with embargoed lists, which were provided at the same time to local media, yet we had had no input whatever to the grant allocation or the consideration of the suitability of the recipients, although we MPs have unique local knowledge of our patch.
I saw on those lists various institutions, charitable and commercial, in South Thanet that are often in receipt of five-figure grants. Looking through the list, I saw that they were often the same institutions that had been driving very unpleasant social media against me over long periods, some of it quite vile. This was overly political, and, bizarrely, these institutions are willing to bite the hand of the Government who are feeding and supporting them.
There is one local institution I would like to note, which is Faith In Strangers, in Cliftonville in my constituency. It achieved a planning consent for a venue based on a community workspace with incidental community music opportunities. Since then, that has shown itself to be nothing but a sham, and it has morphed into a full-on, late-night drinking and music venue. It causes so much noise and interference with long-term residents who live above that many have had to move out. One has taken to living in a camper van. This has rendered their life investment worthless.
To its credit, Thanet District Council initiated a licensing hearing on the venue. I invested four hours in assisting residents and making representations myself at the hearing, but this institution, Faith In Strangers, employed one of the most expensive, hugely skilled and, I have to say, very impressive licensing barristers in the country, and was supported by a local Labour councillor, who sided with a corporate nightclub over local residents. It was truly shocking. That private company received £160,000 across the two tranches of the culture recovery fund, and a further £5,000 from the Music Venue Trust—another charity in receipt of direct Government grant funding.
Let me summarise what we saw during that period. This was just in my constituency; there must be similar stories across the country. Taxpayers money, via Government grants, financed institutions with an overly anti-Government leaning, which loudly expressed their views, and funded institutions that had been making the lives of local people a misery. Those institutions then employed top notch legal support to quash residents’ objections, which left me, the local MP, to try to pick up the pieces.
While many charities take care not to suggest who people should vote for, and hence have not come to the notice of the Electoral Commission—I must declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission—the activities of many of these charities are, by negative inference, hinting that a vote should not be cast for the Government in power.
There is an increasing case for the Electoral Commission to look more closely at the activities and pronouncements of many of these charities—not just on the issue of asylum and immigration, but more widely—when there is an obvious straying into politics. I am sorry, but that would have to apply to those charities that many of us would deem very good. Let me mention the Trussell Trust, for instance.
I have collected with the Trussell Trust, particularly at Christmastime—I am sure most Members have, and are very supportive of its aims—but I am increasingly worried as to its true objectives. I met the then chief executive officer at a parliamentary reception for the Trussell Trust back in 2016; I was, indeed, younger and a little more naïve in those days. As a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, I proposed a scheme to the CEO that could be put to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to allow gift aiding of the food donations received under the gift aid small donations scheme. That could have triggered a 25% cash top up under the scheme. I followed the proposal up with the CEO, sending a detailed letter offering my services pro bono to promote a means by which such a scheme might be accepted by HMRC. I received no reply.
I am a big supporter of the founding ambitions of the Child Poverty Action Group, and I always buy its annual book, “The Welfare Benefits & Tax Credits Handbook”—it is an invaluable tool for my caseworkers. The group received close to £1 million in Government grants up to March 2022, and it is a very worthy organisation. However, I am afraid that the Government are often at the receiving end of very political campaigns. I do not know about the Minister, but I receive various campaign emails that the organisation promotes to its subscribers—standard form emails that we receive on a daily basis. That is purely political campaigning.
The Charity Commission does disclose Government grants received. There is a snapshot on the front page of the financial affairs of any charity one searches for, but it is rather opaque. As ever, I thank the House of Commons Library—it gathers a wealth of information for us, and as an institution it is unrivalled on the planet—which has tried to pull together various sources, public and other. It has become clear, however, that in the charitable sector, which now runs to many tens of billions of pounds a year, it is very difficult to find the true ambitions of many charities or their sources of funding.
The second strand of my debate is sub-funding by super-sized charities to non-charity organisations, or even to smaller charities down the chain. In those instances, the opacity becomes truly muddy, and I feel it is a means of directing overtly political funding. Stop Funding Hate led a campaign to put pressure on advertisers not to advertise on GB News when it started. Stop Funding Hate is not a charity, but a community interest company. It received a £50,000 donation from the huge Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Following the concerns that I raised with the Charity Commission, a review was undertaken, but it was decided that the aims of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation were within scope to allow such funding.
Let us stand back a bit, because I find that rather bizarre. A charitable institution advanced funding to a non-charity to put pressure on potential corporate advertisers not to spend money with a duly UK-licensed TV channel that it simply did not like. There is virtually no way of shining a light on the extent of this channelling of funds from charities to non-charities. For the first time in my experience, the House of Commons Library were similarly stumped by this inquiry.
My third strand is about the fact that, although Government grants are visible—albeit with some difficulty —local government gives huge amounts to the charitable sector. I have no particular issue with much of that; for instance, the bedrock of funding for Age UK is often via county and unitary authorities. But it is very difficult to find the amounts that are going through local government, unless one takes the trouble to trawl through the register that has to be published of spending over £500 within any council. My fear is that taxpayer funding is routinely channelled to chumocracy charities at the local level, virtually out of plain sight.
On this point, I will refer to Ramsgate Town Council. It has channelled taxpayer funds—small amounts here and there—to so-called charities and community interest companies, for which I can perceive no objectives for public good except that they are often chums of local Labour councillors. I raised that in relation to a project some weeks ago called the Ramsgate Arts Barge, which has received funding from Ramsgate Town Council. I am a local taxpayer, and some of the precept that I pay goes to Ramsgate Town Council. Its latest accounts for the Ramsgate Arts Barge show the balance sheet in deficit, but the mere airing of my concerns, as a local taxpayer, elicited an outraged call from one of its directors threatening me with legal action.
Let me summarise that point. Taxpayer funding through local councils supports various charities. A local MP and local ratepayer who pays for all of that gets threatened with legal action for even querying whether such taxpayer funding—my funding—represents value for their local taxpayer pound. Thank heavens that I have legal privilege here today.
The Commons passed the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill a few weeks ago to provide greater disclosure of the ownership of entities and sources of funding, and the Bill is now in the Lords. We have increased the reach and activities of the Electoral Commission to ensure that all political funding that is designed to influence voters positively or negatively is open, transparent, published and backed up by the rule of quite stiff law. Yet we allow the charitable sector—unaccountable and hidden, but very influential and in receipt of vast amounts of taxpayer funding—to continue pursuing, in many notable cases, anti-Government activity to overturn the will of Parliament and attack legitimate and registered businesses that it has decided that it does not like.
This is an area of grave concern. I have been thinking about it for some years, but a number of things have come together to cause me to want to air it in this Chamber. I ask the Minister for new transparency rules throughout national and local government; that we publish amounts granted to charities in a clear way; and for proper disclosure of amounts granted down the line from charities to other charities and non-charities. I ask for the Electoral Commission to look more closely at the whole field of political campaigning that is done under a charitable umbrella.
In my view, the charity commissioners need to take a firmer view of core charitable activities. On behalf of taxpayers, I ask whether it is wise, fair or value for money for Government to pass billions of taxpayer funding annually—outside of core contracts, which are a slightly different issue—to the web of charities that now constitute a £50 billion-a-year industry and have well-paid CEOs and boards.
I fear that the charitable sector is the new area of non-transparent activity and funding. I am in favour of transparency; transparency is good, and it shines a light on activities. As an accountant, I always say, “Follow the money.” I welcome anything the Minister might say on this, but I certainly hope that the Government will agree with my view and take action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for tabling this important debate on the transparency of charity sector funding.
The transparency of charity funding forms a central tenet in enhancing public trust in charities. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this important issue and to highlight the regulatory framework in which charities operate. It is this framework that provides transparency about where a charity’s funding comes from and how it is spent.
I acknowledge, as other hon. Members have, the huge contribution that charities make to the lives of individuals and communities up and down our country. There are over 169,000 charities on the Charity Commission register. Those organisations operate in areas as diverse as education, religion, sport, health, the environment, heritage, and arts and culture. My background in the charity sector makes me proud of its contribution to our society. The vast majority of charities are small in scale, operate on modest incomes and are run by passionate volunteers who are committed to helping others in their local communities, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned in relation to Northern Ireland.
The charity sector’s income comes from a wide range of sources, including public donations, trading activities and Government grants and contracts. Therefore, the scale of the sector’s finances necessitates strong, robust and independent regulation to ensure that funds are properly accounted for. In England and Wales, the role is carried out by the Charity Commission as the independent registrar and regulator. By ensuring that the sector is well regulated, the public can have trust and confidence that their generous donations are spent appropriately.
Members will know that the Charity Commission is an independent non-ministerial Government Department. It is answerable to the courts for its legal decisions and to Parliament for its work. The chair of the commission, Orlando Fraser, has spoken about his focus on charities’ legal compliance and their accountability to the public for the money that they receive.
The Charity Commission plays an important role in ensuring that charities act within charity law to further their charitable purposes. All registered charities with an income of more than £25,000 are required to submit annual returns and accounts, including a trustees annual report, containing information about finances and activities. That enables the public to understand where a charity’s income has come from and on which activities it has spent its funds. The register of charities gives assurance about and transparency over the more than £80 billion of annual income across those charities.
Public trust in charities remains higher than in most other parts of society, and that is a reflection of the value the public thinks that charities can bring. Charities are such an important part of society and I share the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet for them to be proactively transparent in how they use their money.
Unfortunately, there are a small number of cases of deliberate abuse of charity or serious mismanagement that puts charitable assets or beneficiaries at risk. In these cases, the commission has broad powers to intervene, investigate and take appropriate and proportionate regulatory action, ensuring charitable resources are used properly for the purpose for which they were provided.
However, I would point out that the Charity Commission is a small regulator with limited capacity and funding. It must therefore prioritise its resources where they will have the greatest impact. If hon. Members have any concerns that charities are acting outside of their charitable purpose, they should absolutely raise them, as my hon. Friend has done, with the Charity Commission. The size and scope is obviously something hon. Members may wish to consider.
Funding other charities and non-charitable organisations can be an effective way to further a charity’s purpose. However, charities must only fund activities that further their charitable purposes, and trustees must ensure they take steps to protect their charity’s assets and reputation.
I am aware that Members have expressed concerns about the campaigning activities of certain charities. It is important to stress that non-party political campaigning can be a legitimate way for charities to spend their resources, so long as they act within charity law. The law is clear: to be a charity, an organisation must exist only for charitable purposes. A political purpose is not a charitable purpose and therefore any organisation that has political purposes cannot by any degree be a charity.
However, charities can engage in political activity that is actively intended to change or influence decisions taken by the Government where it helps deliver the purpose of the charity—for example, a health charity could engage in political activity for a change in a policy on a particular health issue if doing so furthered their purposes—but charities are prohibited from supporting political parties or politicians, and where they engage with political parties, charities must take a balanced approach. If concerns are raised about a charity’s campaigning or political activity, it is of course right that the Charity Commission assesses those concerns and determines whether regulatory action is required. To help trustees understand the rules, the commission recently published an accessible five-minute guide. The guide supports its long-standing and longer-form guidance on this subject, and it is known as CC9.
Fundraising is a key source of income for charities. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet mentioned, the generosity of the public is evident in appeals such as the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Turkey-Syria earthquake appeal, which has already raised more than £100 million. Again, because of the scale of fundraising, a strong regulator is required to promote best practice and assess concerns. That is why, in 2016, following a cross-party fundraising review, the Fundraising Regulator was established as the independent regulator of charitable fundraising.
While a significant amount of the sector’s funding comes from donations, some charities receive Government grants and contracts to deliver important public services, such as healthcare and addiction services. However, it is important to note that nearly two thirds of charities do not receive any funding at all from the Government. To ensure that taxpayer money is well spent, Government grants must comply with the grants functional standard, which requires due diligence to be undertaken on all potential grant recipients before an award is made.
There are also strict rules preventing taxpayer money from being used on lobbying or political activity. Such funds must be used only for the purposes set out in the grant agreements. The Government are committed to their transparency agenda, and annual statistics for all grants distributed by the Government can be found on gov.uk. Members of the public can search for grants awarded to charities by downloading the latest grants tables and filtering by a charity’s registration number. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says about how easy or accessible that is, and I commit to looking at that to ensure we are getting it right.
I would also say that some campaigning done by charities has improved public policy—think of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, whose campaigning brought about legislation on the wearing of seatbelts—and no one would argue against that. What has changed in recent years is that debates have been polarised or divisive. My hon. Friend has raised a number of examples today, which I cannot comment on specifically right now, although I assure him I will look at them and write to him.
It is clear from today’s debate that we share the same ambition to ensure charities continue to be supported through effective regulation. As I have highlighted, there are a variety of ways in which charities can demonstrate transparency in their funding and compliance in their use of public funds. I have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns today, and I commit to raising them with the chair of the Charity Commission at our next meeting. In closing, let me once again thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and all in attendance for such a valuable discussion. I commit to coming back to him as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Homes for Ukraine Scheme Anniversary
(1 year, 9 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
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the anniversary of the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Dowd. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the excellent research support I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project and as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I want to make special mention of and thank the Sheffield branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, with which I have been working to highlight the challenges facing Ukrainian refugees as they come to this country. The contributions of such groups have been extremely helpful and have better equipped us to learn lessons from the past year.
Since the war started in February 2022, more than 8 million people have fled Ukraine and some 6 million have been displaced internally. According to the British Red Cross, more than 160,000 of those who have fled have come to the UK. I think I speak for all Members present when I extend my huge thanks to all those who have opened their homes to refugees. While the war has shown the very worst of humanity, the resilience of ordinary Ukrainians enduring extraordinary violence, alongside the response they have received from our communities, has shown the very best.
A year into the war, it is time to take stock of our own response and the support we have extended to those fleeing the conflict. Now is a timely moment to highlight two problems facing the refugees who have come here: the shameful prospect of homelessness for some Ukrainian families, and the restrictions they face as they transition into private sector rented housing.
A new British Red Cross report, “Fleeing, fearing, facing the future”, has found that homelessness is a key risk for Ukrainians in the UK. Government figures reveal that well over 4,000 Ukrainian households in England have been homeless or at risk of homelessness in the past year—a 97% increase on October 2020. According to data from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in my own local authority area, a total of 30 Ukrainian households, half of which included children, have been homeless, offered homelessness prevention or relief duty services by Sheffield City Council. Of those households, 17 are here under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and 13 are here under the family scheme.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am loth to interrupt the hon. Lady so early in her deliberations, but I wondered if she would like to take this opportunity to congratulate or comment on SNP-run Perth and Kinross Council, which has the third highest number, and the highest number per capita, of Ukrainian guests in the whole of Scotland, as well as the smallest number in temporary accommodation. That is because of building a positive relationship with the private letting sector and creating our own agency. Does the hon. Lady agree that P and K’s approach of actively bringing together guests and hosts works, and that being prepared to build on existing structures with existing relationships is the way to give good options to our guests from Ukraine?
Olivia Blake
I completely agree. Where things have worked well, we should be learning lessons and rolling those lessons out across the country—across all the countries of Great Britain. We need to take stock at this point to see where things have progressed and been valuable to the community, and where they have not worked so well.
We should be concerned about the figures I was just highlighting, which show that we urgently need to support people to either continue to stay with their hosts or move into their own longer term accommodation, especially as the conflict seems to be lasting a lot longer than any of us would have hoped.
The reasons behind the homelessness that many Ukrainian refugees face are multifaceted, ranging from the impact of the rising cost of living for hosts, the changing circumstances of hosts and guests, the inappropriateness of accommodation and difficulties being rematched with other hosts if the relationship breaks down. Sponsors were initially asked to host for only six months, but sadly there is no sign of the military conflict in Ukraine abating, which makes the precarious nature of the future for many refugees all the more worrying.
As the cost of living crisis continues to bite, many sponsors simply cannot afford to continue hosting, and I ask the Minister to consider that in her response. In November 2022, 18% of Homes for Ukraine hosts said that the rising cost of living was “very much” impacting their ability to provide support, which is double the proportion in July 2022, when the figure was 9%. Clearly, the impact on host families is getting worse, which is having a direct impact on Ukrainian refugees. The Government have announced that hosts on the Homes for Ukraine scheme will receive more financial support, which is increasing from £350 to £500 a month, but that is only after the people they are hosting have been in the UK for 12 months. The cost of living crisis is happening now, and that should mean action now to support refugee households.
At the same time, despite accounting for around a third of arrivals, and unlike under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, people hosting family members through the family scheme do not receive any monthly “thank you” payment, and are not protected from the increased council tax bills that come from having additional household members. Similarly, although local councils ensure that those on the Homes for Ukraine scheme receive a £200 per person interim payment on arrival, to help with the cost of food and essentials, Ukrainians on the family visa scheme do not receive the same support unless they are in Northern Ireland.
The Government need to take Ukrainian families’ risk of homelessness seriously and act quickly. The British Red Cross suggests that the Department should extend the interim £200 payment to everyone arriving on the Ukrainian family scheme to support people waiting for their first universal credit payment. Ministers should also consider increasing the monthly payment immediately for all hosts, no matter what scheme they are on, instead of waiting for people to have been here in the UK for 12 months. At the moment, the costs are falling on hosts. Those hosting people who arrived in the UK through the Ukrainian family scheme should receive the same financial support as those hosting under the Homes for Ukraine scheme to support their continued hosting. Are discussions along those lines between the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities already under way, and if not, why not? In addition, the Department should ensure that the council tax regulations are further amended so that hosts on the Ukrainian family scheme are also protected from increasing council tax bills, especially as they are not currently receiving any extra financial support in that way. Will the Minister set out the Government’s position on those simple steps, which could make a difference?
The second set of issues I want to raise relates to what happens after refugees leave their hosts. Our unfair and exploitative private rented sector is a huge barrier to many people’s living their lives as they want. For Ukrainians, the situation is no different. Even once they are ready to move on from their accommodation and strike out on their own, there are significant challenges. Without a UK-based guarantor, rental references or a deposit, it can be difficult for people to find privately rented accommodation. Although people on both schemes have the right to work and access public funds, including universal credit, the British Red Cross reports that across the UK many refugees struggle to afford the rent for longer term accommodation. Frozen local housing allowances also restrict access to private rented accommodation for those who work part time or are single parents, often with multiple children. The demographics of the Ukrainian refugees who are coming over here—many are mothers with children, which is a complexity of the war—should be borne in mind when we develop policy, so that these conditions, issues and individual circumstances are understood.
All that is supported by data. In my own city, of 322 families who arrived in Sheffield under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, only 44 have been moved into private rented accommodation to date. A survey by the Office for National Statistics published in December 2022 found that 69% of Homes for Ukraine hosts had guests looking to move into private accommodation, but 81% of them reported barriers when helping their guests to look for private rented accommodation: 67% could not afford to rent privately, 64% could not provide a guarantor, 57% could not afford a deposit or other up-front payments, and 43% had no suitable properties in the area that they had arrived in.
DLUHC has announced £150 million additional funding for local authorities across the UK to support refugees to move into their own homes. It was also announced that local authorities in England will get a new £500 million fund to acquire housing stock for refugees, and tackle homelessness in refugee communities. The announcement rightly said that not only those who arrived from Ukraine and Afghanistan but all those fleeing conflict would be included. I welcome those measures, but I know local authorities are unclear about how to use the funding. Will the Minister clarify the details? How will the £150 million one-off funding be allocated and spent, so that local authorities have more certainty when addressing growing housing needs? It should be noted that, in addition to that funding, there is support for local authorities to implement rent deposit schemes where they do not already exist, and to ensure that eligibility criteria do not exclude people displaced from Ukraine. Last week, the Secretary of State told the House that his Department would investigate Government-backed rent guarantee schemes specifically to support displaced Ukrainians. What action are the Government taking in that respect?
The local association has raised with me the fact that a crucial part of making the transition to an independent life is access to skills and training. Many of the people who have come here are already highly qualified, but either their qualifications are not recognised, or they are struggling to find work that matches their qualifications. How are the Government working across Departments to ensure that refugees settling here can fulfil their full potential and find gainful skilled employment?
The toll of the war on those who have left Ukraine as refugees, fleeing the bombs raining down on their homes and neighbourhoods, has been immense. They have gathered their lives into suitcases or even less, unsure of what they will return to, whether they will return to anything, or whether they will return at all. Across the UK, and certainly in Sheffield, which is a proud city of sanctuary, the greeting they have received is a light in the darkness. It has represented the hope of refuge far from the violence and destruction. Now, a year later, it is time to transform hope into certainty, and turn the promise of safety into the opportunity of building new, secure and stable lives in the UK, free from the worry of homelessness and destitution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and those of other hon. Members, knowing they will care deeply about the issues I have raised, on how we can help refugees to build that life in the UK while they are here.
Thank you, Mr Dowd, for allowing me the time to debate this issue. It is important to keep it highlighted, learn the lessons from this scheme in our broader approach to refugees, and show solidarity to Ukrainians.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to allow as many as possible to speak in the debate, they should be brief.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing such an important debate. I could not agree more that we need to keep this subject at the forefront of our mind. It has been over a year, but we must never forget what it was like at the beginning. I certainly do not forget waking up a year ago to those dreadful scenes on the news—Putin’s maniacal aggression destroying homes, schools and hospitals, and turning communities into war zones. Understandably, millions were desperate to flee Putin’s war machine.
The UK has a proud history of welcoming refugees fleeing war and persecution. It was right that we provided a safe and legal route for those fleeing the conflict. In the early days of the conflict, the focus was on getting Ukrainians into the UK. That was no small undertaking. I am sure many hon. Members here will remember the frustrations we had with the Home Office, which often took a “computer says no” attitude to visa applications. We were dealing with incredibly complex, highly emotive cases of families separated and loved ones left behind in Ukraine.
I thank the teams in my constituency and Westminster offices who helped 114 Ukrainians travel to Oxfordshire. They spent hours and hours waiting to speak to UK Visas and Immigration and queuing outside the hub in Parliament to help those fleeing the conflict. I remember one case of a mother who was eight months pregnant and had a five-year-old child. She was in Italy and needed a visa within days or she would not be allowed to fly because her doctor would not give her the fly note. She was terrified about having to give birth with doctors she could not understand because she did not speak Italian. Luckily, we were able to sort out her visa.
Helping people get here to the UK was only the first piece in the puzzle. In the last year, 2,113 Ukrainians have arrived in Oxfordshire and settled. That is the fourth highest number out of any local authority in England. Yulia Horetska moved in with me and my family. Supporting her in her time of need has been an honour and a privilege. I know that that feeling is shared by many of the hosts. Many people wanted to host, but were not able to—maybe they did not have a spare room. We have gained a lot, so let us not frame this debate as though we were giving, because we also got.
Such help would not have been possible without the vital work that our councils have done alongside community groups and voluntary organisations. This has been a whole community effort. South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils provided fantastic wraparound support to settle guests in the districts, and Oxfordshire County Council helped. The councils co-ordinated and distributed grants and provided housing and homeless advice; they supported access to schooling, language lessons, medical services, benefits and employment advice. I give a special thanks to Adrianna Partridge at the Vale, who went above and beyond in leading the co-ordination of that effort. I am delighted to say that in February the councils decided to fund vital support for a further two years. We did not think we would get to a week, let alone a year, but we now need the certainty of the medium and long term.
I also thank the community groups and volunteers who have provided huge support and help for guests and hosts. St Michael and All Angels in Summertown run a Ukraine friendship centre every Wednesday, which I was lucky enough to visit. It provides English classes and children’s activities. Hubs have been set up with citizens advice and the council to provide a one-stop shop and a co-ordinated place with translators, so that a Ukrainian family in need of help knows where to go and has one place to go get it.
As we mark the anniversary of the scheme, there are, as has been ably set out, a new set of challenges that I want to focus on. With Putin continuing to wage war, what began as a temporary stay, a short-lived safe harbour, now looks for many families to be more permanent. One sponsor said,
“As the children begin to form friendships through schooling and other local activities many refugees are seriously contemplating setting their roots down here in the UK.”
Many hosts, with the best will in the world, are simply unable to continue their sponsorship arrangements for more than a year, so local councils are working hard to provide rematching.
Councils are also trying to help guests into affordable independent living arrangements and to alleviate the pressure on homelessness services, but there is a problem of housing capacity in Oxfordshire. Ukrainians are struggling to access the private rented sector because referencing procedures can penalise people on universal credit and those with no credit history. There is a case for the Government stepping in pretty strongly on that point. One Ukrainian mother of two wrote to tell me about the problems that she faced. The host asked the family to move out and they searched for rented accommodation, but they were refused by numerous landlords because they do not have suitable proof of income or credit status. She said,
“We want to settle here, give our children some stability and keep them in the schools they have started, and we want to find more secure employment. We have degrees and are young, healthy and hard working. We thought the UK government would support us in settling here but we are completely reliant on the help of friends and neighbours.”
Eventually the family found accommodation, but it was over three hours away in West Sussex. They have been forced to move house, move schools, and change jobs. We have a desperate need of workers in Oxfordshire, so I was desperately sad to read that. Also, it is a huge upheaval for that family
Another issue that councils have identified is the temporary legal status of those in the UK under the scheme. At the beginning, we thought the situation would last for weeks or months, not years. Two years sounded generous, but we are now a year in and people are looking to move out and find new, permanent employment. However, when employers see that people have only a year left on their visas, that is a black mark against them when it comes to interviews. I hope the Government will ensure that an automatic extension is applied, which will give families and employers certainty if the situation continues. It is common sense to step in at that point and help people get on the job ladder; they will then pay taxes and contribute back, which is surely in everyone’s interest.
Above all, the councils that have done so much are in desperate need of longer term funding solutions. They are doing their best, but with budgets already squeezed, there is a limit to the support they can provide. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has shown the UK at its best, with communities coming together and providing support for those in need. The Government has listened and there have been tweaks, but we now need them to put their shoulder to the wheel and work out how we are going to keep funding and supporting the scheme in the medium and longer term. The Ukrainians who have come to the UK have contributed so much to our families and our society. I hope the Minister agrees that we owe it to them, and to ourselves, to do that little bit more.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing the debate and on the points and questions she put to Ministers. On behalf of the SNP group, one year on from Putin’s illegal invasion, our party’s message to Ukrainian arrivals is very clear: Scotland is your home for as long as you need it to be.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine last February, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has recorded over 8 million refugees from Ukraine across Europe, which is around 20% of the Ukrainian population. From the outset of the crisis, Scotland has stood ready to help. As the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said at the time:
“Let people in and do the paperwork afterwards.”
When the Homes for Ukraine scheme was launched in March 2022, thousands of people across Scotland signed up to host Ukrainian refugees and the Scottish Government became a super-sponsor, enabling people fleeing the war to secure visas without having to arrange a private sponsor first. The super-sponsor scheme has been overwhelmingly popular, with local authorities, the third sector and local communities all working in partnership.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about the work that Perth and Kinross Council is doing in that regard. We have had an excellent briefing from the British Red Cross that underlines what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As of 17 January 2023, 314 people displaced by the conflict in Ukraine have arrived in Perth and Kinross through the Homes for Ukraine and Scottish super-sponsor schemes. That is the third highest for local authorities in Scotland by number and the highest number per capita.
The council has actively engaged with the private rental sector for over 10 years and has an in-house letting agency, which runs a charitable service. As a result, the agency is well connected to council services such as welfare rights, environmental services and council tax. The council chose to run the service separately from social housing, as it found that that did not work well in practice. The council was able to expand that service to accommodate those coming from Ukraine and did not need to build new relationships with local landlords. Relying on that existing system contributed to Perth and Kinross having the lowest number of households in temporary accommodation.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is being customarily and particularly kind to my local authority, and I think it is worthy of congratulations for what it has achieved. By setting up an in-house agency, the council is able to properly connect with other council services, such as the welfare rights department, which has been on hand to serve the Ukrainian guests. It serves as a great example of what can be done when the right type of focus is applied by local authorities. We have done spectacular things in Perth and Kinross in the face of the crisis. Will my hon. Friend encourage other local authorities to look at Perth and Kinross Council as an example and perhaps replicate what it has done?
Chris Stephens
My hon. Friend knows that I come from a local government background—I was not a councillor but a local government employee—so I am passionate about its role in society, which enables it to address a number of issues. He is correct that Perth and Kinross Council has shown what local authorities, including SNP-controlled local authorities, can do, so I thank him for that.
In the past 12 months, nearly 23,000 people from Ukraine have secured safety in Scotland, and just shy of 19,000 of them arrived through the super-sponsor scheme. That represents 20.4% of all UK arrivals—the most per head of any of the four UK nations. None of that would have been possible without the generosity and warm-heartedness of people across Scotland, who opened their hearts and their homes to Ukrainian arrivals.
The Scottish Government are supporting the scheme and have allocated over £70 million for the Ukrainian resettlement programme for 2023-24 to ensure that communities continue to receive help to rebuild their lives. That will build on the £200 million that the Scottish Government provided to support resettlement this financial year. The funding will help to ensure that those displaced by the war continue to receive a warm welcome in Scotland and are supported to rebuild their lives in our communities for as long as they need to call Scotland their home. All that, of course, depends on funding. I hope the UK Government will step up to the plate and ensure full and sustained funding is in place to allow those programmes to continue for the coming year and beyond. I will touch on that later.
The Scottish Government are taking action to allow arrivals from Ukraine to take the next steps in their lives in Scotland. As part of the safe and welcoming accommodation, the Scottish Government chartered two passenger ships, one of which is based in the Glasgow South West constituency. I have regularly visited the ship, which provides a very high-standard facility for guests, and the on-board accommodation is well received. Glasgow City Council is on hand, the Department for Education ensures that children have access to schools in the area and helps with their travel, and Department for Work and Pensions staff have been on the ship to ensure that Ukrainian refugees can find employment.
I support the principle that refugees who come to this country should be allowed to work. We need to look at giving the right to work to other people seeking sanctuary, because that is a problem in other parts of the immigration system. The focus should now be on matching people with suitable longer-term accommodation. The ship in Govan will no longer be there at the end of March, so work is being done to put in place a longer-term resettlement fund to ensure that people find accommodation. People are on the passenger ship temporarily, and they are very quickly able to find accommodation to rent. I have seen from my constituency case load that one of the problems is unnecessary delays for the Ukrainian refugees on the ship in receiving biometric residency permits. I hope the Minister will take that back to the Home Office to make sure the BRPs are provided quickly.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. Concerns have been expressed to me that there may be a need to further promote the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Does he agree? The people on the boat do not always have the option to move on somewhere else. There are still people trying to flee Ukraine because the conflict is ongoing, so the additional support and additional promotion of that scheme would be very welcome.
Chris Stephens
I agree. It is important that we continue to promote the schemes that are available. We must be a welcoming nation and say to those in Ukraine that there is a place here at the moment with quality education and access to employment to help them get on with their lives. Of course, some people want to go back, and that is perfectly understandable. There are people from Ukraine who view this country as a refuge home, and they are hoping for the opportunity to return to their country.
The cost of living crisis has disrupted the finances of many hosts and local councils. I hope the Minister can talk about what funding will be made available to ensure that anyone who wants to continue with the Homes for Ukraine scheme is not priced out of doing so. It is important that we get those guarantees so we can take them back. The last year has placed unprecedented financial pressure on households, with the cost of living crisis playing havoc with people’s finances. Many hosts who opened their doors to Ukrainian arrivals last March could not have fully appreciated how bad the cost of living crisis would become, with inflation spiking at 10.5% by December last year.
From January, the UK Government support available to local councils appears to have been cut from £10,500 to £5,900 for each arrival. That short-sighted decision seems to have been taken without any consultation of the devolved Administrations, and certainly without consultation of local authorities across the board. As a result, some hosts now feel that they simply cannot afford to continue participating in the scheme, which is a pity. The Local Government Association has warned of the growing number of Ukrainians presenting as homeless to councils, particularly the significant rise in those who arrived on the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That backs up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).
Data released last month showed that 4,295 Ukrainian households have presented themselves to councils as homeless. That is a 40% increase since November 2022. I hope the Minister can assure us that we are not simply passing the buck to local councils, and that there will be sustained funding. The uplift in the “thank you” payment to hosts from £350 to £500 is welcome, but that should be available to all volunteer hosts to meet the increasing cost of living since March. I hope the Minister can assure us that there is continuing dialogue with organisations such as the British Red Cross, which is saying that the increase could come too late and will not always be enough. I thank all those who have participated in the debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for leading this hugely significant debate during this hugely significant period. Only last week we marked the one-year anniversary of the Russian Federation’s wholly unjust invasion of Ukraine.
My hon. Friend is an extremely doughty campaigner in this area. She eloquently made the case in her excellent speech. She was absolutely right when she spoke about the resilience of Ukrainians and the generosity of those opening their homes to them, showing the best of the United Kingdom. She was also right, and very clear, when she spoke about the unfair and exploitative private rental sector being a huge challenge for Ukrainian families leaving host families.
Skills and training for refugees are clearly important to enable them to fulfil their potential. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) spoke movingly about her personal experience of bringing a Ukrainian family into her home, and the benefits that it gave her. It is very much a two-way street, which is often forgotten. I thank her for sharing that, because it is hugely important. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) also spoke movingly. His passion for local authorities and the incredible work they do is clear to see—not just in this area, but each and every day in our local communities. It was particularly interesting to hear about the in-house agency system used in Scotland.
Clearly, there has been little disagreement during the debate, and that is really heartening. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the amazing work done by local charities in this area. Indeed, the House is united in its support for Ukraine and her people. The Opposition’s support for the Ukrainian war efforts against Putin’s brutal aggression is unshakeable. As a member of NATO and an ally to Ukraine, we have a very real obligation to ensure that justice is done and Ukraine emerges as the victor in the conflict.
However, we cannot forget, as hon. Members have stated, that we have very real obligations here at home. We have deep obligations that extend to more than 200,000 Ukrainian individuals and the many families who have sought refuge and safety in these isles. I, for one, do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s intentions with respect to Ukrainian refugees; after all, the Homes for Ukraine scheme is the largest refugee scheme ever administered by this country. It is reflective of the generosity of the British people, with many thousands opening up their homes to welcome in the most vulnerable—often women and children.
Despite all that, the problems emerging on the ground are clear. In some instances, relationships are breaking down; host family circumstances have changed; and, to boot, conditions in the private rented sector are unforgiving and the welfare system is entirely inadequate. All in all, the data shows that more than 4,000 Ukrainian households are now turning to local councils for somewhere to live after their placement on the scheme has ended. More than 4,000 households are potentially facing homelessness or being referred to homelessness services.
As we have come to understand over the last decade, we have a Government who are inherently reactive to the big questions, rather than a Government focused on getting ahead of the curve. Back in November, I and many other voices from the Opposition were warning that unless the Government got a grip, we were going to face real issues, with our cash-strapped local councils once again being left to clear up the mess on the back of Whitehall short-termism.
At the onset of the war, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), asked the Secretary of State if he would put a safety net in place in case of placement breakdowns in the future. The Opposition probed the Department further, confirming that families left homeless in that situation would not be able to claim their housing costs under universal credit. Can the Minister advise whether that is being reconsidered? Sadly, no real answers were forthcoming at the time, so hopefully that can be clarified today. The refusal of the Government to give certainty to local authorities, host families and refugees is not only profoundly wrong, but damaging to us on the international stage, and we are better than that.
In her response, I hope the Minister will talk about the ongoing discussions that her Department is having with the Home Office; be clear with us about local government funding and the assurances she can give on that; update us on lessons learned to date; and explain what funding will be available. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said, rather than leaving it until the last minute, can we have something in place that will prevent any further distress to the Ukrainian families? I am particularly interested in the fact that all Members have spoken about the importance of education and skills, not only in the contribution to society but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam eloquently said, to enable these brave Ukrainian refugees to transform uncertainty into hope.
I will finish by urging the Government to truly heed the words of the Opposition, charities, the LGA, the APPG for ending homelessness and the Government’s own MPs and peers, including the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and act quickly to save their blushes and, most importantly, to fulfil our obligations to the Ukrainian people who chose this country for sanctuary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank everyone for the constructive tone of the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) on her very comprehensive and interesting speech.
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her personal contribution to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which is one of the most remarkable schemes this country has ever seen. It is because of the generosity and compassion of British people that we have been able to welcome so many Ukrainians to this country. The informed and impassioned contributions to the debate speak to the fact that, one year into this war, none of us has allowed there to be any creeping normalisation of the horrors we have witnessed in Ukraine. Our commitment to the people of Ukraine has not wavered, and it will not waver in the years ahead.
The debate is very important to me, not only because I am the Minister responsible for the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but also because my constituency of Kensington is the home of the Ukrainian community in London and, to an extent, throughout the UK. In my constituency, we have the Ukrainian embassy, the phenomenal St Mary’s Ukrainian School, where the numbers have gone up astronomically, the Ukrainian community centre and the Ukrainian Institute London, so the subject is very important to me. I first visited the Ukrainian community before the invasion, when tensions were rising, and I have been with them on a constituency basis all the way. I am delighted to say that in my small borough of Kensington and Chelsea we have 423 registered sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and 617 Ukrainians have arrived in the borough, 152 of whom are children.
From the moment the first tanks crossed the border into Ukraine, the stoicism, courage and determination shown by President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have been a constant source of inspiration to us all. We have been clear from the get-go that if we want to live in a world where peaceful sovereign nations are free to choose their own destiny, Ukraine must win.
I will address the many points that Members have made, but I would like to start by emphasising that the Government and I are enormously proud of the support the UK is providing to Ukrainian nationals and their families. Most of all, we are proud that these schemes are being powered by the British people.
Olivia Blake
The Minister has referred to the housing issues, but one of the other uncertainties for families is the lack of clarity about family reunification rights under the different schemes and whether those will change over time. Will the Minister address that?
Felicity Buchan
I will address the different schemes and how they fit together in a few moments.
Before the Homes for Ukraine scheme even opened, thousands registered their interest in helping. As soon as it did open, thousands more opened their hearts and their homes to people whose lives had been torn apart by a conflict that they did not ask for. The scheme was the first of its kind in the UK and, since we launched it on 18 March 2022, we have welcomed a remarkable 115,800 people. When combined with the Ukraine families scheme, we have now helped to find over 163,500 people a safe and secure home.
At the outset, we vowed to keep the routes for Ukrainian refugees under constant review, and that is what we have done. The scheme did not stay static; it evolved as the weeks and months went on, including an extension to bring over unaccompanied children who were not travelling with a parent or legal guardian, with robust additional safeguarding checks. We have also adapted the scheme in terms of rematching. We have offered further money. The scheme is a living organism; it will potentially adapt further with time.
As a Government, we have been determined to reciprocate the generosity of the hosts who have come forward with offers of help. To that end, we have provided £1.1 billion to councils through a tariff for each arrival in their area to support guests and sponsors alike. In recognition of their generous support, all Homes for Ukraine sponsors will receive an increased “thank you” payment of £500 a month once guests have been in the country for over a year. We have extended the duration that sponsors can get “thank you” payments from one year to two years. Our absolute focus is providing stable homes for Ukrainians fleeing war and starting a new life on UK soil.
Let me take this opportunity before my concluding remarks to follow up on a few specific points. I will start with homelessness, because a number of Members raised it, and will go through our latest homelessness numbers. For the Homes for Ukraine scheme, it is 2,495. For Ukrainians as a whole, including the families scheme, it is 4,295. Homelessness is defined as a local authority having a duty to prevent and relieve, so, just focusing on the prevention part, a lot of these numbers will cover local authorities that are going in there to help people and put roofs over their heads. I want to be very clear on that definition. Local authorities are doing their job in many of these cases and preventing. If one looks at the 2,495 number in the context of 115,000 arrivals under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, it is a small percentage. We do not want any Ukrainian to be homeless but, if one looks at the prevention and relief duties, it is a small percentage. As I said, it is a good thing that local authorities are doing their jobs and doing them incredibly well.
There are 735 households in temporary accommodation. What are the Government doing to support local authorities? I want to put it on the record that I think local authorities are doing a tremendous job. First, as I have already mentioned, the Government are providing £1.2 billion in tariffs. Those tariffs can be used for homelessness prevention—for example, to help guarantee private rental sector rents. We have also put a £150 million fund in place to relieve homelessness. I believe it was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam who asked how that fund would be allocated. It will be allocated to the devolved authorities, and in England. We are in discussions with the devolved authorities—I have regular update calls with them—and are finessing the split of that fund. As soon as that has been done and we have agreed the split among the DAs, we will communicate the allocations to local authorities, but that is very much a work in progress.
Layla Moran
I thank the Minister for thanking local authorities, because they have done an extraordinary, incredible job—South and Vale have taken a wraparound approach and been very successful in driving down homelessness, not just in the scheme but across the entire district. I encourage the Minister to look not just at the raw homelessness numbers, but at local authorities that are efficient and have done that, often by taking resource from elsewhere and putting it into this team, which has stopped many people from being homeless or even getting anywhere close to that point. When the Government look at the allocation, will they not just assume that, because the numbers are not huge, there is not a problem elsewhere in the council? Indeed, the fact that there are very few has caused problems elsewhere in the council.
Felicity Buchan
That is a well-made point. As I say, we are looking at how we will allocate that money, but I hear what the hon. Member says.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. Might one of the reasons for homelessness or some of the other difficulties be related to the point I raised about biometric residence permits? What discussions is she having with the Home Office to make sure BRPs are issued quickly?
Felicity Buchan
When we are talking about homelessness under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, these are all people who are here with their visas, so I do not think it relates to the BRP scheme. However, I am happy to relay the hon. Member’s comments to the Home Office, as he has asked. To the extent that he has details about particular issues, if he could feed those in to me, I can pass them on.
We have also set up a £500 million fund for local authorities to purchase, build or redevelop homes, with an initial focus on Ukrainians and Afghans, although the aim over time is for those homes to be for the benefit of the local community. We are very focused as a Government on homelessness prevention; indeed, we want to prevent homelessness from ever happening. In the last fiscal year, 2022-23, we spent £316 million, but we got an extra top-up from the Treasury of £50 million to alleviate winter homelessness, which makes £366 million. These are big sums of money, and in December we announced £654 million over two years for homelessness prevention.
Let me turn to the private rented sector. I had a look at the last Office for National Statistics survey, in which 17% of those surveyed were in the PRS; however, I am conscious—and clearly I have heard—that there have been issues with some Ukrainians accessing that sector. Sometimes it has been because of a lack of credit history in the UK; sometimes they have been unable to put down deposits. We have encouraged local authorities to think innovatively about how to use the tariff to help people access the private rental sector—an awful lot of local authorities have said that people are using the £10,500 that was received last year to put down deposits. We would encourage them to look at those solutions. Local authorities know best what the funding situation is in their local area.
We are also working very closely with the LGA and the National Residential Landlords Association to get to the bottom of any problems and see how we can incentivise landlords to get round these issues, because it is quite clear that a lot of Ukrainians would like to be independent. While many sponsors are prepared to go longer than six months—in fact, I had another look at the ONS data, and 90% of sponsors said that they were prepared to go longer than six months, while 60% already have—clearly, access to the private rental sector is an important option for Ukrainians. It is something that my Department is working on with a lot of focus. As I say, we are encouraging best practice. We are also funding the strategic migration partnerships to share that best practice among local authorities.
A lot of Members talked about the importance of English for speakers of other languages—ESOL—and skilled employment, and I could not agree more. I chaired a cross-Government meeting last week, attended by a Minister from every Department, where we talked about how we can ramp up that provision of English language classes and ensure that professional qualifications are recognised. Clearly, professional qualifications are recognised by independent bodies, so we cannot tell the Nursing and Midwifery Council what it should approve, but we encourage it to focus on this. There are issues that these bodies need to take into account. It is a focus of Government; I am working very closely with the Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), on that matter.
I would like to pick up on a few other issues that were raised, such as that about council tax. I want to make it very clear that people who arrive in the UK under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and are living with people will be disregarded for the purposes of council tax. Let us say you are a single person and you get the single person discount. If you bring in two Ukrainians under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, you are still one single person for the purposes of council tax, so you will still get the 25% discount.
Felicity Buchan
I think the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam is about to disagree with me—I give way.
Olivia Blake
Not to disagree—that is correct, and it is fantastic. But again, this is a problem in the Ukraine family scheme. People are not getting that extra payment, but they are getting the extra cost of turning from a single-person household to a multi-person household. That is the question for me, really: what can you do to ensure that these schemes are equitable to allow stability? As you rightly pointed out, people are leaving both the Homes for Ukraine scheme and the family scheme because of difficulties with the cost of living.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. At the risk of being pedantic, there are a lot of “you”s going on here. Can we address points through the Chair, if Members do not mind?
Felicity Buchan
This may be a good opportunity for me to talk about how the schemes came about, and our thinking. First, I stress that both schemes give those who have arrived a three-year visa and, very importantly, the right to work, be educated and receive benefits here. The Ukrainian arriving here has the same rights under both schemes.
The family scheme came about because we wanted to extend the most compassion that we could very quickly. It was a temporary and more generous alternative to the family route, and it extended the number and type of family members who could come in. Homes for Ukraine is a very different scheme. It is unique. It is for those fleeing conflict who cannot rely on family support. As I say, individuals have the same rights under both schemes. The difference comes about because in one scheme there are no thank-you payments. We think that is appropriate, because in the family scheme people come over as family members, whereas in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, they have no connection to their host, so we think it appropriate to offer the host a thank-you payment.
The other difference is that the tariff payment to local authorities is paid under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That is important because of the obligations on local authorities to, for instance, carry out safeguarding checks and ensure integration into the community. Those obligations are specific to the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I want to give hon. Members our logic as to why we see the schemes as separate, but the important point is that the individual has the same rights under both.
Alison Thewliss
I appreciate what the Minister says about why she makes those distinctions between the Homes for Ukraine scheme and the family scheme. However, a case that I dealt with in my constituency involved a person whose parents had come under the family scheme. The parents could not stay with their daughter, because she had only a one-bedroom flat, so there was no room for them. Those parents ended up being put up by my constituent—she wanted to help and had the space to do so—but my constituent was not entitled to any support payments for that. That made things quite fractious for the host, because she was not hosting them on the same basis as other hosts. Does the Minister agree that, for the people who fall in between those two stools, those circumstances seem quite unfair?
Felicity Buchan
There have been one or two examples, such as that of the hon. Lady’s constituent, where hosts thought that they were potentially hosting under the Homes for Ukraine scheme but were not. On homelessness under the family scheme, local authorities have an obligation to deal with homelessness regardless of which scheme a person comes under. I want to make that clear, because the £150 million fund is to relieve homelessness. It is not ringfenced, and it is for local authorities to decide how it is spent.
Let me pick up the point about housing benefit. We have amended the eligibility criteria to ensure that arrivals from Ukraine under one of the Government schemes are eligible for housing assistance from day one of their arrival. I believe there was also a question about family reunification. That does not fall within my remit; it is a Home Office matter.
Let me conclude. At every stage of this process, we have developed our humanitarian schemes in close consultation with Ukrainian leaders and, very importantly, the diaspora community in the UK to ensure that what we offer responds to their needs. The needs of Ukrainians will continue to be at the heart of our approach. I am hugely proud of what we have all achieved, cross-party, by putting politics to one side and instead focusing our collective efforts on supporting Ukraine and its people through the war. Today’s debate, with the strength, passion and commitment that has been on display, has left me more convinced than ever that Ukraine can and will win the war.
I will finish by thanking most of all the sponsors in the UK. Without their generosity and compassion, the scheme would simply not have been possible. On behalf of this House, thank you.
Olivia Blake
Apologies for my earlier use of “you”, Mr Dowd. I want to say a massive thank you to everyone who has taken part in today’s debate. We heard about personal experiences from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), and about the innovative schemes in Perth and Glasgow. It is important that we look across UK borders—or should I say devolution lines?—to make sure that we learn as much as we can about how the schemes are working.
I was privileged to work closely with host families in my area. I hosted joint surgeries, so that we could share experiences, and hear from people going through the process, which was iterative. That approach at Government level is important, so I thank the Minister for addressing the concerns raised. We might have to agree to disagree on the issues around the difference between the two schemes, as things are a bit more complicated in reality than they were outlined as being.
I forgot to mention the question of how we monitor the number of people returning to Ukraine. In Sheffield, 34 families have returned to Ukraine. According to the Sheffield branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, that was primarily because of an inability to get private rented sector housing. Information of that kind is key to our understanding, and gives us the opportunity to improve the scheme.
I thank everyone for taking part in this debate. I am grateful that time was allowed for us to consider the issues. Although the scheme has been a success, we can always learn lessons, so that we can make sure that, in the medium to long term, we give our full support to the people of Ukraine.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the anniversary of the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
Authorised Push Payment Fraud
(1 year, 9 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 Dowd (in the Chair)
I will call Kirsten Oswald to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is conventional in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered authorised push payment fraud.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to bring forward this debate, because I have had protracted discussions with a business in my constituency that has been targeted by fraudsters, resulting in some of its clients losing thousands of pounds through authorised push payment scams. Those scams deceive an individual into unknowingly transferring funds to a criminal. They now represent the largest type of payment fraud in the UK, both in the number of scams and value of losses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I do not normally intervene this early, but this issue is critical for my constituents in Strangford—and indeed for everyone, I suspect. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. The latest figures are astounding: £249.1 million was lost to APP scams in the first half of 2022. That indicates how prevalent these scams are. Messaging about these scams is not as effective as it should be. Does she agree that more steps need to be taken to safeguard vulnerable people who are losing money? They are not great at tech, and have been taken advantage of.
Kirsten Oswald
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. In 2021, losses to this type of fraud totalled £583.2 million. That represents a 38% increase on the previous year. It is worth noting that a lot of cases of authorised push payment fraud go unreported, so those figures are likely to underestimate the true amount lost to these scams. As he suggested, the impact of fraud can be devastating. Victims can lose substantial sums of money. The impact on their health and wellbeing cannot be over-stated. Research from Which? showed that 71% of fraud victims felt that their experience had a detrimental impact on their stress levels; 63% said it was harmful to their mental health, and 39% said it affected their physical health.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I too am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this subject before the House. She is right to mention the huge damage this fraud can cause to individuals and families, including in my constituency. I have two constituents who were caught up in the episode that she described. Does she agree that progress in making compulsory both full reimbursement and the code has been slower than we would like? It is crucial that we make fast progress on ensuring that full reimbursement and full compliance with the code are in place by the end of this year.
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right, both about the people we are discussing who are directly affected, and about the framework generally. Progress is needed now. I will come back to both those points.
My constituent owns a successful business. Despite proper security controls, its email server was unfortunately infiltrated by sophisticated fraudsters, who then sent emails to business clients. The emails sent by the scammers looked just like genuine emails that would be sent from the business. That allowed the fraudsters to cloak their identity. I have heard of other cases of this, too. It is worth stressing that the emails were sent to clients who were due to make payments, which made the fraudulent emails seem entirely credible. This type of fraud is highly sophisticated. In fact, it is a huge and growing industry, which should be of deep concern to us all. I hope to hear the Government’s reaction to it from the Minister. Little wonder that many people unknowingly end up transferring funds to fraudsters when the scams are so sophisticated and complex.
My constituent’s case was only one type of APP scam, namely that of impersonation. There are other types. For example, there are purchase scams, in which a victim is tricked into buying goods or services that are never received. They are regularly found on Facebook and Instagram, and victims are lured in by the promise of cut-price goods. Quite commonly, it will be something like a reduced-price games console, which the victim pays for online but does not receive. Another type of APP fraud is the investment scam: victims are tricked into handing over money for bogus investment schemes that never materialise. Romance scams are obviously less common, but are deeply distressing; people are persuaded to make a payment to a person online with whom they believe they are in a relationship, but who they have never met.
The need to prevent all those types of fraud is paramount. An individual can take steps, particularly in cases such as the one I outlined, to ensure that their money is transferred to the correct bank account. For instance, a straightforward step is to never hesitate to question a payment request robustly. Ideally, an individual should make contact via means other than the ones through which the payment request was made. They should not just reply to an email or click a link, but find another way of contacting the business. We are essentially asking consumers to be responsible for working out where a sophisticated and complex crime is being committed. We need to strike the right balance, and recognise that those actually responsible for this terrible crime are the criminals.
A client of my constituent’s business was asked by their own bank to confirm with the business that it had requested a payment before the bank proceeded with the transfer. At that point, the business became aware that there had been an intrusion into its systems, and it took proactive steps to prevent customers from making any further payments. I welcome the way the business has dealt with the issue throughout.
I welcome the efforts made by several banks to introduce confirmation of payee services. They check the account name and details to ensure that the payment arrives at the correct destination, providing an additional layer of security. However, only some banks have set up such services. TSB Bank believes that all payment service providers should be required to introduce confirmation of payee services, because it seems that organised criminal gangs have shifted to using banks that do not have those checks enabled. It is noticeable, certainly to me, that there is not a unified view in the banking sector on how best to prevent this kind of scam, or on the issue of mandatory reimbursement. The UK Government could do more to take the lead on bringing the banking and payment sectors together to solve these issues. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
I thank Lloyds Banking Group, which took the time to meet me this week, ahead of the debate, to discuss these issues and some of the cases I am raising. I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) very clearly laid out the distress caused to the people who are caught up in these situations. I encourage Lloyds to look further at this particular case, but I am grateful for its positive discussions with me about fraud prevention.
In total, four clients of my constituent’s business were targeted by fraudsters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East suggested, the first case involved a couple unknowingly transferring £40,000 to an HSBC-held bank account. They have been reimbursed over £19,000 by their bank, which is the Bank of Scotland. The second case involved an individual who, again unknowingly, sent £12,500 to an HSBC-held bank account. In the third and fourth cases, clients received emails asking them to transfer money to fraudulent HSBC-held accounts, but thankfully they did not do so.
The contingent reimbursement model is a voluntary code that 10 firms covering 21 banking brands have signed up for. That code aims to reduce the occurrence and the impact of authorised push payment scams. It was designed to give people confidence that if they fell victim to that kind of scam, they would be reimbursed if they had acted properly. The responsibility for reimbursement, according to the contingent reimbursement model code, lies solely with the sending bank.
With that in mind, I return to the case that I outlined, where only half the funds have been returned. I wonder how that can be. The couple has been reimbursed £19,555 by the Bank of Scotland—the sending bank, if you like. Now, the Bank of Scotland has signed up to the contingent reimbursement mechanism, so I would have expected it to reimburse its client to the tune of the full £40,000. However, it did not do that and instead suggested that HSBC should refund the other half of the £40,000 because it was the bank with whom the fraudulent account was held. The individual who mistakenly sent £12,500 to an HSBC-held account has in fact received no reimbursement at all.
Both those cases are now with the Financial Ombudsman Service. I hope—although I am not sure this will be borne out in reality—that there will be a sensible resolution to the situation, because none of these people deserves to be impacted in the way that they have been. It is important to stress that terms such as “blame” and “fault” are used too often in these conversations, in a way that is both unhelpful and unfair, given the sophistication of these scams. The only people to blame for authorised push payment scams are the criminals who create these fraudulent ventures, not the people who fall victim to what are designed to be highly convincing criminal efforts to part them from their money.
With that in mind, I would like to make several points to the Minister. First, the banking sector must improve its internal mechanisms for identifying accounts engaged in fraudulent activity. During my correspondence with HSBC regarding the situation I have set out it stated:
“HSBC undertakes robust due diligence as part of our account opening process, and has payment screening in place to identify fraud.”
I have no doubt that HSBC has internal mechanisms to detect potential fraudsters, and I do not seek to suggest otherwise, but my constituent’s clients were targeted by fraudsters with four different accounts, all of which were held by HSBC. We should remember that this particular case of fraud was stopped at an early stage, so I cannot say how many potential frauds the fraudsters may have wanted to carry out or how those would have related to particular banks. However, all the cases I am aware of involved HSBC, so HSBC—and every other bank—can and must do more to identify and shut down accounts engaged in fraud.
Secondly, I welcome the move towards making the contingent reimbursement model a mandatory code covering all banking firms. I note that clause 62 of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is currently in Committee in the other place, enhances protections for victims of authorised push payment scams by putting a duty on the Payment Systems Regulator to take regulatory action on APP scam reimbursement, ultimately giving it the power to make reimbursement mandatory across the faster payments service.
The introduction of a voluntary contingent reimburse-ment model code has resulted in the rate of victim reimbursement rising from 19% in the first half of 2019 to 41% in 2020. With a mandatory CRM, I am sure that that number will rise further, meaning that more and more victims of this type of fraud should receive reimbursement. Some banks, such as TSB, offer an authorised push payment scam refund guarantee, fully reimbursing all authorised push payment scam victims up to £1 million, unless the customer has been grossly negligent. Some 97% of fraud claims with TSB have been refunded since the refund guarantee was introduced, which is well above the industry average and should give food for thought to others.
Last November, the Payment Systems Regulator consulted on a package of measures to combat authorised push payment scams, including mandating reimbursement for victims. The regulator is now consulting on specific proposals that would put that mandatory reimbursement in place for all online and mobile payments. In line with protections for other payments and financial services, reimbursement would be on all payments over £100, and a time limit of no less than 13 months would be set for claims. A mandatory reimbursement code would ensure that, regardless of what bank or building society individuals choose as their provider, they would be protected from massive financial loss due to these scams.
To come back to the situation I am dealing with, two clients of my constituent’s business have lost £20,000 and £12,500 each. These are significant sums of money. Who could possibly afford to lose them? I welcome all legislative changes that will help to bring about a mandatory reimbursement code, but what steps will the UK Government take to ensure that people who have been affected before the code comes into place are reimbursed, particularly where their payment service provider signed up to the voluntary code but failed to carry through on its commitment, as the sending bank, to reimburse?
I would also like to hear the Minister’s views on social media firms and tech giants taking fraud more seriously and on what action they can take to stop fraudsters using their platforms to target people. It is also incumbent on them to take steps to clamp down on bad actors but, at the moment, they have no financial incentive to remove fraudsters from their platforms, because banks are ultimately held responsible for refunding lost money. That is a conversation that needs to take place with Government.
I welcome some of the progress that has been made and the action by banks, Government and other organisations but, although mandatory reimbursement is desirable, some are still concerned about how it will be enforced. The Treasury Committee recently published a report entitled “Scam reimbursement: pushing for a better solution”, which highlighted some of these concerns. That report supported the principle of mandatory reimbursement but noted concerns about how the plans would be implemented. The Payment Systems Regulator proposes that Pay.UK will make, maintain and enforce reimbursement rules. That is problematic for several reasons set out in the report. Pay.UK is not independent; it is an industry body and guaranteed by the very banks and other service providers it would be asking to reimburse fraud victims. More worryingly, it is not a regulator and lacks the powers necessary to enforce its rules, so there could be foot-dragging and other challenges.
Stuart C. McDonald
The other reason the Treasury Committee gave for not liking that solution was the potential for further delay and kicking the can down the road. Given the earlier point that this has been ongoing for a few years, the last thing we need is more delay.
Kirsten Oswald
It is almost as if my hon. Friend had read the end of my speech. He is absolutely right; that is it in a nutshell. We want to prevent fraud, punish fraudsters and ensure that victims are reimbursed. That is the way to reduce the harm that these scams cause. Surely, we should all support those principles. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the credibility of the Payment Systems Regulator’s current suggestions, to look closely at how social media interacts with these systems and to commit to listening to victims such as those I have talked about today.
To conclude, I ask that the banks involved in the cases I have outlined give serious consideration to their part in the challenges that people are facing through no fault of their own. They should look to ensure both that people are reimbursed and that they clamp down on fraudsters using their services.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I commend the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for securing this debate, which addresses an issue that she clearly cares about deeply. I know from my own constituency and from conversations with colleagues across the House that it is, sadly, one that we see across the country, which is why the Government also care deeply about it. It is a growing issue and demands urgent intervention.
As the hon. Lady set out articulately, authorised push payment scams are becoming increasingly sophisticated and often target the most vulnerable in our society. Because they are so sophisticated, they are also able to target professionals, businesses and so on—people who would otherwise consider themselves to be alive to these sorts of risks. It is a very clever form of fraud.
Under the European regulatory system that we have inherited, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for banks to reimburse the victims of these scams. Although the creation of a voluntary reimbursement code has improved matters, reimbursement for victims has, as the hon. Lady set out, been inconsistent across banks and for victims, and only about half the stolen money is reimbursed. As a result, many victims are left facing significant losses; in the worst cases, they can lose their life savings. From the hon. Lady’s descriptions, we know the impacts that that can have on people and businesses. We are acutely aware of the impact of this type of fraud, so we are determined to help victims and to crack down on these scams and the impact that these fraudsters have on people and businesses.
Front and centre of those efforts is our action on victim reimbursement. As part of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, we are introducing world-leading legislation to protect people as a matter of urgency. Once passed, the Bill will remove legal barriers in retained EU law that currently prevent regulatory action on reimbursement by the Payment Systems Regulator. That will enable the regulator to mandate reimbursement for any payment system under its supervision. However, the legislation goes even further: it will also place a specific duty on the regulator to implement a reimbursement mandate for the faster payments system within six months. I hope that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will be assured that there will be swift regulatory action once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
This issue does not just require timely action; it also demands effective action. We are confident that the regulator has the appropriate objectives, expertise and powers to design the details of mandatory reimbursement in a way that ensures strong and consistent protections for victims. In its recent consultation on the matter, it stated its intention to require firms to fully reimburse victims of all APP fraud occurring through faster payments, with very limited exceptions. That would ensure that victims are reimbursed in the vast majority of cases and at far higher rates than under the existing voluntary reimbursement codes.
Kirsten Oswald
I hear what the Minister says. What does she think about the people I described in my contribution, who will not be covered by the measures she outlined?
Victoria Atkins
I was going to attempt to answer the question posed by the hon. Lady later, but I will answer it now. Regarding current victims, the legislation is not retrospective—she will know that it is very rare for this place to pass retrospective legislation—but we expect banks to honour past voluntary commitments. That may well be something that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has primary responsibility for this area, has put his mind to. I will ask him to write to her with his thoughts on it.
Given that the hon. Lady has intervened on me, I will respond to the interesting points she raised about social media and tech companies. I will do the same as on the previous point, and ask the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to write to her. From my own portfolio, I know some of the challenges with the use of social media when it comes, for example, to repayment agents who are not behaving as they should. As the hon. Lady says, the ability of fraudsters to present themselves as legitimate, by stealing people’s business logos or details, is highly sophisticated. It requires a joined-up reaction from across Government, law enforcement and so on.
That brings me to what we are doing across Government. Although this is an insidious form of fraud, it is not the only one our constituents face. We will therefore shortly publish a new, broad-based fraud strategy, which will detail how we will prevent fraud, so that people do not lose their life savings and money in the way the hon. Lady set out and we can crack down on these gangs.
In the meantime, the Treasury has worked diligently with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator on the roll-out of fraud prevention measures such as confirmation of payee, which the hon. Lady referred to, which can help and has been designed to stop some forms of APP fraud and accidentally misdirected payments. I know that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will welcome the regulator’s action to mandate that service for the vast majority of faster payments transactions, and I highlight its intention to achieve near-universal coverage in the near future.
The Treasury continues to assess industry proposals for legislation to enable further delay to high-risk payments. The hon. Lady asked me about internal banking processes, and that is one way that we have looked to address that form of fraud.
The regulator has consulted on further measures to prevent payment fraud, including enhanced information sharing between payment providers so that scammers can be identified and shut down quickly. That is in addition to mandating confirmation of payee, which I have already described. That will enable payers to check that they are, in fact, sending payments to the right person.
In short, we very much understand why the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire has raised this important issue. We share her determination to tackle it, and look forward to working with law enforcement agencies, banks, the regulators and colleagues across the House to ensure that our constituents are protected from this invidious form of fraud, which I know we all want to see stopped.
Question put and agreed to.
Poverty: Food Costs
(1 year, 9 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 Dowd (in the Chair)
As I indicated, there may be Divisions, so Members should bear that in mind.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling poverty and the cost of food.
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my colleagues for turning up today; there is very good attendance and I am sure they are all going to be very supportive.
The world’s farmers produce enough food on this planet to feed 1.5 times the global population. It is enough food to feed 10 billion people; there are currently about 7.6 billion people on the planet. In the UK we waste about 10 million tonnes of food every year, and yet we have seen a reported increase in food bank use. Takeaway sales are up year on year; the market is set to reach £23 billion this year, with us British people spending an average of £641 a year on takeaway food—and yet we see a rise in food bank use. We have a big obesity problem in the UK, and it is spiralling out of control. It is costing our NHS a massive £6 billion annually. That is set to rise to £9.7 billion each year by 2050—and yet we see a significant increase in food bank use.
No one should go hungry in the UK—we know that. We produce enough food across the world to wipe out global hunger.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, and want to open an invitation to not only him but everybody here. I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks. The issue is clearly something the hon. Member cares about. Our annual general meeting is later this month; I hope to see him there.
Lee Anderson
That is a very kind invitation and I will do my very best to attend—thank you for that. Like I said, 40% of food goes to waste; that is 2.5 billion tonnes that we throw away each year on this planet. If that food was given to the people who need it, we could give chronically undernourished—[Interruption.]
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but there is a Division. We will be back here in 35 minutes, at seven minutes past five.
Lee Anderson
To recap, I was talking about the amount of food wasted, not only throughout the world but more specifically in the UK. The UK has cut down its food waste in recent years, but we still throw away far too much edible food. The UK creates 9.52 million tonnes of food waste per year, according to the Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP, for short.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this tremendous debate forward; I am looking forward to making a contribution. Does he recognise that the likes of Asda, Tesco and some of the other larger shopkeepers already have a system in place for food waste? In my constituency of Strangford, in Newtownards town, all the stuff at its end date is put out for community groups, which can take advantage of it. Some of the big stores are already making steps in the right direction.
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am going to speak about big stores such as Asda later, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right that they are doing their bit at the moment—I would like to see them do a little bit more.
A lot of the wasted food is disposed of during the manufacturing process. Some is disposed of by the retail and hospitality sectors, but a big chunk of waste comes from households all over the country, which are throwing away food on a daily basis.
Patricia Gibson
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. What he says about wasted food is very important; the waste of food is something that most of us find very difficult to see, but it is criminal. He may not be aware of this, but on Scottish television last summer there were news stories over a number of weeks about soft fruit rotting in the fields because of a lack of seasonal agricultural workers to pick it. Does he agree that we need to take action to get workers in to pick that fruit?
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and she makes a good point. I am not fortunate enough to get Scottish TV where I live; we do not quite get the signal. Yes, there is a problem in the agricultural sector with seasonal workers. I did have a solution, but I was shouted down when I first got to this place. We have 90,000 people languishing in jails in this country, and we are about 90,000 people short for picking fruit and vegetables. I think that would be a good start. If we have a labour shortage, we need to look inwards.
I will move on. The hospitality sector alone tosses away about £3.2 billion of food a year, according to WRAP. Households could cause 70% of the UK’s food waste, throwing away about 6.6 million tonnes of food, of which 4.5 million tonnes is actually edible. That is far too much, especially at a time when nearly 70% of UK households are worried about their energy prices; I am worried about my energy prices. Some people think it may mean they are not able to buy enough food to carry on, according to the Food Foundation.
Overall, 6.4 million tonnes of completely edible food is thrown away every year. I think that is criminal. The consumable food that we waste costs the UK about £19 billion a year, which adds up to £284 for every single person in this country. Households alone get rid of edible food worth £13.8 billion. If we split that between all the UK’s 28.1 million households, each home would save £491 per year. Food waste presents a significant problem due to the volume of waste produced each year. In fact, it is estimated that in the UK alone, we throw away around 9.5 million tonnes of food waste annually, most of which will end up in an already overcrowded landfill.
Every day, I get emails and messages on social media from people saying that we have starving children in the UK, and that we voted not to feed schoolchildren. That is dangerous and misleading.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this really important debate. The Food Foundation published an opinion poll today on extending free school meals to every child whose household is on universal credit. The poll showed that almost eight in 10 of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents support that policy. With more than a quarter of children in his constituency living in poverty, will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Chancellor to extend free school meals to every child living in poverty?
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. There is a myth in this country that if people are on universal credit, they are in poverty. I will dispel that myth right now. We have people—not just in my constituency, but all over the country—who are on universal credit, but have a household income of more than £40,000 a year. Now that is not poverty. If people in London on universal credit work a few hours, there is a loophole in the universal credit system meaning they can top up their wages by £30,000-odd a year. That is not poverty. Being on universal credit alone is not an indicator that a family are in poverty, so I totally dismiss that idea.
But I do admit that some families in this country are struggling, and they need our support. A few months back, I visited a school in Ashfield after concerned parents contacted me because the breakfast club had been stopped. The school had stopped providing free breakfasts because the private funding it had secured had run out. Those parents were concerned not about their own children, but about the more disadvantaged children from the poorer families in the area. So I contacted the school and asked what I thought was a reasonable question: “Why are you giving every single child a breakfast in the morning?” I did not get a breakfast, and my kids got a breakfast at home, so it is something new to me. The school told me that people were struggling to feed their own children at home.
I also asked if the school had asked for a donation from any of the families. The families I was speaking to wanted to make a donation to the school, but it said no. When I asked why, it could not answer me. Then I asked, “Why are some families unable to feed their children at breakfast? Why can’t they give them a slice of toast or whatever?” The school struggled to answer me. Eventually, it said, “Well, it’s the cost of living crisis, isn’t it?” I thought, “How much does Weetabix and a bowl of milk cost?” Not even the 30p that I’m famous for—it probably costs a lot less than that.
I wanted to help, so I went on to ask if I could meet the parents who were struggling, to give the whole holistic approach and see where they were going wrong, if we could help and if they had debt, budgeting or social problems. That was nearly four months ago, and I have still heard nothing back. Why have I got nothing back? I’ll tell you for why: there is a reluctance in certain parts of this country, now, about getting to the root of the problem. It is far too easy to say that there is a cost of living crisis. Yes, we know that people are struggling, that food prices are up and that energy prices are up. We know all that, but we cannot keep throwing taxpayers’ money at people. That is what it is: it is taxpayers’ money—our money, our constituents’ money.
Ian Byrne
We are talking about communities struggling. A report last week said that the minimum universal credit paid should be £120. We have got people receiving £85, so they are already down before we even factor in the rent. Does the hon. Gentleman understand the magnitude of the crisis that people are facing now regarding rent, food and the cost of everything? Is that coming through in his constituency? It is certainly coming through in mine, and it is certainly coming through in the national picture as well.
We have got to understand and quantify the magnitude of the problem. Also, how do we solve it politically? It is not by saying that someone should be able to afford a Weetabix and a pint of milk. How do we solve the problem of millions of people going hungry?
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, I do live in the real world. When I talk about these things in this place, I am talking on behalf of my friends, family, neighbours and constituents. I will take no lectures from anybody in this place about living in a deprived area.
Patricia Gibson
I was listening carefully when the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to meet the people using the service in his constituency that he talked about. He said that he wanted to see what the problems might be for people who were struggling to afford food, and that he had had no response in four months to his offer to speak to them to understand their circumstances better. I grew up in poverty—deep poverty. If my mother had the opportunity to discuss with a local MP why she was struggling, I do not think she would have taken that invitation up. That is quite a difficult conversation, and it can be quite intrusive.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Before Lee Anderson comes in, I remind hon. Members that, although I accept that people are passionate about this issue, the more interventions there are, the less time there is for people who have not intervened. I ask Members to bear that in mind. It is a matter for hon. Members, but I will be clear and unambiguous on the time.
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I might say that if her mother had had a first-class Conservative MP like myself, maybe she would have been more comfortable coming for that advice. [Interruption.] It’s true.
I speak as a former adviser for a citizens advice bureau; I worked there for about 10 years. If hon. Members want to know about poverty, come and have a chat with me, because I saw these people on a daily basis. The people I used to see came with all sorts of problems—social problems, debt problems, benefits problems—and a lot of them had to rely on food banks. The first thing we used to do was go through an income and expenditure sheet with the service users. In most cases, there were lots of savings to be made. These people had not had the best start in life, a lot of them, and they needed help—a bit of education and a bit of support—with their bills and debts. They were paying ridiculous Provident loans off at high interest rates. They needed support; what they did not need was money thrown at them. Ten years later—it took me 10 or 15 years to learn this—I was seeing the sons and daughters of those families, who were coming to see me with the same problems that mum and dad had had 10 years before. We were not actually breaking the cycle; we were not supporting people.
I did a bit of work with my local food bank last year, as hon. Members will probably be aware—it was reported in some newspapers. I was delivering meals from the food bank to vulnerable families with an award-winning local chef; he works at a really good restaurant. After a few days of delivering meals, he said to me, “This is totally wrong. These people need proper help. They need teaching how to budget and how to cook a meal from scratch.” What we learned at the food bank was that people could not make a meal from scratch. They were struggling to cook a vegetable properly—to batch cook, to freeze stuff. He gave me a challenge. He said to me, “I can feed a family of five for 50 quid a week.” I said, “No, that’s nonsense. That’s rubbish—you can’t do that.” He said, “I’ll challenge you.”
So we went to the food bank and got the people invited to the college. There were schoolchildren there, as well as four MPs, including me, and the chef, and there were also some TV people. The day before, I got £50 and went with some schoolchildren to the local Aldi with a shopping list from the chef. The next day, we went back to the college, batch cooked five different meals and put everything in little packs, which we put away and delivered later to vulnerable families. And it worked out at 30p per meal.
I am not saying that people can cook on that scale at home—that is ridiculous—but what we are trying to prove is that if you learn how to cook from scratch, you get the right ingredients and you batch cook, you can save a hell of a lot money and make nutritious meals on a budget. Obviously, after that I was tagged as “30p Lee”. I don’t mind, because every time it comes up, somebody asks me, “Why do they call you 30p Lee?” When I tell them, they completely understand—so keep firing away and calling me 30p Lee.
Funnily enough, after this exercise I wrote to every single Labour MP inviting them to my food bank and to take part in it. I got two or three dismissive responses, but nobody else bothered to reply. The challenge was there, but nobody bothered to come.
What upsets me—this gets to me a little bit—is that there is a culture in some deprived areas where people are so dependent on food banks that it is like a weekly shop for them. One particular family who I was really trying to help were going to the food bank two or three times a week to get their groceries, but then I would see them in McDonald’s two or three times a week. My goodness. I do not want to stop little children going for a treat once in a while, but this is all about priorities. If you are really struggling for money and are going to a food bank two or three times a week, you should not be going out for fast food and getting takeaways every week. I know people are going to start sighing and ah-ing and saying, “He’s wicked and he’s cruel,” but those are the facts.
I never went for a McDonald’s when I was a kid, and I come from poverty. My mum and dad really struggled to feed us. He was a coalminer who worked seven days a week, and my mother was a factory worker. At the weekends, my dad did his garden. We had vegetables in there from top to bottom, and it also had chickens, rabbits and ducks. That was our food bank. We had nowhere else to go—that is what we did. We provided for ourselves. We have lost that over the past 20, 30 and 40 years, but we need to remind ourselves of where we have come from and to have those traditional values that our parents had. Food banks are being abused; I know that, because constituents tell me every single day about people making it up, telling lies or whatever. Food banks are abused by people who do not need them. We should target the food banks.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. As I have said, I appreciate that this is a passionate subject, but I do not want people shouting across the Chamber. And can people stop saying “you”? They must address their comments through the Chair.
Lee Anderson
Thank you, Mr Dowd, and I do apologise. I get passionate about this subject, which is very close to my heart.
Ashfield, Mansfield and Bolsover are deprived areas. Many of the red wall seats are very deprived. They are deprived for a reason—we all know why, but I am not going to go into that now. We are going to see more and more fast food outlets—McDonald’s, KFC and others—springing up everywhere. They are springing up every 10 minutes in my area alone. Why are they coming to these deprived areas? It is because they know that there is a market there. We say that poorer people tend to use these places, and I know that that is true.
Food bank use is increasing in places such as Ashfield, yet obesity is also increasing in the same poor areas. Why is that? What we need is a proper food strategy in this country; I do not think we have had one for years. We have not had one since the 1970s. [Interruption.] You can laugh, giggle and scoff, but that is true. Why was it that in the 1970s, in the schools that I went to and all over Nottinghamshire, there were no obese children and we were fit and healthy? We did not have much money, but we ate less junk food and had a better diet and healthier lifestyles.
Lee Anderson
Maybe it was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that we have not had that proper culture in this country for decades—that personal responsibility of feeding ourselves. I like to hark back to the days when I was growing up, because they are on my mind at this moment in time. We were a lot poorer; we had less money and less food, but we seemed to manage okay. I think we could all do a little bit more. [Interruption.] Whatever! You can chip away all you want, mate.
I hear this nonsense about junk food and processed food being cheaper than fresh food. It is not. The chefs who I speak to say that is absolute rubbish. You can still go and buy a big bag of veg for a couple of quid, and a bit of meat, and make wholesome, nutritious meals and batch cook. I have done that before. Parents have done that before. We can do it with a little bit of effort, education and training. People always bleat on about the Government.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he has been very generous with his time. When I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) with the APPG on ending the need for food banks, one thing we saw was kettle packs. Because people do not have access to equipment to make the nutritious food that the hon. Gentleman is referring to, they are forced to utilise kettles or other means. Does he accept that some people do not have the means to make that nutritious food in their own homes?
Lee Anderson
We had that problem with our food bank, which I helped out at. We were giving people vouchers to put the gas and electric on their meters. Then we had a complaint that they did not have any pots or pans, so we gave them pots and pans to make their food with. Then we had a complaint that they did not have a fridge or a cooker. Then we showed them how to apply for white goods, energy support grants and stuff like that through their utility companies. So there is no excuse.
We could go on and make excuses all day. We live in a great country, and there is a lot of support out there to get all these things—not just food, but the stuff to cook it in and help with energy bills. This Government have provided billions of pounds of support over the past two years, especially through covid. They have spent over £500 billion of taxpayers’ money.
I will close now because I know quite a few people want to speak. I will finish by going back to the “30p Lee” thing. It comes up every single day on social media. I made a little list earlier of celebrity chefs—millionaire chefs—who can make meals on a budget. Lesley Negus can make a meal for 20p. Jack Monroe can make a meal for 20p. The website frugal.org.uk has meals for 25p. Savvy Meals can do meals for under a quid. Even the BBC has recipes for meals under a quid. Jamie Oliver—£1 wonders. Asda has recipes for meals under a quid. Toogoodtogo.com—under a quid.
I mentioned the food blogger, Jack Monroe. She was celebrated last year in the Daily Mirror for producing a meal for a staggering 11p. These people are celebrated; they are national heroes. Yet when a Conservative MP tries to help a local food bank and people in his own community, he is called “30p Lee”. Like I say, it don’t matter to me.
I am not going to bang on. Somebody contacted me today from Derbyshire—not my constituency. She said:
“As a retired foster carer for Derbyshire, I taught our looked after children cooking skills. Batch cooking and storing meals in zippy bags (re-useable) and massively space saving for the storing in a second hand small chest freezer (for £30). Meals that cost pence to make (proven by costing out on a spreadsheet so extra skills learned there!) The key is the motivation to do this type of cooking when you can make the time, but the advantages of convenience and cost speaks for itself. They could feed themselves when independent for £20 a week. Indisputable!!!”
What a great lady!
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Six people want to speak. I will call the Front Benchers at 17.43 pm, so at best people have two minutes each.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will go at a rate of knots. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for bringing this debate to the Chamber. The issue is of even more importance to us in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else, because of the astronomical rise in production costs in Northern Ireland, rising transport costs, and the cost of the insidious Northern Ireland protocol. Food inflation has accelerated to record levels, and many households suffered a challenging Christmas due to soaring prices. The price of food in Northern Ireland has risen by 13.3% in the last month, up from 12.4% in the previous month; if we add those together, that is 25% in the last two months.
A friend of mine, Glyn Roberts, who is the chief executive of Retail NI, said:
“With cost pressures right across the supply chain, food inflation is becoming a huge challenge for households. Our members are doing everything they can not only to mitigate this and to limit prices increases for hardworking families in their grocery basket. With a 'cost-of-doing-business crisis', the most expensive business rates in the UK, rising energy costs, inflation and a fall in spending, 2023 is going to be the biggest ever challenge for Northern Ireland's high streets.”
The most recent statistics, for the 2020-21 period, suggest that some 316,000 people, or 17% of the population, in Northern Ireland live in relative income poverty before housing costs, and 12% of the population—approximately 223,000 people—live in absolute poverty before housing costs. Some 92,000 children live in absolute poverty—that is 21% of children in Northern Ireland. The number of children in poverty has risen in the last few years.
I am ever mindful to adhere closely and clearly to your timing indications, Mr Dowd, so I will finish with this. These figures are stark and clear. What is also clear is the fact that what may seem like a small increase in the cost of food to some of us in this Chamber is in fact a very difficult barrier to healthy food. We must step in to secure affordable access to good food for our constituents—especially for those in Northern Ireland, who paid the price for the Brexit deal. Work must be done, and it must be done now.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for giving us what I think everyone looked for in his contribution. I suspect that everyone can leave happy with what they have heard and with what they came for.
In my two minutes, I will focus on my hit list of people who have annoyed me over the past year. We know that food inflation is running much higher across the country than the inflation rate overall; it is roughly 17% at the moment. We also know that inflation is a tax on the poorest, so the cost of food does matter. The poorer someone is, the higher the rate of inflation they experience because so much of their budget goes on energy and food. Retailers know that, but they avoid tackling it.
There is a convenience store on an estate called Grange Park in my constituency. It is known locally as Harrods, because of the extortionate prices it charges for basic goods. That is a classic example of the poverty premium; someone either pays more to buy locally, or they pay the bus fare to go to the large Tesco at Mereside on the outskirts of town. The consumer campaign Which? found that Tesco Express costs people 8% more on average. I accept that smaller stores have higher running costs, but that should not stop supermarkets equalising those costs so that they do not penalise those who have no choice but to shop there.
I tried to speak to the chairman of Tesco, John Allan, about this. He told Laura Kuenssberg in October that Tesco had
“a moral responsibility to look after people who, in the real world, are being impacted by”
the cost of living. Well, here is one way he could do that: by talking to me about what my constituents in Blackpool experience. Clearly, he finds the Leader of the Opposition a more interesting person to go and talk to than me. How offensive; I am an interesting person too. Come to see me, Mr Allan; it is not as grand as Canary Wharf, but come up to Blackpool—but he would not come up to Blackpool. He agreed to meet with me, but then he cancelled. I am now trying to beg him yet again to come and meet with me, as he did the Leader of the Opposition. Let us talk about how Tesco can really help my constituents and do a better job.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing the debate, and for his certainly interesting take on tackling food poverty.
I want to make it clear at the outset that the catastrophe of hunger and poverty in our communities is the result of political choices made by this Government. If a Government cannot ensure that everyone has enough to eat—and not just to eat, but to thrive—they are a Government that is fundamentally broken. The time for sticking plasters is surely over. We need to legislate for a right to food and enforceable food rights, and to ensure that the Government of today are held accountable for the cost of food and ensuring nobody goes hungry.
I pay credit to Mayor Sadiq Khan. I am so happy that he is sorting out universal free school meals and introducing them in London for all primary school children, which is an essential part of the right to food. It is a fantastic move forwards, but it is clear that our communities are in crisis at the moment. I pay tribute to all the workers taking industrial action in defence of their communities, including the teaching staff in West Derby, who were out on the picket line yesterday. The 17% rise in the price of food is the biggest rise since 1977 and comes alongside the sharpest fall in wages since 1977. Food inflation up, wages down—do the maths.
It is really important to look across the piece at how people are being demonised. The demonisation of those in food poverty is an act of political cowardice by an Administration bereft of ideas to solve the problem, and lacking humanity toward the millions who are suffering and looking to the Government to lift them up and not punch them down. If reliance on charity alone was considered a sufficient guarantee for basic human needs in the UK, previous generations would not have legislated for universal state schooling and a national health service. The current horrific situation demonstrates that we need the same vision and ambition when it comes to food security. It cannot wait a moment longer.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under you, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for bringing this debate to us. I start by paying tribute to the many in my own constituency who are dedicated and devoted to helping those in need in a variety of forms, not least by preparing and delivering food through food banks. I thank them and acknowledge the good work that they do.
In the two minutes I have, I would like to draw attention to the inadequacy of our approach to poverty. This debate is about
“tackling poverty and the cost of food”
and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield on not calling it food poverty. I have written an essay on this, “A Common Sense Model for Poverty”, which highlights the inadequacy of a purely financial measure of poverty. In the context of food, a simple example is that the price of a bag of pasta has risen from 50p to 95p. That is the food premium that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield mentioned. The impact of that price rise is far bigger at the bottom of the affordability scale than at the top.
I will give three very quick observations. First, there are structural problems in our economy because it has accelerated the capacity to produce food through, for example, businesses focusing on adding value through processing to foods to make them more convenient, rather than focusing on nutrition or health. That is the maximising of profit, again at the expense of local food producers, and the supply chain suffers for it. I doubt that farmers who are worried about feed, fuel and fertiliser are seeing the benefits of many of the price rises in our shops. Finally, businesses are concentrating on the markets that can pay, not the local and global markets that need the food themselves. When it comes to health, we are all after a hot, filling and nutritious meal. That is well within our grasp.
I would like to conclude by mentioning the social benefits of food. The most powerful projects that I have seen are about bringing people together around the making and breaking of bread, so our approach needs to change. Market drivers introduce unhelpful factors—
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate. A mark of having brilliant parents—and I had brilliant parents—is that you do not realise that you were brought up in poverty until later, when you look back. One thing I can say about food poverty is that there is something worse than being in poverty and that is to be made to feel guilty about being in poverty. There is something worse than virtue signalling: vice signalling. There is something better than both: actual practical virtue. I praise my food banks and the food share schemes in Westmorland and Lonsdale and elsewhere in Cumbria.
I want to focus my minute and a bit on those who produce our food. I am desperately concerned that what Britain is doing at the moment with its agricultural policy is reducing the amount of food that we produce, which will inevitably increase the cost of that food. The Government’s transition from the common agricultural policy to the environmental land management scheme would actually be one of that rare, rare species—a Brexit benefit—if it was done properly, but it is not being done properly. In my constituency, we have a thousand farms. All of them will lose at least 35% of their basic payment this year. Two per cent. of them have qualified for the new sustainable farming incentive. We need to pause the phase-out of the basic payment scheme, so we can protect our farmers and stop the eradication of our ability to produce food. We need to look again at the perverse incentives in some aspects of ELMS, which give big cheques to very large landowners for clearing off their tenants, which is morally outrageous and will again reduce our ability to produce food. It is a foolish approach to pit nature against farming when they work beautifully together.
If we lose farmers, we lose not only our ability to look after our environment, our natural landscapes and our biodiversity, but our ability to produce food. We need to go on to international markets to buy the food that we do not produce ourselves, which pushes up the costs of food for the poorest people on the planet. Protecting our farmers means producing food for us locally and keeping food prices down domestically and abroad.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this welcome debate, but I do not agree with many of the things he said. He thinks that people who use food banks are abusing them, cannot budget or cook properly, have access to huge amounts of food waste—
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member had plenty of time to speak; I have only two minutes. He has just made provocative statements completely detached from the facts as I have seen them at my local food bank and from visiting so many people in my constituency. In Southfields and in Roehampton with its Community Box, food banks are doing a fantastic job, but no one going to them wants to go there; they want to be able to go to the shops to choose their food and provide for their family.
In Sherwood, the Minister’s constituency, 1,233 emergency three-day food supplies were given out last year, and in my borough of Wandsworth, 10,000 emergency food supplies were given out. There is a reason for the huge increase in the need to go to food banks, and that is that the system is entirely broken after 13 years of the Conservatives breaking that system.
The people I meet who have gone to food banks are the best at budgeting, at working shifts, at making ends meet and at never wasting food. They do not want to visit food banks, but they are a lifeline in emergency times. Instead of blaming people who go to food banks, the hon. Member for Ashfield should have been looking at the two-child benefit cap, the bedroom tax and the frozen local housing allowance. I commend Sadiq Khan for bringing free school meals to London schools—they will make a huge difference.
In London, housing is the main issue, so I lead with some questions on that to the Minister. With the Budget coming up, will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to urge him to use it to end the freeze on the local housing allowance, restoring it so that it covers the cheapest third of rents in an area? With April looming, will the Minister reassure my constituents by ruling out any increase in the Government’s energy price cap from April, but instead pass on recent falls in the gas price to households, so that they will not need to rely on food banks anymore?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I will be as brief as possible. With inflation at a record high, rising again to reach 17.1% in the four weeks to 19 February, one quarter of people say that they are struggling financially, versus one in five this time last year. That is why people are going to food banks. There are social, physical, mental health and economic costs, as food inflation is one of the largest contributing factors to general inflation. Basic foodstuffs such as bread and milk have soared in price. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that more than 17 million households across the UK go without essentials and 13% admit that they have skipped meals. How can we hear such statistics and not be ashamed?
The Trussell Trust reports that food bank use is soaring, as the cost of living in general bites into households. Food bank users tend to be those who are destitute, disabled or in single-parent households. Those on universal credit are not well off, and they often have to contend with the five-week wait for the benefit and being put in the ludicrous position of having to pay back benefit from their universal credit when they receive it. Given that a bank would never give a loan to those on universal credit, I have never understood why the state thinks that such people are able to pay back from the pittance they receive from Government. All that does is drive people further and further into poverty, which drives them further and further from work. Who does that benefit? Our welfare state is simply not doing enough to support people.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who introduced the debate, talked about how he had spoken to and met people in poverty. Perhaps he has noticed that poverty bleeds into every aspect of someone’s life. Material poverty breeds poverty of self-esteem, of world view and world horizon, of ambition, of health and of life outcomes. He has seen these things, I suppose; I have lived these things. He actually said, “I have seen these people.” Well, I was one of them, and I can tell him that they are not living high on the hog, and it is ludicrous to say so.
The hon. Gentleman wants to speak to people who are poor, but they would not come and speak to him. I would gently say to him that it is staggeringly insensitive of an MP, who is on a pretty good wage by anybody’s measures, to think he should be able to lecture those who are living and struggling on universal credit or low pay. I would not take kindly to that; indeed, I do not know many people who would take kindly to being told by somebody who is well off what they were doing wrong as they struggled to survive and feed their family every day.
I am a great fan of the novels of Charles Dickens, and as I was sitting listening to the hon. Gentleman, for all the world he reminded me of Mr Scrooge—without the compassion. Add into these difficulties the economic damage of Brexit and it is not good enough to tell people who are struggling that they need to buck up—that they need to work more shifts, try harder and buy containers to batch cook. It simply is not good enough. It is complacent and staggeringly insensitive, and when the Minister gets to his feet and offers a perhaps more measured approach, I hope he will tell us what more he can do to help families and households who are struggling. I know that he will tell us what has already been done, but he will appreciate that that is not enough when we have children going hungry, families relying on food banks and no end to this pain in sight, because the soaring food inflation is not expected to ease any time soon.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate. I am also grateful, as ever, for briefings from Sustain and the National Farmers’ Union, among others.
The rise in food poverty and the emergence of food banks is one of the most shameful and baleful consequences of 13 years of Conservative Government. In 2010-11, the Trussell Trust was operating 35 food banks; last year, it was 1,400. While we all applaud its work and we are extraordinarily grateful to our local food banks—I pay tribute to the volunteers and supporters in my city of Cambridge—our goal must be to put food banks out of business by ensuring that they are no longer needed. Let us be clear: although there are unwelcome shortages on supermarket shelves, the issue with food poverty is a money problem, not a food problem. There is enough food in our communities, but not everyone has enough money to access it. That is the problem that needs to be resolved. I would like to hear from the Minister just what discussions he has had with colleagues on how they intend to tackle this problem.
We have had some powerful contributions to the debate, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson. We should indeed be angry about how our country has got to this state. It increasingly feels like a country drowning in a worsening cost of living crisis, high inflation, rising food prices and stagnating growth. Up and down the country, too many of our constituents are suffering constant anxiety about how they will make ends meet. We heard this week that energy bills will continue to rise in the coming year, which combined with wages failing to keep up with inflation means that people will be poorer. That means less for essentials, including food.
The figures from the Food Foundation make grim reading. In April 2022, 7.3 million people, including 2.6 million children, were in food poverty across the UK. Data out today, again from the Food Foundation, shows that the number of households where children are experiencing food insecurity has nearly doubled in the past year. In January 2023, 21.6% of households with children reported that their children had directly experienced food insecurity in the past month—an estimated 3.7 million children—compared with 11.6% the previous January.
Another clear indicator that people are suffering food poverty is the rising number of people who are turning to food banks. In 2021-22, the Trussell Trust supplied 2.2 million three-day emergency food parcels to food bank users. It is expected that the next annual figures will show a marked increase. That is a view supported by November’s data from the Trussell Trust, which shows that 1.3 million emergency food parcels had been provided to people in the six months between April and September 2022, a third more than during the same period in 2021.
It just goes on: the latest ONS figures, released just two weeks ago, showed inflation of food and non-alcoholic drink prices—up 16.8% in the year to January 2023. The consequences are severe. In January and February, more than four in 10 adults said they had to spend more than usual in the previous two weeks to get what they normally buy when food shopping. In November and December, about one in seven adults said that in the previous two weeks they had been worried about running out of food before they had money to buy more. That rose to one in four adults with dependent children, and 29% for adults living in the most deprived area in England.
I am afraid that everything is going in the wrong direction and I ask the Minister to reflect on why that is the case. What has gone so wrong over the last 13 years to cause such a surge in food bank use? When does he think we will no longer need food banks—or are they a permanent feature for the Conservatives? There are some practical things the Government could do. Just why did they pull the funding for FareShare after its successful trial to tackle food waste? That scheme helped to cover the extra costs to small-scale farmers, growers and producers of redistributing their good-to-eat waste food rather than letting it go to waste. The trial resulted in 85% more fruit and vegetables reaching frontline charities and community groups. The Government funding ended in 2020 and, despite widespread calls, has not been continued. Why not, and why have the Government been so parsimonious when it comes to the suppliers of school meals, which face endlessly rising costs but have to try to provide nutritious meals with only a few extra pence?
Much more could be said, but I am conscious that this is a short debate. Disgracefully, we now live in a country where food poverty has become endemic. It is a record of which the Conservatives should be ashamed.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate. Given the time restrictions, it will be difficult for me to respond to all the points that have been made, but I will start by recognising the impact that high food prices are having on household budgets.
High food prices are a result of many different factors, including agrifood import prices, domestic agricultural prices, domestic labour and manufacturing costs, the exchange rate for sterling—and not least, of course, Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and the aftershocks of the pandemic, which are having a global impact, with food prices rising at home and abroad. Other countries are experiencing high food price inflation, with 16% being recorded in the euro area in December last year. Rising food prices are a big contributor to the high levels of inflation that people are currently experiencing. However, we have seen a slight fall in the official food price inflation figures for January. We will continue to watch and monitor the situation as food price inflation continues to move around.
Given the impact of high food prices, tackling inflation is the Government’s No. 1 priority. We plan to more than halve inflation this year, and we are monitoring all key agricultural commodities so that we can work with the food industry to address the challenges that it faces. Low-income households are most affected by high food and energy prices, which is why we have provided a package of support to help people with rising food costs. The Government have already committed £37 billion to support households with the current exceptionally high cost of living, £1 billion of which has gone towards help with the cost of household essentials.
Looking forward to April, the Government will uprate benefit rates and the state pension by 10.1%. The benefit cap levels will increase by the same amount in order to increase the number of households that can benefit from these uprating decisions. In addition, for 2023-24, households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to £900 in cost of living payments, which will be split in three payments of about £300 across the 2023-24 financial year. A separate £300 payment will be made to pensioner households on top of their winter fuel payment, and individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefit will receive a £150 payment.
In order to better understand who is currently experiencing food poverty, we introduced a set of questions into the family resources survey to measure and track food bank use from April 2021. The first results of those questions are due to be published very soon, subject to the usual quality assurances.
The Government spend around £1 billion annually on free school meals, and protections are in place to ensure that eligible pupils keep their free school meal entitlement even if their household circumstances change. The end date for that has now been extended to March 2025. The latest figures from the Department for Education show that around 1.9 million pupils are claiming free schools meals, which equates to 22.5% of all pupils, up from 20.8% in 2021.
Daniel Zeichner
Will the Minister address the pressures on school meal providers, which have faced hugely increased costs and have had little extra help to provide nutritious food?
Mark Spencer
Of course, we recognise that there are cost pressures throughout the whole food supply chain. That is why the Government are offering huge amounts of support to households to try to cope with that. However, we acknowledge that there are challenges—not just in schools but in the Prison Service, the NHS and many Government Departments. That is why we need to address inflation, which is one of the Government’s highest priorities.
We continue to work with food retailers and producers to explore a range of measures that they can take to ensure the availability and affordability of food. It would be remiss of me not to mention the recent issues that we have experienced with the supply of certain fruit and vegetables to supermarkets in the UK. We are continuing to engage with industry throughout this period, and I hosted a roundtable with retailers this week to explore with them their contractual models, plans to return to normal supplies and contingencies for dealing with supply-chain challenges. I have also asked them to look again at how they work with our farmers and how they buy fruit and vegetables so that they can further prepare for these unexpected incidents. In the meantime, I reassure hon. Members that the UK has a highly resilient food supply chain, which was demonstrated during the covid-19 response. It is well equipped to deal with situations with a potential to cause disruption.
I want to address the comments made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). He tried to divide the House this evening on the statutory instrument that provides funding for ELMS. That is a real disappointment and a misunderstanding of the challenges that we face. In effect, he tried to keep English farmers tied to the EU’s bureaucratic and tiresome common agricultural policy by trying to shout down that legislation.
Mark Spencer
I will give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman made a point about wealthy people. Under the CAP, 50% of the budget went to 10% of landowners, and it did little to support food production or environmental improvements. With the new schemes, we are trying to ensure that nature works hand in hand with those who produce food.
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will know that all parties here are united in our support for the principles of ELMS, and we think that moving to public money for public goods is the right thing. I said on the record just a few moments ago that the CAP was one of the worst aspects of the European Union, and it is one of the few reasons to celebrate not being in it. The key thing is that the Minister’s party and the Government supported, proposed and promised £2.4 billion of ringfenced farm support. I am sure that he will confirm that that money is not being spent at the moment, because the basic payment scheme has been withdrawn and the new schemes are being taken up by a fraction of those to whom they should be available. That means he has broken that promise to farmers.
Mark Spencer
No, I absolutely stand by that commitment. We will spend £2.4 billion of taxpayers’ money every year in this Parliament. If we fall short and spend only £2.3 billion this year, we will roll that forward and spend £2.5 billion next year. In rolling out those schemes, farmers clearly needed time to adjust, have a look at those new schemes and ensure that they could bid and understand the process that is taking place. It has taken a while to get those schemes right, but we worked with farmers to ensure that they were right. We have now rolled them out, and there are huge numbers of farmers bidding for capital grants on slurry and equipment, to enter into sustainable farming incentive agreements and get involved with countryside stewardship. That is the right thing to do and the right way to go forward.
I am conscious of time, Mr Dowd, because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield time to respond. I thank him for introducing this debate. The Government have a shared ambition to ensure that our food system delivers healthy and affordable food for everyone. I thank him and other colleagues for engaging in this debate.
Lee Anderson
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond. I will be very brief. I am little disappointed with some of the divisive comments from the Opposition. I don’t do divisive politics. I like to debate sensibly. It was interesting that I accepted every single intervention, but the Opposition would not accept one. That is what debates should be all about—accepting interventions.
Some of the divisive language was awful. I did not say that “everybody” was abusing the food bank system or that “everybody” who uses a food bank cannot cook or budget—I said, “some people”. We should be very careful with tone and delivery because of tomorrow’s headlines in the papers. It leads to hatred, nastiness and threats. All I am going to say is that the Opposition need to be very careful with the way they speak in this place, because it does lead to some horrible and divisive behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling poverty and the cost of food.
Written Statements
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nuclear Decommissioning and Radioactive Substances Consultation
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The UK Government and devolved Administrations are today publishing for consultation proposals to update policies on nuclear decommissioning and the management of radioactive substances, including radioactive waste.
We use radioactive substances in many different products and processes: to treat and diagnose serious illnesses, to deliver research and development, and in industrial processes. In some parts of the UK nuclear power continues to provide low-carbon electricity to our homes and businesses. Nuclear power will continue to be an important source of low-carbon electricity as we work towards reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Most uses of radioactive material generate radioactive waste, which needs to be managed. The waste can occur as gases, liquids or solids. Radioactive substances policy covers the management and use of radioactive materials and how any subsequent wastes and legacies are then managed to ensure that people and the environment are not exposed to unacceptable risks.
The last overarching policy document on the management of radioactive waste, Command Paper 2919, “Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions”, was published in 1995. Since then, the regulatory and policy landscape has changed significantly, not least with the advent of devolution and the creation of new regulatory bodies and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Some parts of the Command Paper have been updated and replaced with new policy documents. Furthermore, new policies have been developed that did not originally feature in Command Paper 2919.
The UK Government and devolved Administrations consider it time to replace Command Paper 2919 and the separate policy documents that have superseded some parts of it with a consolidated UK-wide policy framework. In doing so, we aim to set out clearly those policies that are pursued jointly by the UK Government and devolved Administrations and any separate policies that apply in any one nation.
The proposals update, clarify and consolidate a number of policies into a UK-wide policy framework and facilitate speedier and more cost-effective decommissioning and radioactive waste management. They aim to create clearer and more consistent policy objectives across the UK, to reduce unnecessary burdens and to unlock more innovative and sustainable ways of working, realising significant savings for industry and the taxpayer whilst maintaining high standards of safety, security and environmental protection.
The consultation is in two parts. Part I sets out policies that we are proposing to amend. The proposals are aimed primarily at driving improvements in nuclear decommissioning and managing radioactive waste. Part II is a draft of the proposed UK-wide policy framework as it would appear if the policy changes being consulted on in part I were implemented.
I am placing copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS589]
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commodity Derivatives and Emission Allowances) Order 2023:
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Many of the rules that govern the buying, selling and organised trading of commodity derivatives and emission allowances are set out in the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR). MiFIR is one of two pieces of ELI derived legislation—the other being the second Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) —which together underpin what is referred to as the MiFID II framework. As part of the onshoring process, the MiFID II framework was amended to address deficiencies arising as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the end of the transition period.
The UK played a significant role in designing the MiFID II framework, and the Government believe that the resilience and effectiveness of the UK’s capital markets have been significantly strengthened by the post-crisis reforms that they implemented. Although the regime is working well in many areas, the EU approach to regulation—where the same rules apply across member states to facilitate a single market in financial services—means that many of the MiFID II framework requirements were not designed specifically for UK markets. In other areas, it is clear that the framework has not delivered its intended benefits, has led to duplication and excessive administrative burdens for firms, or has stifled innovation.
Following the UK’s exit from the EU, in July 2021, the Government launched the wholesale markets review (WMR) consultation with the aim of creating a simpler and less prescriptive regime that meets the needs of UK markets while maintaining high regulatory standards. As part of this, the Government consulted on changes to streamline the process for determining when a firm trading commodity derivatives or emission allowances needs to be authorised as an investment firm. These were welcomed by industry and the Government committed to take them forward when they responded to the consultation in March 2022. The Chancellor also committed to streamline the process for determining when firms who trade commodities as an ancillary activity need to be authorised as an investment firm, as part of the Edinburgh reforms that were announced on 9 December 2022.
This order delivers on that commitment. It will simplify the process for firms while resulting in the same regulatory outcome. The FCA will put in place a simpler and therefore lower cost regime for determining when a firm that trades commodities or emission allowances as an ancillary activity does not need to be authorised as an investment firm.
As required under the enhanced scrutiny procedure set out in schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the draft order and explanatory memorandum will be published online for a period of at least 28 days before the instrument is formally laid in Parliament for affirmative debate. This is required under paragraph 14 of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations 2017 which are being amended were originally made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. To read the full draft statutory instrument and explanatory memorandum, please visit:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-si-for-firms-who-trade-commodities-or-emission-allowances-as-an-ancillary-activity
[HCWS591]
Actions to Improve Police Standards and Culture
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Recent reports from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services (HMICFRS) and significant high-profile incidents of police criminality and misconduct, such as the horrific crimes of David Carrick, have rightly raised concerns regarding police standards and culture.
In January, the Home Secretary announced a series of actions being undertaken by the Home Office and the police to ensure that police vetting is fit for purpose, that officers who fall short of the standards expected of them are identified and dealt with appropriately, and that concerns around policing cultures are being addressed to rebuild public confidence.
On Monday 27 February I convened a roundtable with senior leaders from across the policing sector to review progress on these commitments and to ensure that activity is being co-ordinated to drive up police standards and improve culture.
In relation to police vetting, the Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s inspectorate of fire and rescue services to undertake a rapid review of progress being made against the 43 recommendations in their 2 November 2022 assessment of police vetting and counter-corruption capability. The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) are co-ordinating the forces’ responses to the inspectorate’s report and, at the roundtable, reported significant progress in implementing a suite of changes to ensure that police vetting is more robust and consistent. HMICFRS will publish its rapid review in April.
In addition, the Home Secretary asked the College of Policing to refresh its statutory vetting code of practice to strengthen legal obligations on Chief Officers and provide clarity to forces across England and Wales. The college has published the revised statutory code yesterday for a three-week public consultation (available on the College of Policing’s website). Following consideration of that feedback and Home Secretary approval, the revised code will be in force by the summer. I also welcome the work being undertaken by the College of Policing to overhaul the police code of ethics which is expected to be published for public consultation next month.
Across police forces, significant activity is underway to identify individuals who fall short of the high standards the public expect of them and to deal with those individuals appropriately. This includes the work being co-ordinated by the NPCC, under the leadership of Chief Constable Serena Kennedy, to check all police officers and staff against the police national database (PND) to ensure that no actionable intelligence in relation to potential police misconduct or criminality has been missed.
As of this date, all force HR records have been prepared for the data wash which will conclude by the end of March, cross-checking over 326,000 officers and staff against relevant PND records. Forces will then interrogate this data and take action to investigate where necessary.
Where officers are found to have potentially breached standards of professional behaviour, it is of vital importance that those who are not fit to serve the public are swiftly dismissed. On 18 January, the Home Office launched a review of the effectiveness of the police dismissal process to determine how improvements can be made. The call for evidence has now ended and the Home Office have received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. These will now be analysed, with the output from a new data collection, to inform proposals for change. This work will be complete by the end of April and the Government are committed to implementing reforms, including via legislation, as soon as practicable thereafter.
Alongside this, it is essential for public confidence in policing that we have an effective independent process for investigating the most serious complaints about the police. That is why I am announcing today the start of an independent review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) led by Dr. Gillian Fairfield (Chair of the Disclosure and Barring Service), whom the Home Secretary has charged with considering the IOPC’s effectiveness, efficiency, governance and accountability. The review’s remit is tightly defined to avoid infringing upon or impacting ongoing investigations, which are rightly independent from Government, the police and complainants. A summary of the review’s terms of reference will be published on gov.uk and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Dr Fairfield has been asked to submit her final report and recommendations for internal review in autumn 2023. I shall inform the House of the outcome of the review at its conclusion and a summary of its key findings will subsequently be published.
As well as driving up standards in police vetting and dealing with misconduct, the Home Secretary has been clear that policing needs to address the root causes of poor, and in some cases toxic, cultures. This will be a key focus of part 2 of the independent Angiolini inquiry that was established in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard to understand how a serving police officer was able to carry out such a horrendous crime. Part 2, which will look at broader issues for policing, will start later this spring, following a public consultation on the terms of reference that ended last week. The Inquiry will also look at the appalling case of David Carrick, in terms of reference published on 7 February 2023.
The Government and our policing partners are determined to deliver on these commitments to help rebuild confidence and trust in policing. This is what the public expect and the decent, hardworking majority of officers deserve. I will update the National Policing Board, chaired by the Home Secretary, on 8 March on progress and provide the House with updates in due course.
[HCWS590]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which I am advised is likely, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Wednesday 1st March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-VI(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (1 Mar 2023)
Lord Bridges of Headley
“Office for Financial Regulatory AccountabilityCreation of an Office for Financial Regulatory Accountability
(1) The Treasury must, as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations make provision to create a body corporate called the Office for Financial Regulatory Accountability.(2) It is the duty of the Office to examine and report on the performance of the FCA and the PRA.(3) The Office must perform its duty objectively, transparently and impartially.(4) The functions of the Office are to be exercised on behalf of the Crown.(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Treasury to create an Office for Financial Regulatory Accountability, with duties to provide independent and impartial analysis to Parliament and the public of the financial regulators’ performance against their statutory objectives and regulatory principles.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I once again declare my interest as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander. It gives me great pleasure to open today’s proceedings. After several days of debate on this Bill, I get a sense that there is widespread agreement from all sides of the Committee on one point: the measures in this Bill to improve accountability and scrutiny are insufficient and must be strengthened. While the regulators are getting more powers, there is no commensurate increase in their scrutiny and accountability. That comes at a time when many of us were already concerned that that level of scrutiny is too low and the accountability too weak. The breadth of that concern is shown by the fact that there is cross-party support for this amendment. I thank those who put their names to it.
That said, as I have said before, in addressing our concerns we need to proceed with some care. We must get the balance right between accountability and independence and we need to avoid new forms of accountability and scrutiny, politicising the regulatory system and thereby creating uncertainty. With those caveats in mind, we need to do three things, all of which require amendments to this Bill. We need to improve the reporting by the regulators; improve parliamentary scrutiny; and—this is the purpose of these amendments, Amendments 160 to 166, to which I have put my name—improve the quality of scrutiny and accountability by providing independent and impartial assessment and analysis of two things.
First, we need an assessment of the FCA’s and PRA’s overall performance in meeting their statutory objectives and regulatory principles under FSMA 2000. Secondly, we need to provide analysis of the impact assessments for specific pieces of financial regulation so as to determine how those regulations are contributing to meeting the regulators’ objectives, also under FSMA 2000. That can be achieved, as the amendments set out, by creating an office for financial regulatory accountability, a specialist, independent, statutory advisory body, which would work to a charter set by the Government and laid before Parliament. To be clear, this is not a new concept. It has been proposed in various guises by others—and here I am thinking particularly of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, as well as the International Regulatory Strategy Group in the City of London and the London Market Group, with which I have worked on this proposal. While I accept full responsibility for any flaws in these amendments, I cannot take credit for the idea.
I shall not waste your Lordships’ time in giving a line-by-line description of each amendment, from Amendment 160 to Amendment 166, which set out the body’s role, its powers and duties and its membership and financing. I think, or rather I hope, that they all speak for themselves—and for that I am thankful for the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which set out precisely how these kinds of bodies should be set up and whose approach these amendments follow.
I am sure that the amendments could be improved and I would be delighted to discuss with any of your Lordships, on any side of the Committee—in particular, my noble friend the Minister—how we might do so. Rather than regurgitate what the amendments say, instead I shall address questions that may be in the minds of those who may be wary or sceptical of the need for this body.
First, is it not going to duplicate the work of the Treasury Select Committee? No, it will not. As we all know, parliamentary committees are there to hold regulators to account, not to provide the rigorous analysis needed to do so—nor do they have the capacity to do so, as we have discussed previously. Furthermore, few question whether the OBR duplicates the work of parliamentary committees; it provides analysis for Parliament and everyone else to use. The same applies here.
Secondly, will not this body duplicate the work of the cost-benefit analysis panels that the FCA and PRA will now be required to set up? No, it will draw on their work and analyse and interrogate it, but it will also take a wider view. Perhaps more important, this new body will be utterly independent of the regulators, not a body created by them—nor, for that matter, will it duplicate the work of the Regulatory Policy Committee, whose focus is on government departments.
Thirdly, what about cost: can we afford to set up this body? Of course, setting up a new body will carry cost, but I argue that this will be outweighed by its benefit. Let us not forget the enormous contribution that financial services make to our national coffers. They demand, if not deserve, special attention to ensure their regulation meets the objectives that Parliament has set.
Fourthly, will not this simply be a regulator of the regulator? No, as I have said, its role and purpose is one of analysis, to improve and inform scrutiny by and accountability to Parliament and others, period.
Finally, and most important, will this new body undermine the regulators’ independence? I argue—this is crucial—that it will do the reverse. If we have a source of independent analysis of their actions, we can have a debate about that based on fact. It should therefore strengthen the legitimacy of regulators which are fulfilling their objectives and acting in a proportionate and timely manner.
I cannot see any real objection to the overall concept. As I said, I am sure that the amendment can be improved and I look forward to hearing from others how that might be done. Given the wide support that it has, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will give it a supportive reply. Many of us want to avoid unnecessary confrontation with the Government on Report, not just on this point but on all the other proposals we have debated that would strengthen accountability and I stand ready to work with her and others to turn this idea into reality. I beg to move.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I am surprised that nobody else is rising to support this; I was hoping that everyone would. I certainly agree with just about everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, but then again I agreed with just about everything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others said on 20 February, about all this. We are all agreed because we can all see the same problem. As has been suggested, the Bill confers huge new powers on the regulators, repatriated from the EU, without making any meaningful suggestions to make them more accountable when they exercise those powers. I will support any and all amendments that improve scrutiny and accountability until and unless the Government come forward with a meaningful proposal of their own. I will come to how they might go about that in a moment.
Our first job as a Committee must be to make sure that the Government grasp that we just cannot carry on as we are. I am not sure that Ministers and, in particular, the Treasury have fully grasped how inadequate the existing structure of accountability is. There are four major bodies that should be contributing and all of them, in their various ways, will be defective. There is the NAO, but we cannot rely on VFM studies alone; the Treasury is frequently conflicted in its relationship with both the regulators; nor can we rely on the boards of those bodies. In principle, there should be some rigorous internal challenge—and that achieves a lot in some regulators—but in practice the boards are all too easily captured by the senior executives and there is a massive problem of asymmetric information.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, parliamentary Select Committees should be on the case, and frequently they are, but on the current resources available to them it is simply not reasonable to expect them fully to plug the gap, particularly given their range of other responsibilities —at least not in enough detail on a sustained basis to make the difference that I think most of the Committee thinks is necessary.
The clearest evidence that something needs to be done is the performance of the regulators themselves. Among the many criticisms of the financial regulators have been neglect of some of their objectives and duties, a box-ticking culture, excessive and unnecessary regulation stifling innovation—the “confetti before quality” problem—and inadequate ex post scrutiny of existing rules, without which a steady one-way ratchet develops right across the regulatory piece. A slow and legalistic approach is also a frequent complaint.
In defence of the financial regulators, for the most part they are in much better shape since the crash. That shook them to the core—indeed, one of them was split. Both the Bank and the FCA provide much better explanations for their actions and decisions than prior to the crash. No doubt some of the criticisms have been levelled unfairly, but not all of them.
In any case, we are not in a steady state. With new powers conferred by the Bill will come more of what has come to be known as the restless regulator syndrome. As the regulators identify new problems—real, imaginary or media fuelled—the risk must be of further inadequately considered additions to the rulebook. If the Government can be brought to agree that something needs to be done, one or more of at least three routes to forcing greater accountability are available.
First of all, and in principle the most attractive route for the Government, could be to try to pre-empt pressure from Parliament by creating their own much more rigorous scrutiny team at the heart of Whitehall, probably in the Cabinet Office. A body such as that could do some good work, but I am not convinced that it could fend off the vested interests that all too easily cluster around the sponsor departments at the moment and will no doubt cluster around such a group in the Cabinet Office over time.
A second approach has been set up by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, today. It is the statutory independence of the body he proposes that makes it particularly attractive. Like the OBR, on which I think it is modelled, it has a reasonable chance of fending off those lobby groups. Therefore, I will certainly support his proposal if it is put to a vote.
But by far the most straightforward approach would be for Parliament to plug the accountability gap directly, as colleagues from all sides of the Committee have suggested, by creating its own specialist scrutiny committee. To be effective, a new committee would need support from a small group of specialists in financial regulation, much as the PAC is supported by audit specialists from the NAO, now a much larger group. This body would need only a small group, but it cannot hope to rely on the kind of very ad hoc tiny group, without institutional memory across Parliaments after elections, that Select Committees rely on at the moment.
Furthermore, in my view the committee—the Joint Committee, if some want that—would need to empower the specialists in a number of ways. Among the tools that should be considered are powers to see all people and papers, the authority to embed experienced and specialist staff into the Bank or the FCA where a particular concern has been identified, and the power to attend key decision-making committees to check out the quality of governance in regulators. In theory, all Select Committees have those powers already, but in practice, for various reasons, few use them fully. Those powers were all deployed to good effect by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards without being disruptive to the work of regulators.
My main concern about this whole issue is that the Government will now listen carefully to what we have all said and murmur friendly noises but do nothing. The Minister told the Committee on 20 February that
“it is not for the Government to impose”—[Official Report, 20/2/23; col. GC 394.]
a scrutiny tool on Parliament. I understand where she is coming from but, as she well knows, that is not a strong line. If the Government come forward with a worked-up proposal for a new committee with adequate staff support—that is essential—and commit to supporting a change to Standing Orders to implement that reform, it will happen. If they did so, I for one would reconsider my support for statutory reform of scrutiny, and I think many others would too.
I think the Minister is listening—she certainly is now. I hope that her department and a couple of Treasury Ministers in the Commons listen to her and that she will tell us in a moment that she has been listening carefully and agrees to this amendment or to the lion’s share of what was said on 20 February.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 160, the principal amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, to show that there is support for him all round the Committee and to show the Government, too, that at some point the House of Lords is going to make its views known when it comes to voting on the Bill. It would be good to see the Government acknowledge that they are going to have to do something to strengthen the accountability of these arrangements.
My principal concern is about the integrity of Parliament and the more general issue of the accountability of so many of the regulators, public bodies and quangos that we have established, because I see them as an extension of the Executive, in many ways. They do functions which traditionally the Executive may themselves have done. We are talking about financial markets but a recent example of extraordinary behaviour is that of the Arts Council, in its perverse decision to try to destroy opera in this country by the abolition of English National Opera and the withdrawal of a huge grant from Welsh National Opera for touring, when the Arts Council’s mission is ostensibly that it is supposed to be encouraging the touring of such companies.
The Arts Council apparently did that because the then Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, said that she wanted more money to go out into the regions for levelling up. That was translated into the destruction of a centre of excellence which had been very committed to inclusivity. At that point, she denied that she had ever wanted ENO to do that, but the Arts Council remains unaccountable to Parliament for that action and Ministers say, “It is nothing to do with us”. We are left in a quagmire as to how to know, in the end, who was accountable for what seems, on the face of it, a crass decision.
My main experience is not in financial services but in the health service, which is awash with regulators, public bodies and quangos. I will name just three: NICE, NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. They have huge influence and power over the affairs of the National Health Service but it is very difficult to say that they are accountable to Parliament at all. If we seek to ask questions about their performance in questions or debates, or meetings with Ministers, we will be told, “That’s nothing to do with Ministers”.
When it comes to financial services, I am therefore at one with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. It is surely in the interests of the United Kingdom, in any case, that our regulatory arrangements be seen to be of the first order. I agree with him when he talked about the balance. We want the regulators to be seen to be independent, and robustly so, because that adds to their credibility. We clearly want to avoid politicisation, because that would undermine the esteem in which they would be held nationally and internationally. However, we want them to be subject to not just proper scrutiny but accountability. So far, we have heard nothing from the Government to suggest that they understand that, or why the current arrangements will not be sufficient.
As the noble Lord said, this proposal will not duplicate the Treasury Select Committee. His point about the OBR was important, because the OBR has fulfilled an important function, but I do not think anyone has suggested that it has undermined the working of Parliament or any of its Select Committees; indeed, it has enhanced what they can do. I think he was making that point when he said that his amendments will not undermine the regulators’ independence. In many ways, I think they would enhance them. This is not going to cost much money compared to the benefit it would bring and, as he also said, it will not duplicate the work of the FCA and PRA.
There is an overwhelming case for supporting this measure, alongside the previous debate about the need for a much strengthened Select Committee to carry out work inside Parliament, as the noble Lord suggested. I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he has said.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which in my judgment is absolutely vital. On 8 February, I listened to the chairman of the City of London Corporation’s policy and resources committee; I will quote a couple of points that he made on that evening. He said:
“Faced with increasing global competition”
the UK needs
“a long-term sense of direction, a programme for government, regulators, and industry to act and sustain our global powerhouse status. As a country we need a renewed focus, to adjust our compass, to be the destination that incentivises investment, thrives with talent, and commands the competition. And we need ambition and focus to achieve these goals.”
He finished by saying that we need “the courage to change” in three areas. I will quote two, which are relevant to this amendment:
“Firstly, we need to reduce frictions. That means strengthening UK policy and regulation with an effective and coherent sustainable finance framework. Secondly, we need to nurture innovation. More creativity in the market will inspire better products, which will help attract capital, firms, and customers.”
The City wants confidence in scrutiny and the supervision of the regulator. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of the feelings of the City. I am sure that it would be more than happy to communicate directly with my noble friend and put some flesh on the summary that I have given.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I, too, have added my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The noble Lord explained in detail the need for the amendments far better than I can, so I will be brief. I support the noble Lord’s every word but, rather than repeating what has been said, I will comment specifically on how this would complement rather than replace the parliamentary scrutiny that is also required.
We have had a lot of discussion so far in Committee about the need for strengthened parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of the performance of the regulators, with an extraordinary level of agreement on all sides— I hope that the Minister listened to that. I strongly supported the idea of creating a bicameral committee specifically for that purpose, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Having an independent office for financial regulatory accountability would greatly assist such a committee in carrying out its work. We heard on a previous day in Committee from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who is probably the expert in such matters, and from others about the enormous volume of work that scrutiny of the financial regulators will involve. That is one reason why we need a parliamentary committee focused solely on this subject. Having available independently prepared and, importantly, non-political analysis of both the performance of the regulators and the regulations themselves would make the work of the parliamentary scrutiny committee, or committees, that much more effective, enabling the focus to be on areas where shortcomings were identified, rather than wading through unmanageable volumes of information trying to find those areas.
I therefore make the point that the Minister should not be tempted to see these amendments as an alternative to the enhancements to parliamentary scrutiny that we have already discussed. Rather, she should understand that they are an important element within the three legs required for effective scrutiny and accountability, which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has previously explained as being reporting, independent analysis and parliamentary accountability. All three aspects should be embraced. These amendments cover the second, but please do not think that they would replace the others.
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly but strongly in support of this amendment and, in doing so, state my interest as the lead NED at the Treasury and as an adviser to a number of global and European financial businesses.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, because he made the point that I wanted to start with: we must not think of this as an alternative to parliamentary scrutiny. We all agree that we need much more thorough parliamentary scrutiny; this amendment would help Parliament to do its job. The point that the scrutiny is to be fact-based and analytical is key.
The proposal for the overall framework of scrutiny has an OFRA-sized hole, which this amendment would fill. It is rare to find an amendment where you cannot detect anyone who is going to lose from it, but I can see only an upside for all groups with this amendment. It would be good for the regulators, as we have heard, because it has the potential to detoxify the political debate. It would be good for the Government because it would provide a more stable, long-lasting framework. We need to get this right now because I do not know when next a Bill will come along that will enable us to look at this framework. We have been waiting for a long time, since 2016, so we need to get something that is stable and going to endure. As we have argued, it would be good for Parliament because it would aid its task of scrutiny and it would be good for the financial services sector, which is our most important contributor to tax revenue, because it would provide an analytical basis in which it could have confidence and trust. My noble friend Lord Bridges has presented the Minister with a gift horse and I very much hope that she will not look it in the mouth.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests, including chairmanship of PIMFA, which represents financial advisers, and at Sancroft we advise a number of financial institutions on sustainability.
I merely want to say that one of the groups of people who will benefit considerably from this are those who are regulated. The fact is that we need to recover confidence in the regulator in two particular areas. The first is what I call the conflicts between regulators, for which there is really no way of unpicking them so that they can work more effectively. That is particularly true among many of the people with whom I deal almost every day.
The second reason why this is so important is that I do not believe that anyone should be unaccountable if they have a public position. I very much agree with the noble Lord opposite who talked about the terrible opera story. I just do not think regulators can do their job properly unless they look over their shoulder to the public as a whole, which is what we are talking about in this bit regarding accountability. As a Minister for 16 years, I know that one’s accountability to Parliament and the public was an essential part of doing the job properly. One had to say to one’s civil servants, “Look, we can’t do that because it really would make people feel that we were behaving in a way that was unacceptable to Parliament or to the public.”
That is the problem for the boards of these regulators, which seems to me to be one of the issues. As my noble friend Lord Bridges suggested, some say that the boards should deal with it. That is not possible unless a board is itself accountable to the public and, in that sense, to Parliament. I do not believe that you can expect the boards to do their job of saying to the regulator, “Look, I’m sorry, you really can’t do that”, or indeed, “You can and should do this”. I am not suggesting that it should always be “Don’t do it”; sometimes it should be “Do it”. Later on, for example, we will discuss the issue that in the City of London the regulator does not insist that a competent person says not only whether, for example, there are gas deposits but whether under the law of Britain those gas deposits will be able to be used, which is just as important. At the moment the regulator does not do that and there is no way of insisting that it should. I therefore strongly support what my noble friend Lord Bridges has said.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is absolutely inspired. We had a debate earlier about the merits of parliamentary committees, and it was questioned whether they would have sufficient resource to do the work. I am very taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, had to say. At the risk of embarrassing him, he was a very distinguished member of the Treasury Select Committee and did some fantastic work there. He comes from a background in the Civil Service and has experience inside government. Therefore, we should take very seriously what he had to say about the merits of this proposal.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, until the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, led me to it, I had not realised the similarity between the Arts Council and the financial regulators in the City of London—but he is absolutely right. Both are manifestations of that growing and alarming phenomenon, the administrative state. These are bodies that set their own rules, mark their own homework, are largely unaccountable, often wayward and certainly unpredictable. The one weakness of this Bill, which in other respects is good, is that it creates even more freedom and power for the regulators to operate without accountability or predictability.
There are two ways in which to deal with this problem, which are compatible and probably both necessary. One is that to which the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, make a major contribution: bringing parliamentary accountability to bear. His amendments effectively arm Parliament to carry out that accountability. The other is to try to constrain the behaviour of the regulators within the disciplines of the common law, which is what my amendments here and elsewhere seek to do. I speak particularly to Amendments 169, 171, 173, 174 and 200. The changes in those amendments deal with the Upper Tribunal and the regulators; I shall go on to those which deal with the Financial Ombudsman Service.
At present, firms can take a challenge to a regulator’s decision to the Upper Tribunal. If a challenge is about a regulator’s enforcement decision, the UT decides the matter again on its merits. If the challenge is about a supervisory decision, the UT effectively carries out a judicial review. It may hear fresh evidence, but it merely decides whether or not the regulator’s decision was reasonable and, if it was unreasonable, refers it back to the regulator to take the decision afresh. These amendments would not change that role but, I hope, would constrain the way in which it was carried out.
Amendment 169 would simply give the Upper Tribunal the obligation to give consideration to the predictability and consistency in any case before it and to comply with those objectives when deciding a fresh enforcement decision, and it would empower the Upper Tribunal when making findings on a supervisory decision to help the regulator meet the predictability and consistency objective when reconsidering a case. It would also require the regulator to prove in each case that it had acted predictably and consistently on any issue referred to the Upper Tribunal.
Amendment 169 would also give firms that believed they had acted in good faith within what they knew of the meaning of the regulations laid down by the regulator the right to apply to the Upper Tribunal, if they were found to be in conflict with the regulator, within three days for a declaration of reasonableness. If the Upper Tribunal granted a declaration of reasonableness, the FCA or PRA could not pursue enforcement action against the firm.
There are comparatively few references to the Upper Tribunal. If the Upper Tribunal and the regulators achieve greater predictability and consistency, there are likely to be fewer still in future, which is a good thing. Moreover, those that do take place will themselves create case law, making the meaning of the regulations clearer and more predictable. However, because the volume of cases will be small, the amount of case law that will arise at the level of the Upper Tribunal will be small.
By contrast, a huge number of customers—SMEs and individuals—claim losses that they attribute to breaches of regulatory rules by firms providing financial services, and they do so to the Financial Ombudsman Service. In the most recent quarter, over 43,000 complaints were made to the FOS. At present, consumers, largely small businesses, can take a complaint free of charge to the ombudsman, which can decide whether a financial services company has treated them fairly and reasonably and require the finance company to pay compensation. The costs of the ombudsman service, whose budget for 2023-24 is £240 million, are met by a compulsory levy and some fees payable by financial institutions.
The advantages of this arrangement to the consumer are that there is no fee, there is no risk of having to pay the finance company’s costs if the complaint is not upheld, and the process is generally faster than a court case would be. However, there are disadvantages too: the Financial Ombudsman Service has the power to decide what is fair and reasonable without any obligation to be predictable and consistent before or afterwards, or to explain its reasoning, and it is
“free to make an award different from that which a court applying the law would make”.
Financial institutions that object to the ombudsman’s ruling can in theory appeal to the Upper Tribunal or seek judicial review, but if they did so they would have to prove that the Financial Ombudsman Service’s decision was so unfair or unreasonable that no right-minded person would ever have made a similar decision, so they stand little chance of success and few cases have been brought.
The ensemble of my amendments would respond to those weaknesses in a number of ways. First, earlier amendments would introduce the explicit objective of predictability and consistency, and any challenges to the regulators on those grounds would primarily be considered by the Upper Tribunal. The other amendments in this group would ensure that the internal review bodies within the FCA and PRA that consider enforcement decisions before they are finalised, known as the RDC and the EMDC, were fully independent, and would require them to apply similar tests. That should ensure that most cases would not need to be taken to the Upper Tribunal since concerns would have been addressed before the regulator made a final decision.
Secondly, the amendments would change the role of the ombudsman system into an adjudication system, and that is perhaps the most important element of this group. Instead of being empowered to reach decisions simply on its own subjective view of what was fair and reasonable, the financial adjudication service would be tasked with adjudicating on the basis of the law, including case law as it built up. That is modelled on the adjudication system in the scheme for the construction industry in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The idea of transferring the lessons there to the financial sector was suggested by Lord Dyson, a former Supreme Court Justice and Master of the Rolls, in a report by the APPG on Fair Business Banking in 2018, which also recommended the formation of the First-tier Tribunal. The adjudication system would remain free to consumer complainants, who would still have the benefits of the obligations on financial businesses to treat them fairly as in the FCA rules and legislation, such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of two investment companies, as stated in the register.
I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Bridges and his supporters on their most interesting proposal to set up an independent office for financial regulatory accountability. The Bill as drafted does not secure sufficient change in the way the regulators carry out their duties and the speed with which they will work to simplify and improve the rulebook. In particular, I welcome the provision in Amendment 162’s proposed new subsection (2): that the office “must prioritise” analysis of regulations that reduce competition, negatively affect competitiveness and add compliance costs. In other words, the office will be bound to identify regulations such as the myriad anti-competitive and cumbersome regulations adopted by the ESAs in recent years.
I support my noble friend’s amendment and believe it would augment but not replace the work of an FSRC, such as my noble friend Lady Noakes and I proposed in Amendment 86. As such, it would mitigate further the regulators’ lack of accountability to government following the transfer of significant rule-making powers. This is most likely to be a good thing, although alone it does not do enough to improve the deficit in accountability to Parliament.
I would like my noble friend Lord Bridges to tell the Committee whether he envisages the office working alongside a Joint Committee such as the FSRC and whether he would consider amending his Amendment 165 to replace the Treasury Committee of another place with a suitable Joint Committee. I agree entirely with what the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Vaux, said about the need for a new Joint Committee.
Along with my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lord Roborough, I have put my name to Amendments 169 to 174, so eloquently proposed by my noble friend Lord Lilley. In common with my noble friend, I am not a lawyer; I am a banker. I was proud to work in the City of London when I joined Kleinwort Benson as a management trainee in 1973 because, by and large, the City was an honest place and its leading firms were well regarded. We knew the importance of the old maxim, “My word is my bond.” The banks did not maintain vast compliance and legal departments. During my banking career, I have seen the relative size of these departments increase massively as a proportion of total staff. This itself has had a negative effect on the culture of our leading firms, reducing the emphasis on innovation and business development and increasing the number and influence of those employed in compliance and legal, and of the interlocutors with the regulators.
We believed that Brexit would enable us to return to our simpler, less cumbersome, common law-based regulatory system. These proposals will enable this and encourage agility and precision in the drafting of rules. The regulators operated in this way after the Financial Services and Markets Act 1986, and this is how the FSA was empowered to act under FSMA 2000. But by then, the EU acquis on financial services was beginning its period of rapid expansion, so most of the rules since then have actually been made at statutory level by the EU. FSMA 2000 already accepts that judicial review is an inadequate safeguard against unduly harsh decisions by the regulators, and it gives the final say on enforcement decisions to the Upper Tribunal. These proposals would ensure that the regulators act predictably and consistently. They would ensure that they are no longer above the law—now even more important, as a result of their greater rule-making powers.
I believe that the opportunity costs of the current regulatory system are too high. Legitimate financial business, such as providing new products for consumers, is not being done because of regulatory uncertainty. These amendments would ensure that the wording of the rules is more thoughtfully drafted than it was under EU regulation and would reduce compliance costs. The rules would be based on common law methodology. The wording would be applied to facts on the basis of their natural and ordinary meaning. The renamed financial adjudication service would reach decisions not only on its own subjective opinion but on the basis of the growing body of case law deriving from decisions of the new first-tier tribunal.
Does my noble friend the Minister understand just how important it is that the Bill be made a lot more radical in changing the way our regulators operate? As drafted, nothing much will change. There was no point in Brexit if we continue to apply a bureaucratic, overly cautious and cumbersome regulatory system. These proposals would take us down the right road as a significant step to ensuring the City’s future and reversing the recent decline of some of our most important institutions, such as the London Stock Exchange.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken before in this Committee, but as one of the surviving members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I want to address an instance where an amendment directly challenges one of the proposals that was incorporated following the commission’s report. Earlier in proceedings—on day three, I think—the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, addressed Amendment 46, which introduced the concepts of predictability and consistency. He asked, “Who could possibly object?”, and went so far as to describe them as “motherhood and apple pie”. On examination, these principles, particularly predictability, can be seen to be simply duplicating the existing provisions of administrative law, but also as introducing provisions that could limit the scope of the regulator to address new and previously unforeseen problems.
A similar problem arises with Amendment 174 in this group. How could one possibly object to acting
“reasonably and in good faith”
as a defence against sanction under the senior manager conduct regime, the SMCR—the principal sanction being disqualification from practising? By way of a bit of background, the PCBS spent a great deal of time on structural issues—bank break-up, ring-fencing, capital adequacy, liquidity adequacy and so on—but it also attached a great deal of importance to conduct issues, hence the creation of what was then called the senior person conduct regime and is now the senior manager conduct regime.
Is there evidence that this regime has proved oppressive and needs to be relaxed? Quite the contrary, in my view. There have been very few cases, although it has only been fully in force since 2018. Following the 2008-10 financial crisis, Mr Peter Cummings of HBOS is the only senior person to have been seriously sanctioned. One can debate whether that verdict was fair or unfair, but it is undeniable that it is unfair that he should be the only person sanctioned of the big players in those events. I do not think the case for further easing has been made out; more effective application is needed.
The introduction of a defence of acting
“reasonably and in good faith”
would, in my view, be a serious weakening of the regime. Very few people who made serious errors—which were costly to their customers, their own companies or the economy at large—set out intentionally to do harm. The thinking behind this amendment is that it is unfair to sanction people who claim that they did not intend to do harm, even if their actions were genuinely harmful. The protection of consumers is not achieved if those who mis-sell financial products or take what prove to be excessive risks are immune from regulatory action if they can show that they did not intend to do so.
Once again, these amendments look superficially desirable, but they would weaken the SMCR and could cause a lot of damage. The normal pattern in Committee is that an amendment is proposed and others stand up to support it. I want to do the opposite: I urge the Minister to stand firm in rejecting Amendment 174. In any case, I wonder whether the right way to change the underlying philosophy of regulation and the balance between the regulator, the common law and the courts should be to set out a comprehensive proposal, rather than through the accumulation of a disparate set of amendments in this Bill.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 169 to 174 and 200. These have been proposed forcefully by my noble friend Lord Lilley and are, I suggest, worthy of acceptance.
I speak from the perspective of a lawyer. First, I suggest that three adjustments are needed to the decision-making and supervision of regulators to drive predictability and consistency in rule-making. Amendment 200 would make the regulators’ enforcement committees more independent in their decision-making. This should reduce the number of firms that bring unnecessary challenges to regulatory decisions in the Upper Tribunal.
Secondly, Amendment 173 gives the existing Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner power to order the correction of regulators’ errors. Currently, the FRCC can find that regulators have acted unlawfully, but the regulators are free to ignore that finding. In fact, the FCA has ignored the FRCC’s only such finding. So, the overarching oversight of the FRCC is toothless; it will, if our amendment is accepted, have some teeth.
Thirdly, we propose a set of adjustments to the supervision of regulators by our judiciary in the Upper Tribunal and courts. Currently, challenges by financial institutions to supervisory decisions in the Upper Tribunal are rare, and rarely successful. That is because the tribunal is reluctant to interfere with regulatory decision-making and lacks a framework within which to consider regulators’ decisions. Judicial review is even rarer. To succeed, firms have to prove that the decision was not just wrong, but unreasonable.
The problem is that because it is so difficult to overturn a decision, firms rarely go to the Upper Tribunal or seek judicial review, so there is no body of jurisprudence by which financial companies can set their practices consistently. The lack of predictability therefore means that firms have to build compliance programmes based in part on guesswork as to how the regulator may react when applying its rulebook in the future. This is particularly so when considering the vaguely drafted rules known as principles.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a shareholder in an FCA-regulated asset management company, and as having been regulated as an employee for 30 years in financial services, including five years as a senior manager.
I have put my name to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments. While they follow on from the amendments adding the requirement for predictability and consistency that were discussed on day two of Committee, to some extent they also stand alone. I also support my noble friend Lord Bridges’ amendments and indeed any proposal for effective oversight and scrutiny of regulatory performance.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The Bill introduces secondary objectives unrelated to the core objectives. Should that unlimited liability also be extended to these? Will the regulator be determining acceptable travel policies for business? Which financial markets are priorities for growth and competitiveness? What will be the enforcement process if individuals or companies disregard these? How can the regulated have confidence in the application of these objectives without some kind of body of precedent and rapid appeals process? The regulators themselves will benefit from a clear body of case precedents when making decisions. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the importance of rapid and practical accountability of the regulator for its actions to those it regulates, if London is to remain a financial hub where the global community wants to base its investments, businesses and careers.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that I was not able to take part at Second Reading as I was working in the United States. I hope I have the indulgence of the Committee to make some comments on this set of amendments. As someone who has chaired a major regulator, I found the representation of the principles and approach to regulation as “vague” a rather chilling remark.
What we have seen with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lilley, and those who have supported them, is an attempt significantly to change the entire philosophy on which the regulatory system has so successfully developed in this country. That philosophy has been based on principles-based regulations. Those principles are not vague, as has been asserted; they are determined by Parliament. The rules have then been developed on the basis of serving an industry which is dynamic and continuously changing, unlike the building industry, many of whose practices have not changed since Tudor England.
The fact that the regulatory system can adapt to a rapidly changing industry has been a source of considerable strength within our regulatory system. If we are to introduce an entirely different legal approach, that has to be argued out. There should be a Green Paper, a White Paper and a proper Bill saying that the regulatory approach in this country is going to be fundamentally changed. That is what I fear: the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would effectively introduce a wedge of change that would fit very uncomfortably with the current structure.
On the other hand, I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and particularly commend the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Forsyth. They argued that although this new accountability device—this new entity—would deal with, let us say, the technical side of regulatory issues, we still need a parliamentary committee to deal with the political side because regulation is both highly technical and has an essential political core. That is why we need both components. Therefore, I strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the views put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Forsyth, on the need for the dual structure to ensure a proper level of both technical and political accountability.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
First, I declare my interest as in the register. I am deeply concerned about this second set of amendments; they could have a profound impact on and consequences for the SMR, the ombudsman’s service and the RDC in particular, and I shall go through each in turn. I strongly agree with what has just been said about the nature of regulation and the risks of moving at such pace to a wholly different approach, bearing in mind for how many decades this system has been in place and has become understood and accepted—at some cost, by the way, and, therefore, changing it is itself something whose costs we need to bear in mind.
On the question of predictability, consistency and unintended consequences, in response to an earlier amendment I cited abuse of cryptocurrency technology, which might be made more difficult for the regulator to adapt to if it has to show that what it has done was predictable on the basis of existing law. That could be spread betting or, to take a topical example of 15 years ago, asset-backed securities. I am extremely nervous about including this without substantial consultation, which should be preceded by a detailed explanation of what is intended. We have not had any of that, and it is certainly not suitable to be put in this Bill.
Although I have not said very much so far on the Bill, I fear I will speak at some length on these three areas, which in my view are crucial to providing fairness and making sure that we are better prepared for the next financial crash that will inevitably come.
As I read Amendment 169, it would create a defence before the Upper Tribunal, and possibly a complete defence if a person could show that they had acted reasonably and in good faith. That might sound quite reasonable in itself—more apple pie—but a defence of reasonableness and good faith would mean that if an individual did not know about a problem, he could not be held responsible for it. That would be goodbye to the SMR, at least, as an effective regulatory tool. It strikes me as likely to reintroduce all the gateways to unacceptable risk and risk taking that the SMR was designed to expunge.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, much of what we have just heard would be very much supported by the group of people with whom I work. We do not want to reduce the protection of either group of which we are speaking, particularly small people asking for redress.
The ombudsman service needs reform; there is no doubt about that. We really have to discuss putting some stakes in the ground about not blaming people for things they would never have thought of at that point because we now think of them. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments do not help us in that direction. In other words, all the issues I would want to raise about the ombudsman are not covered by these amendments. Similarly, it is true about the protection of people from the effect of investigation, even when that investigation turns out not to be justified.
I finish by reminding the Committee of the original discussion we had. We need a system that people see to be fair and is shown to work effectively for small as well as big people. I do not think these amendments will help this, but I hope we will be able to have changes. I do not think that you should accept any changes just because you want changes, and I submit that these are the wrong changes.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking later than I would have in the debate, due to the absence of my noble friend Lady Kramer. The Committee will be pleased to know that I shall not try to say everything that I would have said, as well as everything that she would have said.
It is well known from the previous FSMA that I support independent review. I had an earlier amendment to this Bill suggesting the use of the NAO, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred. I am pleased to support his amendments, which I have put my name to and which lay out a much more thorough range of new provisions. At this stage, I should probably remind the Committee of my interests in the register, in that I am a director of the London Stock Exchange, as I am going to talk about my regulator.
The UK would not be alone in having independent review of financial regulations as part of its accountability. That was one outcome of the review of the financial crisis in Australia. I have been around this argument many times, and today it has already been eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, so I pose instead the question: what happens without an independent review? One thing that is certain is that there will be complaints about regulations and, by and large, the regulators will defend their work. Parliament’s committees will try to scrutinise, but that is a public process—or it has been called the political process. They are well adapted to do the kind of inquiry that they do and often get into the nub of the matter. But as we have found out in the Industry and Regulators Committee, it is difficult to get industry to state in public what its issues are with the regulators. As I have pointed out with amendments and speeches on previous days, the Government do not give any legislative status to the parliamentary reports, so there is scrutiny but no consequence, which is not accountability.
Additionally, within intensively supervised frameworks, such as that which exists, probably uniquely, in the financial services sector, there is genuine concern on the industry side about regulators’ retaliation or suspicion if they complain. I acknowledge that the heads of the regulators have said that this would not happen, and would be wrong, but that does not allay concerns or whispers about this most crucial of relationships between industry and its regulators, where every word is guarded. There are also genuine concerns that explanations require public disclosure about investigations or other difficulties that firms may have faced in compliance, which they would rather not put in the public domain—for example, out of commercial confidentiality about future plans and not for reasons of bad behaviour.
Industry will therefore instead bend the ear of government through many of the private channels that it has, whether through the Treasury or at Cabinet level—for example, as it has about international competitiveness. The Government may choose to act, as they have in that instance. Meanwhile, the public channels remain uninformed or unconvinced, because—and I refer again to the experience of the Industry and Regulators Committee—we were given evidence of only operational inefficiency and not of rules that caused any lack of competitiveness. How is public trust to be maintained under these circumstances? How is there to be the legitimacy that has been spoken about? How are reviews to get through the confidentiality concerns in a way that the public trusts?
The Minister has sat tight on review in all the previous debates on this Bill and the previous one, saying that the Government have given themselves powers to satisfy those requirements—powers to ask the regulator to review its rules. I do not object to that, but it hardly has any independence or new eyes. There are powers to seek independent reviews but as we know from experience, because those powers have been around for a while, such reviews have not been used quickly or frequently. They tend to follow a sequence of disasters, as the Gloster review did, and not to be done in any checking or anticipatory way. I understand why that is, because government must keep a certain distance and look for some systemic concern rather than one-off causes, but that distance leaves a gap.
Of course, there are powers to intervene by way of directions, which need to be used with care if the independence of regulators and international respect for them are to be maintained. None of those powers satisfactorily address how there should be checking in a way that permits private submissions but remains free of it looking as if government either is interfering too much and getting too cosy with industry, which is what it will look like if the Government use their powers to intervene as much as might be needed, or never acts until there has been substantial damage, when it really is too late.
I would also be interested if the Minister would inform the Committee of the level of resources and number of personnel that the Treasury is able to put behind its own monitoring, and whether it is free from reliance on industry and consultancy involvement. It is no good if it is just sent back to the same people, who will give the same information as comes in through the private channels anyway. How is that meant to be independent? I hope the Minister will take account of the fact that calls for independent review, as well as enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, come from all sides of the House and need to be addressed. There should be some serious conversations before we get to Report.
I will briefly say a few things about the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. It would be a dreadful shame if one of the major achievements of this Parliament after the last financial crisis were watered down or, even worse, set aside. I fear that, as has been explained, that could well be the case. When the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, introduced his previous amendments, I said that I am not totally against a libertarian approach—one where you have to take care, and if you get it wrong then you are for the high jump—but that is not what is presented here. This proposal would make it extremely difficult for the regulators. It does not fit with the kind of regulatory system we have, with its underfunded regulators. It is a way to make it easy to set aside what the regulators have done. Given what I just explained about the relationship that firms have with their regulators—one of the reasons why, regrettably, they will shy away from legal action—it will not necessarily overturn that.
I do not agree with the predictability and consistency objective, for the reasons that others have explained: we want agility and change, and have to adapt to circumstance. If something comes to court, surely it could remain that a judge ultimately applies it, but that would be in the light of circumstances and an acknowledgement that circumstances change and regulation necessarily proceeds.
Likewise on a good-faith defence and reasonableness, my take on the senior managers regime is that the whole point is to make individuals be proactive, rather than just coasting along in what has been a comfortable way of life—how things have always been done. It has meant they have to engage their brain, think about it and update in the light of circumstances. Just saying, “There was a set of rules and I complied”, is not meant to be enough; you have to take account of what is going on.
Is there not a conflict here to some extent between people on the one hand talking about wanting principles-led regulations and, on the other, talking about that being vague? There are complaints that there are too many rules, yet it is industry compliance departments that are first off the blocks saying, “Where are the rules? Give us the rules! I want to know where to put my tick”, so I am not sure which section of the market this proposal is supposed to serve.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the most important thing to have come out of this debate, which is now in its fifth or sixth day—frankly, I have lost count—is that the regulatory environment lacks sufficient parliamentary scrutiny; there is enormous consensus about that idea. We have heard several solutions. At least three groups have touched on this issue, and I hope this is the last group to do so. I will go as far as saying that it is an interesting idea. I say that in the sense that I am representing His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and at the moment we have some concerns about resource consumption, et cetera.
However, if we take all the ideas together, I am convinced that they can be moulded into an important step forward in involving Parliament, and involving sufficient resource to make that involvement effective. We should set about trying to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said this more elegantly than I will, but if you toss a bunch of amendments together and hope that they are internally consistent and capable of execution, you are kidding yourself. I fear that that is where we are at the moment. If we were to vote on all the amendments we have had over the last five days or so, that would not work.
What should happen now—it will be interesting to see whether it does, and I shall do all I can to encourage it—is that cross-party discussions take place, focused on taking the best ideas and putting them together in a way that will work and will have support. This has to be a coalition that is irresistible in the parliamentary process, and that is possible. When you look at that lot over there, this lot here and us, that is a hell of a force for the Government to try to ignore, so I hope we can find ways of bringing us together. I hope the Minister will want to join in that process at some point and will want to see whether we can achieve a consensus with the Government. I strongly advise her today not to close off options. Options have to be open to try to move into this area.
There seems to be a secondary area, which I will loosely call the Lilley area, about legal involvement. I clearly do not understand enough of what this is about; I suspect a lot of people do not. There is confusion and, from what I have heard experts say, it is a dangerous confusion. We should stick to that central issue of parliamentary scrutiny, properly supported to be effective—and the time has come.
Some of us slogged through a Bill, about a year and a half or two years ago—I am losing track of time—where we worked quite hard on this and made very little progress, as we got rid of all the EU rules and then put all the stuff in the hands of the regulators. Many of us felt uncomfortable that there was not more scrutiny, but we did not really come up with a solution. Clearly, we are in a solution-rich environment now; the trick is to bring it together into a solution that will work, and it must be done now. This is the last legislative opportunity, in my view, that we will see for some time, so I hope that cross-party discussions take place and that we can take a real step forward for the industry and for democracy.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Lilley for tabling these amendments, and for their contributions to this discussion.
I will speak first to Amendments 160 to 166, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bridges. The Government agree, and have been clear, that more responsibility for the regulators should be balanced with clear accountability, appropriate democratic input and transparent oversight. The proposed creation of a new regulatory body to oversee the regulators—a so-called regulator of the regulators, although I know that my noble friend set out why he thought that term did not apply—raises further questions about how the accountability structures for the various regulatory bodies would operate. The Government would need to carefully consider how to ensure clear accountability to both government and Parliament under such a model.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked—it feels a long time ago—about the need for greater clarity on where accountability lies in this system. I am not sure whether it is clear that the addition of a further body to the system would provide greater clarity on where accountability lies.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
How does the OBR undermine accountability? Surely it just provides independent analysis and assessment, and I see no problem there.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe that is sometimes subject to debate. What I was saying to noble Lords is that it raises questions in this area that we need to consider. If I look back to the creation of the OBR, it was in the Conservative manifesto at the 2010 election; indeed, it was set up in shadow form in 2009. It was first established not in statute and operated without statute after 2010. The provisions for its establishment in statute were then brought forward in a Bill, where there was sufficient time to consider those questions.
I am not saying definitively one way or another, but it raises questions that we would need to consider more carefully about who this body is accountable to and the interactions with parliamentary accountability that we have discussed today; the need for clarity on accountability, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; and, for example, the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on the role that the body could have in filling the space that allows industry to make private submissions to the new body, rather than public submissions as happened through Select Committees, and how that marries with the provisions in the amendments on the need for this body to operate transparently.
These are questions that are raised in considering how such a body would operate in this landscape. There is the potential that it could duplicate or dilute the roles within the regulatory framework of government and Parliament to scrutinise and hold the regulators to account.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
There is a problem in the approach that the Minister is taking. She is suggesting that the body proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will add to the accountability structure. I have added my name to the amendment and, as I see it, the body is there to support those who wish to hold the two regulators to account. It is not there to add to the architecture of accountability but to aid Parliament and others to hold them properly to account. There is a distinction.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Whether it is there to aid others in the accountability structure or is an accountability body itself is a further question, but its proposed role raises questions about, for example, how transparently it operates, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, touched on, and other such considerations. I merely said to my noble friend who raised this point that the establishment of the OBR happened in a Bill of its own after a manifesto commitment, and that it had been up and running for some time before it was put into statute. It is not unreasonable to say that considerations need to be made when we think about this issue.
Lord Deben (Con)
There are certainly considerations, but surely one of them is that we have an opportunity to make the change in this Bill, and we will not have another opportunity for a very long time. The Minister is proposing that we do not do it, frankly. Therefore, let us do it in this Bill, because it is the one opportunity that we have.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I would never want to speculate as to future parliamentary timetables. My noble friend Lord Naseby talked about the importance of listening to those who are impacted by the provisions of the Bill. He spoke about the City, and we have heard various points of view in that respect. I would add consumers into that mix, too. I say to noble Lords that the Government have consulted extensively on the approach we are taking in the Bill, and we have received a number of responses on this specific issue in both future regulatory framework review consultations that took place. Although I absolutely recognise that a small number of respondents were supportive of further consideration of such a body, the vast majority were focused on how existing mechanisms for accountability to Parliament and government and engagement with stakeholders could be strengthened. The Government therefore decided, in response to those consultations, against creating a new body, and focused on ensuring that the mechanisms for Parliament and government to scrutinise the regulators are effective.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Will the Minister clarify what the questions were in the consultation? My recollection was that it was relatively open. Obviously, at that stage, industry was focused on its very important relationship with government—one cannot overestimate the importance of that—and it answered questions saying that it was happy with parliamentary scrutiny, but I have no recollection of there being a suggestion as to whether there should be another body that enabled any kind of regular review. Since that time, industry bodies have said that it would be a good idea, so it seems a bit inconsistent to claim that the consultation cleared the way to say that none was required.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I was simply pointing out that this Bill is the result of two rounds of consultation. The Government are criticised for bringing forward proposals without sufficient consultation. I note the noble Baroness’s points but, even in the context of those questions, there were bodies that put forward the kinds of ideas that we are discussing today. However, in the balance of responses to that consultation, they were not the dominant voice or viewpoint from the range of different people who responded to us.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in my day, although it may have changed, when the Government issued a consultation document, it was basically to get agreement to what they wanted to do. In the case of the OBR, I remember the then Chancellor, George Osborne, arguing that the OBR was necessary in order that people could see that the Government were being honest and were subject to some kind of scrutiny, and that it would provide independent information that would enable Parliament and others to take a view.
I am trying to put this delicately, but my noble friend’s argument seems to be that the Treasury set out a consultation and reached an agreement so it is in the Bill. But the view that is coming out very clearly is that, for Parliament or anyone else to effectively hold the Treasury and the regulators to account, it is necessary to have an independent source of information. My noble friend is just reading out what we already know is in the Bill, but there is pretty well universal acceptance that that does not actually provide for sufficient accountability. Could she deal with that point? Why on earth would she be against something that would enable more transparency and more effective scrutiny?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with my noble friend’s point about consultation. I have spent too long in this Chamber, even in a limited time, being on the receiving end of scrutiny from noble Lords about the lack of consultation. The proposals in the Bill have gone through two rounds of public consultation. My noble friend may not see the value in public consultation, but that is not something that has been fed back to me in my dealings in other policy areas.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Forgive me, but I did not say anything of the sort. Of course I can see the value in consultation. What I do not see the value in is consultation that then concludes that the Government should do what they wanted to do in the first place.
Baroness Penn (Con)
That is not what I am saying. One of the things that I was referring to with regard to the powers in the Bill was an amendment tabled in the Commons stages to try to respond to further questions about how we can facilitate accountability. I think I have been clear to all noble Lords in this Committee that that is a question that the Government will continue to consider and to engage with noble Lords on, whether it is about strengthening parliamentary accountability or other measures that help to provide the information and resources that people need to do that work. The Government will continue to reflect on those points.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I find it slightly strange that the Minister is saying the Government will continue to interact with us. All that that interaction has been so far is “No”.
Baroness Penn (Con)
In Committee, we are discussing the different proposals that have come from noble Lords to solve these problems. I am trying to set out where the Government have previously considered these questions and the thinking behind our approach in the Bill, demonstrating that where we have been able to, for example in the introduction of Clause 37, we have made amendments to the Bill further to take into account some of these issues. When it comes to the specific proposals we are talking about, it is right that I set out that this has been considered by the Government, including through public consultation.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I was not going to speak on this group in order to have a speedier debate, but I completely failed in that aim, so I think I am allowed to say something now. Can my noble friend explain to what extent these two consultations actually address the issues that have been raised by the amendments of my noble friend Lord Bridges? From memory, neither of the consultations examined the idea of having some kind of independent scrutiny of the regulators; they merely proceeded on the basis of what the Government wanted to do and did not seek to analyse the benefits of an alternative solution.
Baroness Penn (Con)
That is a similar question to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and it is probably because I did not answer it satisfactorily that it has come up again. Noble Lords are right that there was not a question on those specific proposals in those consultations. I endeavour to point out, however, that does not prevent the respondents to those consultations, where they believe it to be a good idea, to use them to put forward their support for such an approach. Perhaps I could write to noble Lords specifically on the areas within both those consultations that touched on accountability measures.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
To be absolutely clear and just to put it on the record, therefore, the proposal in my amendment has not been consulted on? Is that correct?
Baroness Penn (Con)
It would be best to set out in writing for noble Lords the specific areas of the consultation that sought to address the issues we are discussing today. As I have said, in response to those consultations, certain respondents put forward proposals in this area, so it is not right to say that it was not a topic for consultation. However, as my noble friend wants clarity on the record, I think that would be best delivered in writing.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Perhaps I could intervene on this important point. In the first consultation, there were some respondents—I confess, I was one of them—who put forward notions of there being independent scrutiny. There were possibly some other organisations, I do not know, of the kind that come forward with policy ideas. But I suggest that the majority of respondents tended to be from the industry, and it is not usual for industry to invent new ideas in their responses to consultations. I asked some of the industry bodies about this at the time, and that was the response I got. They said that they thought that, as I had led the way, they might want to pick it up in later consultation—but by the time you get to round two, it is much more concentrated on what will be in the Bill and “Do you agree with this?” It does not say “And, by the way, what have we left out that might have been a good idea?” Industry does not spend its time and risk putting in responses about that kind of thing.
I should be very interested to hear the analysis of the type and numbers of people who responded. Frankly, we have to rely on what we are told. Once upon a time, you used to know who had responded and could judge, and if the weight of the responses came from industry, I am not surprised that there was nothing in there. If the weight of the responses from the non-industry part had some good ideas, perhaps the Minister could tell us.
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I have said, I will set out further detail on the consultation process in writing. It is worth just noting that this question was also considered by Parliament through the Treasury Select Committee in its report The Future Framework for Regulation of Financial Services, which said that
“The creation of a new independent body to assess whether regulators were fulfilling their statutory objectives would not remove the responsibility of this Committee to hold the regulators to account, and it would also add a further body to the financial services regulatory regime which we would need to scrutinise.”
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Can the Minister explain whether that constitutes opposition? I had a cup of tea with the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee only the day before yesterday to try to establish exactly that. She is fully supportive of the idea—we ought to get that on the record—although I should also say that she had not specifically consulted her committee on it.
The Minister must see that the Government are probably going to lose a vote on this at Report. Would she be prepared to sit down with a group of us to see whether we can work up some sort of proposal that she might be prepared to accept? To make that meeting effective, in the meantime, would she be prepared to ask her officials, on a contingency basis and without any commitment at all on her part, to write down on the back of an envelope—a long envelope, I admit—what it is that might conceivably, in certain circumstances, be acceptable to the Government?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that I have already made the offer to noble Lords to meet to discuss the issue of accountability, both parliamentary accountability and the proposals such as those put forward in the amendments today. That still stands. I am afraid that I cannot—
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I apologise for interrupting. The Minister is quite right that she has made that offer. We were grateful for it, but it is of fairly limited use if there is no recognition on the part of the Government that there is a gap here in terms of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. She has not actually said yet that she recognises that there is a gap. I have to say that she should look around her: it is pretty clear that it is there.
Baroness Penn (Con)
What I have tried to say to noble Lords is that, in bringing forward the proposals in this Bill, we absolutely recognise that, with the increased responsibilities that go to the regulator, we need to ensure that there is proper accountability and scrutiny. We have put forward the proposals in the Bill to attempt to do that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I did not finish the note I was writing to myself to try to draw the debate on my noble friend’s group of amendments to a close for now. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I was setting out that the Government believe there needs to be clear and greater accountability for the regulators, given the greater powers they are taking on. We have set out our approach to this in the Bill. When it went through the House of Commons, we demonstrated our openness to finding new and improved ways to strengthen our approach.
Where the Government have considered and consulted on some of the options the Committee is discussing today—or bodies such as the existing Select Committees of this or the other House have considered those options—it is right to draw this Committee’s attention to the feedback we have had in those consultations or through those Select Committee processes. As I have said to noble Lords on numerous occasions, we will listen carefully to the various debates we have had, reflect on what has been discussed and meet and engage with noble Lords, who have clearly expressed their concerns on this matter, to see what further progress can be made.
I turn to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s Amendments 169 to 174. On Amendment 169, I believe I set out the Government’s position on a predictability and consistency objective in earlier debates. While the Government agree that predictability and consistency are important components of an effective regulatory regime, we do not think they are appropriate objectives for the regulators. Similarly, the Government consider that such objectives do not need to be applied to the Upper Tribunal’s decision-making.
Amendment 171 seeks to enable the Upper Tribunal to quash all rules made by the regulators. The Government consider that the regulatory framework, including through enhancements in the Bill, provides multiple opportunities and avenues for challenge and review of the rules, both before and after they are made. For example, Clause 27 introduces a new power for the Treasury to require the regulators to review their rules when it is in the public interest. I also note that the courts already have a role within the existing framework, where necessary, as decisions of the regulators are subject to judicial review.
Amendments 170 and 172 both concern the routes of redress available to consumers. The Financial Ombudsman Service already plays a valuable role in providing consumers with a swift and effective means of resolving disputes with financial services firms.
Amendment 170 would enable those currently eligible to bring claims to the FOS—consumers and most SMEs—to bring actions against firms for breaches of regulator rules in a new financial services chamber within the First-tier Tribunal. These actions could be brought even where the FOS had made a final decision. The FOS and the Business Banking Resolution Service already provide a cost-free alternative to the courts for consumers and 99% of SMEs. Going to court can be expensive for the parties involved and delay redress. It would likely be more expensive for consumers and SMEs to bring civil actions in the First-tier Tribunal than through the existing redress process.
I turn to Amendment 172. Establishing a new body with a different remit would take up resource from industry, government and the regulators and slow down redress for consumers without a clear need for this change. The key difference between the proposed new body and the FOS is that the new body would not be able to consider what was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of a case when taking a decision. This consideration enables the FOS to take into account wider factors relevant to the case, such as regulator guidance and industry codes of practice at the time. This is in addition to the requirement in FSMA for the FOS to consider relevant law and regulator rules, and it enables it to tailor its decision to the particular circumstances of a case and ensure a fair and reasonable outcome for all parties.
The FOS’s ability to consider issues of fairness and reasonableness beyond a strict application of the law and regulator rules is consistent with its role as an informal alternative to the courts. FOS decisions can be, and have been, judicially reviewed by parties who are not satisfied with the reasons provided by the FOS for the decision.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I think the Minister has just said that she will engage but that the answer is still “no”.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I have set out why the Government have concerns and that we should have further conversations to explore the issues that have been raised. I believe that is neither a “yes” nor a “no”.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I will conclude this two and a half hour debate on just the first group and my amendment. I am delighted and thankful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported it. The amendment is mine; the concept belongs to others. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for offering to engage. However, I question the word “further”; I have not had any engagement and, so far, all I have heard is three things.
The first is that the Government believe that the measures in the Bill are sufficient. I think there is unanimous support, on both sides of the Committee, that, as far as accountability and scrutiny go, the measures are insufficient and need to be improved. The second is that the Minister is actually against the measures in my amendment today and the third is that they have been consulted on, whereas we have established from the earlier interventions that the specific amendment I propose, with this concept, has not been consulted on and that it was up to others to come up with that. In my view, that is not a consultation.
The Committee has stressed just how important this issue is, not just by the fact that we have been debating it for two and a half hours but because of what my noble friend Lord Hill and others said about the importance of ensuring that our regulators are truly accountable. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made this point extremely well, as does my noble friend Lord Hill in an article in the Financial Times which was published just this afternoon. My noble friend says that
“what regulators decide directly affects our ability to compete and grow”
and that it follows that getting a regulatory framework right
“is central to our national wellbeing”.
He then says that we risk creating
“a new system of unaccountable British regulation”.
I repeat: unaccountable British regulation, and that is despite the measures that my noble friend says are in the Bill to increase accountability and scrutiny. I think we agree that they are completely insufficient.
As the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Tyrie, said, this is not a question of just one or another of the little things that we have debated over the last few weeks on the Bill. A package needs to be brought together and it should address three points. One is improving the data that the regulators themselves provide. The second is arming Parliament with independent analysis, and I do not buy for a moment what my noble friend says about it undermining the independence of regulators. It is about arming Parliament and others with independent analysis of what the regulators are up to. The third is improving parliamentary accountability and scrutiny; my noble friend Lord Trenchard and others have made this point, as my noble friend Lady Noakes did in a previous session. These three things hang together.
I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister is willing to meet us, but I very much hope that she comes there with an open mind and a constructive attitude, not just a sense of no. I will obviously not press this amendment to a vote now but I can absolutely assure her that if the outcome of those conversations is not one that meets the challenge at hand, I will have absolutely no hesitation in pressing this to a vote at Report.
Baroness Worthington
“PRA dutiesReview of capital adequacy requirements risk weights and solvency capital requirements
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the PRA must complete a review of the risk weighting and capital requirements applied to loans, guarantees or investment via shares or securities in—(a) group undertakings engaged in existing fossil fuel exploitation and production,(b) group undertakings carrying out new fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production, and(c) group undertakings otherwise at significant risk from the low carbon transition, including but not limited to those engaged in fossil fuel-based power generation, agriculture, automotive engineering, aviation and heavy industry.(2) In conducting this review, the PRA must have regard to—(a) the full implications of climate change for the risk of investments including physical climate risks, transitional climate risks and climate liability risks,(b) the likelihood of assets becoming wholly or partially stranded before the end of their normal cycle,(c) the impact of climate change and climate change-related disruption on financial stability, and(d) the advice of the Climate Change Committee.(3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament the outcome of this review within one month of its completion.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the PRA to complete a review of the risk weighting and capital requirements of banks and insurers in relation to firms engaged in financing fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production alongside other climate-risk exposed sectors, taking account of the climate risk on those investments and on financial stability, the likelihood of the assets becoming stranded, and the advice of the climate change committee.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, moving on to a different set of topics, Amendment 168 is in my name, and I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Drake, for lending their support. This is the only amendment in the group which has my name on it but I am broadly supportive of many of the others in it, as they seek to address a broad range of questions relating to how risk is taken into account in financial services regulation, with a specific focus on climate risk, as in my amendment.
Amendment 168 is about the risk weighting of assets for the purposes of capital adequacy requirements, in the case of banks, and solvency capital requirements, in the case of insurers. It is not a terribly prescriptive amendment. It would require the PRA to complete a review of these matters in relation to loans, guarantees or investment in firms engaged in new and existing
“fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production”
and other sectors which are particularly exposed to low-carbon transition and climate risks
“including but not limited to those engaged in fossil fuel-based power generation, agriculture, automotive engineering, aviation and heavy industry”.
Proposed new subsection (2) sets out a number of matters to which the PRA should have regard, including the different types of climate risk and the risks to both individual stranded assets and wider macroeconomic financial stability. It also requires it to take advice from the Climate Change Committee. I have referred to loans, guarantees and investments in relation to the group undertakings to capture particular climate risks in the wider groups of firms. A loan to a firm engaged in clean technologies is still exposed to financial risk if it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a firm which is significantly exposed to low-carbon transition, or if the firm itself owns firms which are.
To be clear, I am seeing this through the lens of financial risks to firms. I have noted that Sam Woods, the chief executive of the PRA, has said that the organisation should not seek to pursue a climate policy in stealth mode or on the quiet, as a second Government, unless government gives it that duty. He says that the PRA and Bank of England remits are currently to pursue financial stability and accordingly to manage climate risk, which has the potential—I go so far as to say the likelihood—to constitute a huge risk to financial stability. I agree with him, but I do not believe that, for the management of these risks, the tools that the bank has deployed to date are sufficient; in fact, they include methodological issues that are disastrously understating the financial risks.
Before I turn to that issue, I should address one other point. During the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, an amendment in relation to capital risk requirements was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. In response, some Peers said that there was no emergency embedded in banks’ balance sheets, as corporate lending in short to medium-term in nature. However, I need to emphasise that significant impairments are possible in both the short and medium-term.
This is not only as a result of more unpredictable and extreme weather—more particularly, it is as a consequence of technological and societal change. Global investment in low-carbon technology has increased by 20% a year in the past five years alone, and has now overtaken global fossil fuel investment. There is a whole economy change under way. It is not about a few companies and discrete sectors that have failed to take into account incremental improvements but about whole sectors exposed to broad-based technological change, increasing the rates of company failure, and the rapid shrinking of some industries, accompanied by the expansion of others. Banks and insurers that have not taken account of such changes face much higher impairments and, given the systemic risks of allowing them to fail, socialised public bailouts. It is right that the PRA should assess that these risks are being adequately managed and that the banks and insurers participate in supporting that review. It is about investing a little now to avoid spending a lot further down the road.
How are these risks being managed? Currently, through the climate biennial exploratory scenario, or CBES. In this exercise, the PRA offers up sample temperature rise scenarios and underlying assumptions of the implications for different assets, and firms plug in their portfolios to get the impairment data out as a result. This all feels safe and precise, but the climate is something that cannot be predicted specifically in those ways with any degree of accuracy. It is about the extent and nature of the risks that must be taken into account. This whole streamlined, reassuring and seemingly precise approach is hopelessly wrong in the face of climate risk.
A paper by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, of this House highlights that the methodologies employed by such climate risk models rest on flawed foundations, with huge error bars and unknown unknowns. Critical methodological problems have led to perverse outcomes, such as the suggestion that a 3 degree temperature rise, global average, offers the optimal balance of benefits and costs. That is more or less what we get from CBES. Where temperature rises are limited to under 2 degrees or rise to more than 3.3 degrees, the drag on company profits is predicted to be at around 10% to 15% on average. I have no idea how any model could reach that conclusion that had any bearing with what is actually happening to our physical climate.
Let us remember that the economy and the financial markets are a wholly owned subsidiary of our natural environment, and we are now in a destabilised climatic environment. This same 3 degree rise, which is the global consensus, involves steep drops in food production, dire water shortages, a sharp increase in urban heat waves, forced migration and mass extinction events. An increasing body of literature sets out why the models do not work. The former chief economist of ING Group in a Policy Exchange publication concludes that central bank scenarios have so far been based on assumptions and models that ignore or downplay crucial evidence of climate risks—notably the rising frequency of extreme weather events and critical triggers, tipping points and interdependencies between the climate, the economy, politics, finance and technology.
That is true for the CBES model. The underlying assumptions in the CBES paper highlight minimal economic impact from inaction on climate change over the next 25 years and a reduction in GDP growth of only 0.12% in 2050—another ludicrously precise number, given all the future uncertainties that lie ahead of us. That is very poorly aligned with the scientific consensus. Other academics have identified dangerous underlying assumptions in the functions that feed into those used by CBES, including that 90% of GDP will be unaffected by climate change because it happens indoors, and using the relationship between temperature and GDP today as a proxy for the impact of global warming over time, ignoring any possibility of cascading climate feedbacks and tipping points.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who unfortunately is absent today, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and me.
This amendment would simply extend the same due diligence system that has already been introduced for large companies under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act, which looks at products in terms of deforestation, to UK financial institutions. The purpose of such due diligence is to prevent British banks knowingly financing deals that lead to deforestation worldwide. Sir Ian Cheshire, the former chair of Barclays and head of the Global Resource Initiative task force, has already written to the Minister saying that our regulations should now ensure that financial institutions do not directly or indirectly fund or support deforestation linked to forest commodities.
Between 90% and 99% of all deforestation is driven by agriculture, chiefly to produce soy, beef and palm oil—the big commodities—but on the whole that clearance is completely unnecessary to produce the food we eat. New research from the Stockholm Environment Institute shows that a vast proportion of all deforestation is speculative and does not in fact lead to any agricultural production. Sadly, corruption, fraud and labour abuses are the norm in the global agriculture sector. At least 69% of forest clearance for agricultural purposes between 2013 and 2019 is considered to have been illegal. Our existing regulations are practically an open invitation to banks to launder the proceeds and profits of forest crime.
Evidence from the charity Global Witness shows that, in the five-year period between the Paris COP and our own Glasgow COP, British banks and financiers made deals worth $16.6 billion, with just 20 agribusinesses implicated in these transactions. WWF calculates that the UK financial sector faces up to £200 billion in risk exposure to Brazilian beef and soy supply chains and Indonesian palm oil supply chains alone. This clearly exposes the UK economy as a whole and individual financial institutions to significant material risk. Globally, agribusinesses are expected to lose an average of 7% in value by 2030 due to unpriced nature and climate risk, with some companies losing up to 26% of their value.
Bringing an end to deforestation is one of our most imminent climate targets. At COP 27, the UN high-level working group on net zero made clear that this means an end to the financing of all deforestation. We do not need to do it; we should not do it any more. Fortunately for the Government and the Minister, Schedule 17 to the Environment Act has laid the necessary foundations by reducing the import market in the UK for commodities grown on illegally deforested land from places such as the Amazon. Under that Act, businesses will need to conduct due diligence to ensure that they have no deforestation anywhere in their supply chains. All this amendment would do is ensure that the already available information travels one step further to the banks and finance institutions.
I know that the Minister will reply that this is all in hand because of something called the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure, TNFD, but this is yet another voluntary reporting scheme designed to help companies identify how biodiversity loss threatens their profitability. We must wake up to the fact that just identifying it is not the same as reducing it. Indeed, a lack of data is not at all the problem. Satellite technology enables real-time monitoring, and images can be mapped against suppliers’ farms. We have already accepted that such due diligence is made possible by passing the Environment Act.
If charities such as Global Witness can do it, so can the banks. The TNFD is shaping up to be the
“next frontier in corporate greenwashing”
unless we pass an amendment such as this one. Voluntary schemes have already tried and failed to deliver on similar objectives. The Soft Commodities Compact signed by British banks failed, and so has the New York Declaration on Forests. Financial institutions signed up to the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, spearheaded by our Government, but they have barely decreased their deforestation investments since signing up to that scheme at COP 26. Many members have in fact increased their exposure to notorious deforesters in that time.
We cannot waste any more time with more voluntary initiatives if we are to meet the 2025 deadline for ending deforestation. We have a plan and a blueprint, with mandatory due diligence at the core. Without this reform to our financial regulations, there may well be no forests left to save and the British public will be left holding the bill for this unnecessary race to the bottom.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, with this group we return to the issues of how this legislation can support the ambition of the now Prime Minister—then Chancellor—to be the leading net-zero financial centre.
In this group I have Amendments 201 and 235 to 237, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan, Lady Wheatcroft, Lady Northover, Lady Drake and Lady Altmann, on those amendments. It is not a monstrous regiment; I think it is a rather impressive regiment of women who will put forward amendments in this group. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington; I very much support her words and the argument just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Investment in deforestation will undermine financial firms’ transition plans and sustainability impact reporting. It needs to be underpinned by real action. Bringing mandatory due diligence into law is supported by the Government’s own expert body, the GRI task force, and the UN Secretary-General at COP 27. It is not sufficient that UK firms stop importing deforestation risk commodities, as the Environment Act requires; UK financial firms must stop funding them too. This amendment would achieve that.
I have also added my name to Amendment 233, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on sustainability disclosure requirements. I will leave it to her to explain the amendment in detail but, fundamentally, there is little dispute over the importance of sustainable disclosure requirements, but equally little progress being made, and the legal basis for those requirements is unsure. Those issues would be addressed by this amendment, and I support it.
I turn to my Amendments 201 and 237, which relate to fiduciary duties and would require the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the FCA to publish guidance—to which occupational pension schemes and FCA-regulated firms must have regard—considering the long-term consequences of decisions and the impacts of their investments on society, climate and nature. This reflects duties applicable to companies under the Companies Act, but those provisions apply to financial services companies only in relation to their shareholders, not their clients, and they do not apply to pension funds at all. I very much welcome the work to date of the DWP and FCA on fiduciary duty. However, research by the Principles for Responsible Investment, a UN-founded body with 3,000 signatories and $100 trillion in assets, found that investor understanding of their duties was discouraging them from pursuing—or even considering—positive sustainability impacts, and recommended further guidance from the UK Government and regulators. Similarly, a study by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association reported that
“We continue to see a common lack of understanding within financial services on the extent to which ESG”—
Environmental Social and Governance—
“factors form part of investors’ fiduciary duties. This area needs urgent clarification for finance to reach net-zero.”
UKSIF also recommended that guidance that both risks and impacts should be considered a core component of fiduciary duties.
My amendments do not overturn existing fiduciary responsibility. They would merely result in guidance on how impacts and long-term matters are considered when acting in investors’ financial interests. They are not prescriptive about the content of the guidance, which would not be legally binding. The Government have made much of their desire for more productive investment by the financial sector, but confusion about fiduciary duty has been raised as a key barrier. This amendment could help to end that confusion.
Amendment 235 on green taxonomy relates to commitments dating back to 2019 and reiterated in October 2021 to at least match the ambition of the key objectives in the EU’s sustainable finance action plans. They follow through on the commitments made for the Treasury to publish the taxonomy and for the FCA and government departments to make the necessary changes to implement it.
I must say that the Government’s approach to taxonomy is somewhat confusing. The Green Technical Advisory Group—or GTAG—was established in June 2021 and delivered advice to the Treasury in October 2022. The Minister reconfirmed a commitment to the taxonomy in the House of Lords in November. However, this was followed in December 2022 by a Statement seeming to back away from producing a green taxonomy, describing it as a “complex, technical exercise”. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, stated in Committee on 30 January:
“The Government are committed to implementing a green taxonomy as part of their sustainable finance agenda”—[Official Report, 30/1/23; col. GC 170.],
I fear that what the Government have in mind is a voluntary model, which would be fragmented and incomplete, rather than robust and comprehensive. I should be grateful for clarity and reassurance from the Minister.
The delay is frustrating for the many parts of the industry that have directly and indirectly assisted the development of a green taxonomy. More than a dozen other jurisdictions have brought forward their own green taxonomies, seemingly without insuperable difficulties. The Government need to restate a clear timeline for implementation. The Skidmore review agreed, and proposed a “transition taxonomy”. This amendment makes provision for that.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments has already been spoken to by several eloquent speakers. I support the amendments in this group, but I shall speak particularly to Amendments 233 and 235 to 237, to which I put my name. The common thread in them is encouraging financial institutions to be serious about their intention of helping the country meet its net-zero target. If the Government are serious about that target, they will surely see the merit in these amendments.
Financial institutions may understand that the long-term health of countries, their economies and their businesses requires a focus on net zero, but short-term considerations such as this year’s profit all too often influence their decisions. Hence, in 2021, the 44 largest members of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a group that includes Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, Nationwide and NatWest, provided $143.6 billion in lending and underwriting for the 75 companies doing the most to expand oil and gas. Principles sometimes come too expensive for these institutions to follow. If those organisations are to be discouraged from such behaviour, in their own long-term interests as well as ours, it will be by forcing them to make firm environmental commitments and to publicly report on them.
It seems that the Government have shared this view. According to a report in the Financial Times last May:
“Ministers made a last-minute decision to withdraw plans to force big UK companies and asset managers to disclose their environmental impact”.
They decided to drop that from the Queen’s Speech at the last moment. The sustainability disclosure requirements were apparently seen as being at odds with the Government’s deregulatory strategy. There is plenty of deregulation rhetoric around at the moment, but those of us who were in the Chamber yesterday for the agonising discussion of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill might feel that the strategy was far from evident.
These amendments are intended to provide help to the Government as they seek to implement their net-zero strategy. Amendment 233 would do for financial organisations what the Government have been planning for business generally. It would require the financial regulators—the FCA and the PRA—and Ministers to make regulations by the end of this year requiring sustainability disclosures for listed firms, fund managers, personal pension providers, banks, insurers and pension schemes.
In addressing this amendment, perhaps the Minister will confirm that this complies with the Government’s thinking in the wake of COP 26, when the transition plan task force was set to work to look at how large companies and financial firms should be required to report on how they are managing the transition to net zero. If the Minister accepts that, will she explain why this Bill should not contain this amendment?
Amendment 236 further details requirements. Amendment 237 complements Amendment 201. It refers to pension schemes and requires trustees to have regard to the long-term effects of their investment decisions. Pensions are all about the long term, so they should have regard to the long-term effects of their decisions, not the short-term effect on the bottom line for the fund manager who is interested in his bonus that year. A little legislation to help them on their way to doing the right thing seems a good idea.
The aim of Amendment 235 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is, essentially, to provide that help to institutions in making these crucial decisions. A green taxonomy—long discussed—needs measurable criteria and this amendment would require the Treasury to provide a framework for that. As the Minister said, the Government are—apparently—committed to implementing the green taxonomy. This amendment, like the others in the group, seeks only to encourage the Government to demonstrate their commitment with the sense of urgency that is now required.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak extremely briefly to support my noble friend Lady Boycott—I am sorry, I did not see the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I am sorry that I kept bobbing up and down while she was speaking.
This is an essential group of amendments, several of which I have added my name to. They are important because billions to trillions of pounds will be invested over the near to medium term into an economy that is transforming with increasing rapidity into a low-carbon one. It is clear that climate risk is financial risk: returns on investments and the ability to pay back loans are exposed to the risks of rising temperatures, as evidenced by recent catastrophic climatic events, and action taken by policymakers to transition to a low-carbon economy, such as the US Inflation Reduction Act.
Businesses, big and small alike, are poised to pull the start trigger on investments but are held back in the UK by lack of clarity about the Government’s intentions. The Government have made the right noises but not followed through, leaving doubt and uncertainty in their wake. The situation is urgent. The US Inflation Reduction Act is a game-changer, and the EU will follow suit. Green investment is the future. Our businesses know that but are hesitating to commit, waiting for a clear signal from the Government that they are 100% behind the green revolution. Currently, the messages are rather mixed.
For the sake of the debate’s flow, I will address the amendments to which I have added my name before addressing my Amendment 232. I start with Amendment 168, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Climate risk is not specifically factored into either the regulatory capital risk requirements for banks or the solvency requirements for insurers. I support Amendment 168 and have added my name to it. I have pursued the theme of stranded assets for several years. I am concerned that the taxpayer is not left to pick up the cost, for example, of decommissioning oil and gas platforms in the North Sea abandoned after profits have been creamed off. How much better it would be if the Government clearly laid out a framework, via their regulator, that the risks in financing fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production, as well as other climate risk-exposed sectors, must be taken into account prior to investment decisions being made.
I move on swiftly to Amendment 199 on deforestation. After fossil fuels, deforestation is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out—the second-largest contributor to global warming. It is responsible for 12% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists tell us that, to stand any chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees centigrade, commodity-driven deforestation must be ended by 2025.
What happens to rainforests matters to us all. In fact, although thousands of miles away, the UK has a large deforestation footprint. It is for this reason that, in July 2021, I and noble Peers from across the House tabled amendments on the issue to the Environment Bill, now the Environment Act 2021. I was pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, poised to add her contribution to this. I commend the Government for the action that they have already taken on this issue. Schedule 17 to the Environment Act was the first time that forest risk commodities have been addressed in legislation.
As already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Sir Ian Cheshire, the former chair of Barclays and head of the Government’s own Global Resource Initiative task force, tells us in an open letter dated 23 January and addressed to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn; Andrew Griffith, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury; and all Members of the House of Lords:
“Under forthcoming secondary regulations, large companies will be required to establish a due diligence system to assess and mitigate the risk of importing commodities grown on illegally deforested land, reporting annually on their progress”.
When the Minister comes to reply, can she tell us when we may expect to see these regulations?
Sir Ian goes on to say that
“while this is an important step, regulating supply chains alone is not enough”.
It is therefore recommended that
“the Government should make it illegal for financial institutions to invest in or lend to supply chain companies that are unable to demonstrate forest risk commodities have been produced in compliance with ‘local laws’ (i.e. legally)”.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Thank you. I come to Amendment 232 in my name on green savings bonds. My reason for tabling this amendment is to draw attention to the success of the National Savings and Investments green savings bonds, which are an important part of the green finance landscape. Really it is a pat on the back for the Government—much-needed, maybe —so the Minister should view this as an opportunity for the Government to congratulate themselves. For me, it is an opportunity to ask them what more they can do to raise awareness of these bonds and promote them more aggressively. After all, the Climate Change Committee identified public engagement and behaviour change as major elements in the success of measures to keep the planet in a fit state for future generations, but many people complain that knowing what to do for the best is confusing. These bonds represent a safe way of putting their money to work for the benefit of all our futures.
Here is the background. The NS&I’s new green savings bonds became available from 22 October 2021, introduced by the then Chancellor, Rishi Sunak. They pay a fixed rate of interest over a three-year fixed term, and the current rate is 4.2%. The minimum deposit is £100 and the maximum is £100,000 per person. NS&I’s savings accounts are long-standing, recognisable and safe. They are hugely popular with UK savers, not least because investments are totally safe, being 100% backed by the Treasury. There is not the usual limit of £85,000 that there is with providers covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Many savers want to make green and ethical investment choices. Work by the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership found that the median saver would prefer a sustainable fund, even if they have to sacrifice up to 2.5% returns.
Money saved with NS&I’s green savings bonds is used to fund six types of green projects: making transport cleaner; switching to renewable energy; improving energy efficiency; pollution prevention and control; protecting living and natural resources; and adapting to climate change. These projects are publicised and clearly audited for climate and nature benefits. Another benefit is that raising funds through NS&I can actually give greater financial stability than raising funds on the financial markets. During the meltdown in borrowing costs following the botched “fiscal event” in September last year, investors in NS&I did not dump their bonds because they could not do so; there was no panic in NS&I’s offices in Blackpool, Glasgow, Birkenhead and Durham—please note, none in the south-east—because the bonds are not transferable. Further, when a larger amount of a Government’s debt is held by their citizens, it is less prone to volatility. There is lots to like about the products. There are few cash-based green savings products in the market, especially ones with such a high level of transparency about their use of proceeds.
My amendment is intended to put in the public domain at regular intervals the contribution made by the NS&I’s green bonds and the like towards UK green financing and the consequent reduction in targeted greenhouse gas emissions. It is worded in such a way as not to make proposals over the amount of government borrowing or how they should raise taxes, only to seek information on how the Government are raising funds for green investment. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how much has been raised through the Government’s green bonds to date, how much is forecast to be raised annually in future and what the Government’s ambition is for their future, including in relation to the promotion of these products.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Eating Disorder Services: Men
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Parminter
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve men’s access to eating disorder services.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to ensuring that everyone with an eating disorder has access to timely treatment based on clinical need. Under the NHS long-term plan 2023-24, we will invest almost £1 billion extra in community mental health care for adults with severe mental illness, including eating disorders. Since 2016, investment in children’s and young people’s community eating disorder services has risen every year, with an extra £35 million per year from 2021-22.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
As the cricketer Freddie Flintoff showed, anyone can get an eating disorder, but there is very little information about the inequalities in access to community-based treatment and treatment outcomes. Can the Minister say when the national clinical audit which was promised this year by NHS England will take place, so that we can get the proper data that we need and give everyone the service and support they need?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very good point and gives a well-known example. Sadly, many men suffer from this disease, and there are community groups that help men with mental health issues, including Men’s Sheds. When I was serving in another place, I always made a point of seeing the Men’s Sheds in my constituency and they did an outstanding job in so many places. I cannot give a direct answer to her Question, but I have asked for a specific time when I can answer it in full and, once I have that, I will reply.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the NHS recommends that adult males require, on average, around 2,500 kilocalories a day. Can he therefore explain why the calorie labelling regulations that came into force last year require qualifying businesses to display prominently a statement that adults need around 2,000 kilocalories a day?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very good point. Sadly, not all manufacturers have gone along with that last legislation to make it crystal clear, notwithstanding the alcohol industry. Many other industries really need to step up to the plate to make sure it is crystal clear what the calorific intake should be per day.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for bringing forward this important Question. We know that boys and men are very unwilling to come forward when there is a problem. What is being done to make schools aware of this problem, and to make teachers aware of how to notice boys who may have a problem with an eating disorder?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very good point. Eating disorders are serious, life-threatening conditions which can affect people of any age, gender, ethnicity or background. People with eating disorders can face stigma, which can stop them reaching out for help and reaching their true potential. We have committed to offer all state schools and colleges a grant to train a senior mental health lead by 2025, enabling them to introduce effective, whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being. This is backed by £10 million in 2022-23. More than 8,000 schools and colleges, including half of state-funded secondary schools, have taken up the offer so far.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, suggested that men may be reluctant to see their doctor or seek advice on some health issues, which has been very well researched. One of the puzzles is why the Government seem to have set their face against establishing a men’s health strategy, given that health outcomes for men can be so poor in so many parts of the country. Will the Minister’s department give this further consideration and come forward with proposals to establish such a strategy?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very good point, which I agree with. I will take his excellent question back to the department and come back to him on it. In terms of this Question, a significant number of young people affected are females and a relatively small part are young men, but the whole strategy will encompass all men and women.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister has just said, around 70% of those affected by eating disorders are girls and women. However, there has also been an increase among young boys and men. Can my noble friend say what relationship boys and men have with their body image and what perception they have of it, in light of their physical and mental health? What specific resources will be dedicated to this issue?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
That is another excellent question. Poor body image can affect anyone at any point in their lives. The pressure to achieve an idealised body image has wide-ranging consequences for mental and physical well-being. The growth of social and digital media has increased exposure to images of beauty which are unrealistic and, in some cases, untenable. Body image is recognised as a risk factor for mental health problems and is more commonly identified as a key risk factor for eating disorders and unhealthy eating behaviours. Members with teenage children in their families will know how much time they spend on their mobile devices.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, the Minister did not answer my noble friend Lady Bull’s question. Calorie labelling talks about a daily intake of 2,000 calories, which is the amount recommended for a woman. For a man, it is 2,500 calories per day. Why is this the case? Will the Minister undertake to change this and make it accurate?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. I apologise to the noble Baroness; I cannot give a specific answer as to why it is 2,000 calories rather than 2,500, but I will ask and come back to her.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend’s Question brought back a memory from my teenage years of being told by a nurse that she would say that I had anorexia but that could not be the case because I was a boy. Fortunately, our understanding has moved on since then and we now recognise that eating disorders can affect everyone, irrespective of gender or age. Does the Minister agree that public health services have a vital role to play in broadening that understanding among the general population? What resources will the Government provide to them for that essential educational work?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. When he and I were young boys, there was not the internet. He shows that this issue did occur before the internet. Under the NHS long-term plan for 2023-24, we will invest almost £1 billion extra funding in community mental health care for adults with severe mental illness, including dietary issues.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Is the Minister aware from his previous experience that there are 12-step recovery programmes available for both overeaters and undereaters? Is he aware that there is an all-party parliamentary group advocating and pressing for these to be extended over a wider area? This is particularly because they are free. If so, would he be prepared to meet the group and talk about what such programmes have to offer?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that very kind invitation. I would be delighted to attend the APPG.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that community pharmacies are able to provide men, and indeed women, with advice on healthy lifestyles, including on diet? Will he urge the Government to introduce in England a properly financed “pharmacy first” service, as in Scotland, which we know works well, so that services such as those provided in Scotland can be provided in England by all pharmacies so that people can have access to them?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that excellent question. There are over 11,000 community pharmacies in England. All provide advice on healthy living; that is already part of their terms of service. People know and trust their local pharmacies, but people do not always know just what pharmacies are able to do and how skilled pharmacists are in diagnosing minor illnesses. Specifically on “pharmacy first”, we want to go further. We are exploring what more pharmacies could do, learning from the “pharmacy first” approach in Scotland, including enabling the supply of some prescription-only medicines without a prescription.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the focus of the Question, and of some of the Minister’s answers, has understandably been on young people; admittedly, eating disorders frequently start in early years but they are lifelong disorders. They can go away and then flare up again when adverse life events cause them to do so. Following on from my noble friend Lord Brooke’s question, can the Minister say what particular kinds of therapy the Government are planning to invest in—he spoke earlier about investment—and what research they have done into the efficacy of different therapies at different points in people’s lives?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that excellent question. I do not want to mislead the House that this is all about young people. She is right: disorders start in early life but continue through adult life. The Government are taking steps to expand the number of practitioners who can deliver evidence-based psychological interventions intended to treat those with an eating disorder. This includes expanding the number of individual trainees and qualified practitioners who are competent to deliver cognitive behavioural therapy for eating disorders, as well as the Maudsley model of anorexia nervosa therapy in adults.
Prisoners: Imprisonment for Public Protection
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in developing a new action plan for prisoners serving an indeterminate Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government committed to reviewing and refreshing the IPP action plan in line with the recommendation of the Justice Select Committee’s IPP report. HM Prison and Probation Service is currently finalising what the action plan should prioritise, the governance needed to oversee its delivery, and how progress will be tracked. The revised action plan will be published by 31 March 2023.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the recall of prisoners on licence is crucial to this. Last year was the first year in which the number of prisoners in jail increased since the sentence was abolished in 2012, because of recall. In late 2021, the Government produced figures that appeared to show that, because of recall, the number of prisoners in 2025 would have risen by 2,600. Do the Government still stand by those projections?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, broadly speaking, in terms of order of magnitude, the projections remain the same. However, it is important to note that those figures to which my noble friend refers do not include the re-release of previously recalled prisoners. In the latest available published statistics for the latest available year, there were 214 IPP prisoners on their first release; 458 prisoners who had previously been recalled but were then re-released; and 622 recalls. I am not sure that I would accept the premise that the prison population is increasing.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his tenacity in relation to the action plan. One simple way of helping to reduce numbers and to free those on licence from what is quite often seen as a tyrannical regime would be to implement the small amendment agreed in this House to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—now Act—for automatic referral at 10 years on licence. That is not currently being implemented. I would be grateful if the Minister would go back and take a look, with the probation service, at why it is not.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as far as I am aware, that provision should be implemented. If it is not, that is a matter that I shall investigate and revert to your Lordships.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Recognising the need for public protection, my question relates to the IPP prisoners who are now detained for 10, 12 or 14 years beyond their tariff terms—that is, beyond the punishment they deserve for their offending—because they cannot prove to the Parole Board that they can be released without any risk of reoffending. It is a proof which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, when he abolished this sentence in 2012, described as “almost impossible”. Do the Government think that is just? If so, will they continue to think it just, however many years may pass—after 15, 20 or 25 years—or do they recognise that there will come a point when it is unjust? If so, when?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
In response to the noble and learned Lord, I can say that we started with 6,000 offenders in this category. We now have 1,400 who have never been released. That is because the Parole Board considers them to be a risk to public protection—they have been reviewed, in many cases several times, and that is why they are still there. A further 1,500 have been released, but they have been recalled for various reasons—but they are eligible now for re-release.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, it is well over 10 years now since I abolished indeterminate sentences with full cross-party support, including the vocal support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the Home Secretary who introduced them, because we both agreed that they were being used on a scale, and in a way, that had never been intended or contemplated by Parliament. We never imagined that over 10 years later we would find that over 1,000 people were still serving these sentences, many of them way beyond any minimum sentence that the judge may have recommended when imposing it.
Following on from the last question, I made the mistake of assuming that the Parole Board would steadily release all such prisoners when the time was right, but I also made the mistake of putting the burden of proof on the prisoner to prove that there was no danger. That has failed and there is no point in still defending it. The Government have already rejected resentencing of all the offenders involved. Can the Minister assure me that the plan that is about to be produced will bring an end to the indeterminate, timeless detention of people for whatever crime, some of them quite minor, and replace it with a wholly new sentencing method if indeed some of these people would be a danger if released?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are well aware of the difficulties of the situation. Our approach to the present problem is that we cannot contemplate the automatic release of many of those prisoners that a resentencing exercise would involve. What we can do is better prepare them for release, especially with regard to mental health problems, and better look after them “in the community” when they are released, so that they are not available for recall. In that way, the Government hope that these figures will be substantially reduced.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his tenacity on this issue, but the reality is that this group of prisoners is becoming ever more difficult to deal with. They have higher rates of mental health problems, self-harming and suicide, and higher recall rates. That is the reality of what the Prison Service is dealing with. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be specialist training for probation officers to deal with those prisoners, and for mental health workers to understand them, to try to reduce the recall rates when they are released?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I can give that assurance. The problem is acute; it gets more difficult as time passes. The need for specialised training and proper attention to these matters is growing. The action plan will include a special supervisory board with specific responsibility for IPP prisoners, with a view to tackling this very difficult problem.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in concert with all who have spoken, I suggest that the continued detention of so many IPP prisoners beyond their tariffs shames the criminal justice system. We have been around this course so many times, but do not the Government now appreciate that their lack of progress on this betrays a complete inconsistency? On the one hand, they agree that the abolition of IPP sentences under LASPO should have happened because continued preventive detention for prisoners who had served their time could not be justified, yet on the other they maintain and defend such a system in failing to release almost 3,000 of those prisoners—including those who have been released once—who were sentenced before LASPO but 10 years after those sentences were abolished.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the then Government decided that the abolition of the IPP sentence should not be retrospective. The existing IPP action plan has had a certain degree of success, and the revised IPP action plan will, we hope, fully address the problem.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, to simplify the situation and make it abundantly clear: are the numbers rising or lowering in each category?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure I entirely understood the noble and learned Lord’s question.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, what I want to know is whether the numbers of these prisoners are rising or lowering in each category.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
They are currently, in broad terms, about the same. We have 1,400 who have never been released; we have 1,500, roughly speaking, on licence; we are releasing, including rereleases, about 600 a year; and recalls are running at slightly less than that.
Homeless People and Rough Sleeping
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Bird
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent homeless people who are living in hostels or supported homes in England from being pushed back on to the streets; and what progress they have made with their target to end rough sleeping by 2024.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Yesterday, the annual rough sleeping snapshot statistics were published, which showed a rise in the number of people sleeping rough on a single night. However, the long-term trends show the considerable progress we have made: rough sleeping levels remain 35% lower than at their peak in 2017. But we are not complacent. This Government remain steadfastly committed to ending rough sleeping. We are delivering 6,000 move-on homes through the rough sleeping accommodation programme, and our strategy, published in September last year, outlined how we will invest £2 billion over the next three years.
Lord Bird (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. My problem is with the extension of homelessness that has taken place—a 34% increase in the number of people facing no-fault evictions, which is the Section 21 that we need to address. We have 125,000 children in temporary accommodation and 100,000 households in temporary accommodation. These are the kinds of figures that are going to drive the Government’s plan for 2024 into the long grass, and I would like to know how they are going to address the increase in homelessness among people who have never, ever come anywhere near it and will end up rough sleeping.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord makes some very good points, and there are a number of very complex issues that contribute to the rise in homelessness, particularly in the private rented sector. We shall be legislating on private rented sector reform, and that does remain a top priority for this Government. We will bring forward legislation within this Parliament. On 16 June last year, we published our White Paper, A Fairer Private Rented Sector, which sets out our plan fundamentally to reform the sector and level out housing quality. The Government are committed to banning the Section 21 no-fault evictions to protect tenants and will introduce the renters’ reform Bill in this Parliament.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the point that we want to establish is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, knows, rooflessness is very different from homelessness. These latest statistics are very concerning indeed, although the overall trend being 35% down is positive. What I really want to know is whether the Minister knows how many have been sleeping rough a second night, which is obviously even more concerning. Have we made progress in that regard?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The annual snapshot that we take in autumn is our official and most robust measure of rough sleeping on a single night. It is independently verified. I do not have the numbers for those who are out for a second night. But we know that the longer a person stays on the street, the more difficult it becomes to rebuild a life off it. As set out in the cross-government rough sleeping strategy, Ending Rough Sleeping for Good, we will have ended rough sleeping when it is prevented wherever possible and, where it does occur, is rare, brief and non-recurrent. We do have the No Second Night Out initiative, which pays for 14,000 beds and 3,000 support staff this year, with services ranging from emergency interventions to focus on preventions and a more sustained off-the-street accommodation offer with support.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, this remains a real issue, and the Minister, I am afraid, is being rather complacent. We know that what has happened since 2010 is that there have been unprecedented levels of rough sleeping. We managed, in the early part of the 1997 Government, to reduce rough sleeping almost to nonexistence. We know how to do it. The Government know how to do it, but it is not happening. We now have the additional crisis that so many of the charities that are there to help those who are in most difficulty are going under, and their finances are stretched. The Government have got to do something—just what are they going to do?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We are absolutely not complacent, as I said in my initial Answer. In fact, between October and December, when the snapshot was taken, our management accounts show that homelessness reduced by 27%—although I acknowledge that that is partly as a result of seasonal variations, which happen every year. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2018 was the most ambitious reform to homelessness legislation in decades. Since it came into force in 2018, over half a million households have been prevented from becoming homeless or have been supported into settled accommodation. As a demonstration of our determination not to be complacent, we have put £2 billion into the fund to help reduce homelessness. The noble Baroness is entirely wrong to use 2010 as a comparator, because that is when the statistics were started on this basis. She might like to know that we are almost up to the level of highest number of households in temporary accommodation, which was in 2004.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the one silver lining of the awful tragedy of the Covid pandemic was the Everyone In project, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey? But the chance to keep every homeless person in was then, frankly, squandered. Will the Minister agree to look into that wasted opportunity—the extraordinary waste of the chance at that particular moment? Will she come back to the House and explain why the Government have wasted that one critical moment when everyone was in, which could have been used to hit that specific target in the Conservative manifesto? That is clearly not going to be reached, as evidenced by the statistics yesterday.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think we can all agree that the statistics yesterday were deeply disappointing. That is certainly a reflection of the cost of living, with a number of people being evicted from rental accommodation having fallen behind in arrears. However, there is much that we are doing to help: we have the rough sleeping initiative, Housing First, the Night Shelter Transformation fund, supported housing, and we are funding local authorities to provide assisted housing. We are doing a number of different things, which are all wrapped up in a £2 billion package, and, having spoken to the banks, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are all fighting the same war and that we still stick to our manifesto pledge to get rid of homelessness.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I raise a subject that I have raised several times before: namely, the 200 year-old Vagrancy Act, which refers to “rogues and vagabonds” living in stables and coach houses. Everyone agrees that this Act has nothing to do with helping rough sleeping. On the contrary, by diverting rough sleepers down the criminal justice route, it isolates them from the support which my noble friend has said is available. Two years ago, the Government said that they would repeal the Vagrancy Act. Can my noble friend give a date for when that will happen?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Government does agree that the Vacancy Act is antiquated and not fit for purpose, and therefore we have committed to repealing it. We made that commitment during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. Our commitment to repealing it has always been dependent on introducing modern replacement legislation to ensure that police and other agencies continue to have the powers that they need to keep communities safe and protect vulnerable individuals. As usual, I cannot give specific date when we will bring the legislation in; all I can say, as usual, is that we will bring forward suitable replacement legislation in a future legislative vehicle.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that the cuts in funding for support to homeless people now mean that, since the 2010 level, 12,000 more people needing psychological support are in long-term homelessness, which is often due to adverse childhood experiences and their subsequent turning to alcohol, and that alcohol is now the cause of almost one in 10 of the deaths among the homeless? Without addressing those underlying psychological causes, the problems behind the homelessness of many people will never be addressed.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness that the homelessness strategy crosses all departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Defence. My briefing from the DWP on this very point states that the local housing allowance policy is kept under regular review, we monitor average rents and a significant support package for renters was announced in the autumn Budget. We are doing everything we can to provide household support in order to help people navigate through this very difficult time.
Water Companies: Water Pollution
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with water companies regarding water pollution.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the current environmental performance of water companies is unacceptable. In December 2022, the Water Minister and the Secretary of State met with CEOs of lagging water companies—as identified by Ofwat’s recent assessment—to outline the Government’s expectations that performance must improve significantly. Furthermore, in January, my colleague Rebecca Pow met with the CEO of South West Water. She will be meeting the CEOs of all lagging companies individually every six months and she expects to see significant progress. Most recently, I also met CEOs of water companies with Minister Pow to highlight the importance of addressing water pollution and reaching their net-zero goals.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the water companies are themselves responsible for monitoring the quality of water. They are awarding themselves top marks and bonuses when they are clearly failing, as the Minister has acknowledged. When will the responsibility for monitoring water quality be taken away from these companies and given to the Environment Agency? When will there be serious sanctions against those running these companies for their repeated failures?
Lord Benyon (Con)
In 2013, we only knew about 5% of the storm overflow points where sewage was going into our rivers. We now know about 90% because we instructed the water companies to provide that information. By the end of this year, we will know about 100%. The Environment Agency is the guardian of water quality and it takes forward prosecutions. The Government have said that they will increase the fines available as, at the moment, there is a cap on them, which we think should be higher. The Environment Agency is already able to launch criminal prosecutions against CEOs. Ofwat has the power to impose a fine of up to 10% of a company’s annual turnover and all fines are taken from the water company’s profits and not from customers.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, we consume twice as much water per capita as we did 50 years ago. There is an increasing frequency in sewage discharges as a result of extreme weather events, all of which require institutional investment. Do the Government not have the choice either to reduce profiteering in the sector in favour of this investment or to ask the taxpayer to subsidise this infrastructure?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are asking water companies to spend a lot more—£56 billion. In this period alone, they are putting an extra £7 billion into investment in infrastructure. Water companies make a profit of about 3%. This is not dramatic, compared with what some other companies make, but we watch it very carefully through the instructions we give to Ofwat. We want to make sure that customers are getting a good deal but, more importantly, that there is investment going into infrastructure.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I wonder if the Minister is aware that, in two weeks, the Industry and Regulators Committee of this House will be producing its own report into governance and regulation in the water and sewage industry. This will clearly be of interest to many in this House. Can the Minister confirm that putting right the sort of problems we are talking about is going to take decades, not years? Can he also confirm that the money for it will not be public money, but that the companies themselves will raise money in the City, take on debt and possibly put up water bills?
Lord Benyon (Con)
At a time of concern about household expenditure, it is important that we balance water bills. It is always a balancing act. We want to make sure that, with an average bill at just above £1 a day to provide all the water a household needs and to have all the sewage taken away, water companies can invest in the necessary infrastructure. Most importantly, during the next decade or two, we must eliminate rainwater getting into sewage. This is the challenge. At the moment, we have water coming off roofs and going into Victorian or Edwardian sewers. Many of them have been updated and improved, but billions of pounds still need to be spent to tackle this recurring problem.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have raised before in this House the River Wye, which is one of the most glorious rivers in our country. We know why it is polluted; my noble friend the Minister has mentioned this from the Front Bench before. Can he give me some idea of when that river will flow clean again so that we can be proud of it, as our forebears were?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not an aquatic scientist but I can tell my noble friend that the problem in the Wye is principally due to phosphates coming from the poultry industry, which has boomed in that area and for which no adequate planning provision was made to prevent the leakage of effluent. The Environment Agency and other parts of Defra are making sure that we are correcting that. I hope that we will prevent what is happening, which is an absolute tragedy. For large parts of the year, large sections of one of the great rivers of this country are nearly ecologically dead. We want to reverse that.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, there has been considerable media interest in the pollution of bathing waters, inland rivers and waterways as a result of the release of sewage overflows. Nearly every week, the Minister is called here to answer questions on this issue. Given that warmer weather is approaching, can he say how the Government will protect the health of the children and adults who will be exposed to this fetid and polluted water?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We rightly beat ourselves up about this but it is worth stating that our bathing waters are in their best state ever. Last year, 93% of them were classified as “good” or “excellent”. The number of serious sewage incidents has fallen from 500 a year in the 1990s to 62 in 2021, although that number is still 62 too many. What is called wild swimming—what my mother used to call swimming—is becoming a great national sport and activity. We want to connect more people with nature; that is a wonderful way of doing it. Making sure that our rivers are clean is vital.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I feel like a stuck record on this issue; goodness only knows what the Minister feels like. He keeps assuring us that the Government are doing a lot of work here so why does he think that, week after week, month after month, he has to come to the Dispatch Box to answer the same question?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to the answers that I gave on 7 September, 25 October, 2 November, 14 November, 24 November, 30 January and 22 February, as well as to my 60 Written Answers. I think that we are all of the same mind: we want to resolve this problem. We are seeing massive enforcement activity taking place and a complete change to our farming system, which will weaponise soil as a great tool in preventing the pollution of our waterways. We are also seeing a variety of other activities, such as the riparian planting of woodland along rivers. Things are getting, and will continue to get, better but I like to fill the noble Baroness with joy by coming back and repeating this every week.
Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links (Con)
My Lords, water pollution is not confined to England. According to Scottish Water, more than 10,000 spill events typically happen north of the border each year; that is nearly 30 a day. Similar to other water companies, Scottish Water attributes many of those spills to flooding and more frequent rain due to climate change. Scotland’s environmental protection body, SEPA, works with the Environment Agency on cross-border issues across the Solent, the Tweed and in coastal waters but can the Minister ensure that he and his department are ever mindful to co-operate at a government level as well as at an agency level on cleaning up, planning and infrastructure upgrades? We all know that this issue does not stop at any border; neither does the effluent.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right: nature does not recognise borders. There is an arrangement whereby the Scots administer the Tweed, which is a border river, and the English Government administer the Esk, which is also a border river. However, we must ensure that our policies on the environment are aligned, that water companies, whether they are in Scotland or England, are abiding by the rules, and that we are of a similar mind in bearing down on this problem.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the water companies and their directors are making considerable profits. When was the last CEO or director of any water company prosecuted, fined or jailed for the grievous breaches that are occurring? If they have not been, why have they not been?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Part of me wants to answer that question by saying, “our rivers are in a better state under this system of administration of our waters”. However, I really want to say that we have given ourselves the powers now to do precisely what the noble Lord is asking for. We can have criminal sanctions, we can fine considerably more than we could previously, and we can drive up standards through our directions to Ofwat, through what we are providing with the extra enforcement that we are giving to the Environment Agency and through many other areas. It is not for me to say who should be criminally sanctioned or when. That is for the courts, and we have given them the powers to do that.
Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
Lord Evans of Rainow
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 January be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.
Code of Practice for the Forensic Science Regulator
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Code of Practice laid before the House on 26 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.
Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.
National Security Bill
Wednesday 1st March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Feb 2023)
17:31 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 79 / Noes: 226 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 212 - Amendment 18 disagreed.
17:57 - Division on Amendment 18A - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 209 - Amendment 18A disagreed.
19:12 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 170 - Amendment 51 agreed.
21:24 - Division on Amendment 80 - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 80 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments in this group, I would like to talk about some of the reasons why we are introducing them. Some of our amendments have been brought forward to reassure noble Lords and others that the offence will not capture the genuine work of journalists. We have listened to the concerns raised by the media sector and noble Lords in the House, and some of these amendments are a direct response to them.
The Government have heard from media stakeholders who believe that they could no longer hold the Government to account and that these clauses could inhibit the publication of articles critical of the UK’s defence or security response. I want to address those concerns directly. The Government are committed to defending our freedoms—values which define us and make us who we are. Few are more fundamental to that than freedom of the press. There is no intention to stifle or censor the media’s ability to expose or shine a light on issues. That is the proper role and function of the media and why the UK is such a strong advocate of media freedom globally.
Before we get into the details of individual provisions, I remind the House that these provisions replace the existing law in the Official Secrets Act 1911. We have been provided with a number of examples of journalistic reporting that have been cited as part of the case that more must be done to protect journalists in this Bill. Even were the Government to accept that any of these examples could hypothetically be caught by any of the offences, the same would be true of the existing laws. Accordingly, great comfort should be taken from the fact that no prosecutions of journalists have taken place under the espionage laws to date. I want to confirm again, on the record, that the focus of the Bill is on protecting the UK from threats from foreign states and those acting against UK interests, not interfering with the free press.
I begin with the amendments focusing on “ought reasonably to know”. The phrase was said to be unclear, with concerns raised that it could be interpreted as imputed knowledge, thereby catching those who engaged in specified conduct unwittingly—who did not know but are told that they should have known. I would like to strongly emphasise that this is not the Government’s intention and we do not consider that the current formulation would be interpreted by the courts in this way. However, we have considered the concerns raised on this issue, particularly the useful contributions in Committee from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. We agree that it would be helpful to clarify the meaning. These amendments therefore clarify that the prosecution must look at what matters were known to the individual at the time in determining whether that individual ought reasonably to have known something.
I now turn to amendments which all relate to the offence of materially assisting a foreign intelligence service. The amendments that the Government have put forward update the offence provided for in Clause 3(2). These amendments are similar to the ones put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The effect of these amendments is that the wording
“it is reasonably possible may”
in both Clauses 3(2)(a) and (b) would be replaced with “is likely to”, which in this context we see as meaning a real possibility. In order to ensure consistency across the clause, Amendment 13 also updates the relevant wording in Clause 3(3).
The Government have tabled amendments in response to a point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. These would add protections for lawyers, ensuring that any genuine legal activity will not be captured under the Clause 3 offence in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the helpful explanation of the many government amendments in this group. I thank him and the Government also for the considerable movement they have made in response to criticisms made by me and many others at Second Reading and in Committee of the breadth of the offences under Part 1. We are very grateful to the Government for the comprehensive way in which they have listened to our criticisms and moved towards positions that we have taken.
In particular, the troublesome phrase “ought reasonably to know” has been clarified by the qualification that what a defendant ought reasonably to have known falls to be judged having regard to other facts known to that defendant. Furthermore, in Clause 3, as the Minister explained,
“conduct that it is reasonably possible may materially assist a foreign intelligence service”
becomes conduct that “is likely to” materially assist a foreign intelligence service.
I welcome the new strengthened review provisions introduced by the new clause proposed in Amendment 85, in place of the old Clause 56. These and other concessions in the amendments moved by the Government allay many of our concerns.
However, there is one area left untouched that we say is still completely wrong: the failure to tighten up the definition of the
“interests of the United Kingdom”.
That is the subject of our Amendments 2 and 3, and the corresponding amendments wherever the phrase
“safety or interests of the United Kingdom”
appears. I note the word “or”: the interests of the United Kingdom alone are enough to qualify. It is principally in support of those amendments that I speak now.
We are concerned about the interests of journalists, and that is the title of this group. I do not accept what the Minister said when he suggested that it was permissible to rely on the fact that journalists have not in the past been prosecuted under security legislation. That may as a matter of fact be true, but it is neither safe nor good legislative practice to rely on it without tightening up the legislation so as to prevent such prosecutions succeeding.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 18 in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Faulks, and to a number of government amendments that touch on the same issue. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, which is a member of the News Media Association, and as director of the Regulatory Funding Company. I also note my other interests in the register.
One of the leitmotifs that ran through discussions on this Bill in the other place, and through Second Reading and Committee here, has been its impact on independent journalism, particularly investigative reporting, as the noble Lord has just said. I do not need to rehearse all those arguments on this subject, which have been well covered and widely reported. Indeed, it has attracted attention and criticism from international media freedom groups deeply concerned about the global impact of this legislation.
The crux of the argument is really very simple and arises mainly from the wide definitions of offences in Clause 3, which potentially criminalise aspects of investigative reporting. That in turn—this is the major worry—produces a powerful chilling effect on investigative reporting by responsible journalists. I appreciate that there are government amendments, which I am going to come to, but as it stands an offence punishable with heavy criminal sanctions and sentences is committed if someone
“knows, or ought reasonably to know, that it is reasonably possible their conduct may materially assist a foreign intelligence service”.
That would cover a wide range of reporting, whether about sexual assaults on board a nuclear submarine, Chinese influence in the UK, bullying by intelligence officers, an innocent photograph of a nuclear power station or huge investigations such as the Panama Papers.
The problem is that, when journalists start investigating a story, they cannot possibly know where it will lead and whether their reports might
“materially assist a foreign intelligence service”.
They should not be criminalised for what they ought to have known, even if what they actually did know at the time is taken into account. It is too nebulous and such a low bar that much reporting could be caught. Editors and reporters would far too often be forced to stop an important public interest investigation because of the fear of breaking the law and individuals facing prison sentences.
As I said in Committee, I have never believed that the new offences in this Bill would be used regularly to imprison journalists, and I do not believe that is what the Government intend. But the risk, the uncertainty, the lack of clarity in the law and the chilling effect are there. As a result, the damage to the public interest is there.
To echo the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the Government to their great credit have listened to concerns set out so clearly in Committee by colleagues across the House in the debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others. The Security Minster Tom Tugendhat has underlined his own strong personal commitment to media freedom. He, my noble friend the Minister and their officials have been extremely helpful and constructive in discussions with colleagues here and with the media industry to try to resolve these issues.
Government amendments tabled for Report to Clause 31 are an improvement on the Bill and I support them. They go some way to ameliorating the difficulties by changing “reasonably possible may” to “is likely to”, which brings helpful clarity. But I believe that, without a very clear signal from the Government that the purpose of their amendments is to ensure that public interest journalism is outside the scope of their Bill, on their own, they do not go far enough.
The reason for this is that lack of clarity in the criminal law is always the enemy of investigative reporting. Uncertainty as to whether something will end up in a lengthy jail sentence for a reporter of editor is anathema to media freedom. Here we have—even with the government amendments—lack of clarity and uncertainty, and a chilling effect from the wording that judges journalists for what they ought to have known.
Relying on the courts to interpret vague legislation is not good enough when it comes to media freedom, because we have all seen where that ends. There must be no ambiguity which would force the prosecuting authorities and courts to have to second guess the intentions of Government or which would allow a future Government not committed to freedom of expression to use the same prosecuting authorities and courts to suppress scrutiny of their actions.
Consider this not unusual scenario. It happens not infrequently that an investigation by a newspaper relating to a matter of national security looks as if it may end up criticising or embarrassing the Government or intelligence services. During the course of such a wholly legitimate investigation in the public interest, the editor of a newspaper receives a call from someone who says, “Publish this and you’ll be assisting a foreign intelligence service”. The editor and reporter have no way of knowing whether that is true or is just an attempt to stop an investigation. In such circumstances, the risk of prosecution because they “ought reasonably” to have known that they were assisting a hostile power will deter them from publication. Simply put, if you do not know what constitutes “conduct” amounting to a criminal offence, you are unlikely to pursue a story touching on national security issues. Even with the government amendments, that still therefore leaves a profound chilling effect.
I understand that the Home Office and the security services need “conduct” to be drawn sufficiently broadly in Clause 3 to protect the public in a wide range of circumstances—something we all want—but that is why, at the same time, it must be made unequivocally clear that genuine journalistic activity is not within the ambit of prosecution.
The purpose of my amendment is therefore to provide clarity and certainty by ensuring that those working on articles or investigations for publication by recognised news publishers—a term already defined by government in both this Bill and the Online Safety Bill—have a defence to rely on if they are threatened with prosecution for conduct that they must necessarily engage in during the course of their work. This simply codifies in the Bill the Government’s stated intention in regard to journalism, and is a straightforward, practical amendment to deal with the problems that have been identified throughout the passage of this legislation.
I have consistently said that I wholeheartedly support this Bill. National security is the primary task of government and one which this House takes incredibly seriously. However, all legislation of this sort is a balance between competing rights and responsibilities. Noble Lords will know that, 80 years ago, President Roosevelt set out his four freedoms. The fourth was freedom from fear, which is what this Bill is all about. We should not be fearful of the terrorist, the bullet or the bomb, or of a cyberattack, and this Bill rightly strengthens the armoury available to the state to deliver that. However, Roosevelt’s first freedom was freedom of expression—the source of all other liberty. He recognised, as so many after him, that a balance needs to be struck. This amendment seeks to do that by ensuring that this vital Bill protects the public interest that springs from investigative reporting at the same time as it protects the security of the public. In doing so, it would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world about the commitment of our Parliament to free speech—a global responsibility that we must take very seriously.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Black. I read up on him and it says online that he is a passionate defender of press and media freedom, and free speech. I think we might be coming at these things from different directions, but on these things we agree. I declare an interest as the mother of a journalist. I care very deeply about this issue of press freedom; it is a ditch I will die in—which looks likely, perhaps, today.
The Minister said he has heard from the media. I have heard from the media as well, and it has been quite interesting hearing what journalists have to say about this particular Bill. For example, only today, the Sun journalist Mr Harry Cole texted me to highlight stories that he broke that could have criminalised him. That is quite a useful example. One of the stories was, of course, Matt Hancock in his office with his then girlfriend—perhaps not a matter of great state concern, but at the same time it showed a carelessness on behalf on members of the Government for laws that they had brought in.
The government amendments in this group are proof that your Lordships’ House can force the Government to recognise errors in their legislation—of which, of course, there are always a lot. As I said at Second Reading and in Committee, the offences in the Bill are simply too broadly drawn; they risk ensnaring far too many innocent actions, turning them into serious criminal offences. I am glad the Government have now conceded that point, including a recognition that current drafting risks harming journalists alongside numerous other legitimate actors, such as charities and non-governmental organisations.
However, while the Government’s proposed amendments will tighten the offence, they still do not sufficiently protect innocent people from falling foul of these laws. That is why I have tabled Amendment 72, which would protect journalists unless they did something on the orders of a foreign power. This strikes a much better balance. It does not grant a total exemption, which would allow actual spies to claim they were journalists, just as it would not allow the Government to brand actual journalists as spies.
I like Amendment 18. It is not as good as my Amendment 72, but it has slightly more elegance. I strongly support it and hope that the noble Lord will press it to a vote. I do not want to take any glory for him but, if he chooses not to because he trusts the Government’s assurances, I would feel compelled to put his amendment to the vote myself.
I have been in a lot of legal briefings recently on several Bills, and all of them included phrases from the Government like, “Oh, you’ve got to trust us on this”, “Really, we assure you”, and “You can trust us”. Quite honestly, who trusts the Government any more? I bet millions of people do not—I certainly do not. I want something in the Bill that actually protects journalists.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will add a few remarks to what has already been said in the debate. My noble friend Lord Black comprehensively and powerfully set out the case for his amendment, which I support and have added my name to.
I emphasise that, like everyone else, I think, I support the Bill. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that I signed the Official Secrets Act when I was just 18 years old, on my first day as a junior secretary in the Ministry of Defence. I knew very little about the world that I had entered, but it was impressed upon me from the start that I would be in possession of information that could endanger lives. I learned from an early age about protecting any information that could be weaponised against the UK or our citizens.
I also learned that part of what makes us such a powerful and important nation is our freedoms, especially our free press. I learned that it is critical that we do not do anything that risks journalists not being able legitimately to expose serious failings or wrongdoing by government or public servants, especially when those government failings themselves could threaten the lives and well-being of British citizens.
In Committee, we heard some powerful examples that could be at risk of being exposed in the future, for the reasons that were set out. That is why I believe it is essential that we do not legislate to protect our national security in a way that could stop journalists doing their legitimate job, however inconvenient to Ministers or public servants the results of this sometimes are. Journalists should not be threatened with prison for exposing the truth about ineptitude, incompetence or corruption within government, whoever is in power.
I echo what my noble friend Lord Black and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about the commitment of my noble friend the Minister, his ministerial colleagues and officials across Whitehall, who have given time and effort in trying to find a way forward. As the Minister laid out, the Government have come a long way towards addressing the concerns expressed during debates in Committee. Like others, I support all of the amendments that my noble friend tabled on behalf of the Government.
However, as my noble friend Lord Black explained, we need to go a little further and provide greater clarity than the Government’s amendments if we are to avoid a chilling effect on journalism, which could so undermine the public interest. That said, I fear that my noble friend the Minister may be unwilling to accept our amendment. That troubles me, because a Bill on national security and how a new offence could apply to journalism is not one on which I would like to see the House divided.
I can see why the Government might be struggling with the amendment or to come up with something else that provides the clarity that we need. As unthinkable and unlikely as it may be, I suspect that there is a fear within Whitehall that a journalist working for a recognised news publisher could collude with a foreign state seeking to do us harm and use this as a defence to get away with it.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I want to listen to what my noble friend the Minister says at the end of the debate. It is important that we give him the opportunity to speak very clearly about this. I remind my noble friend that his words at the Dispatch Box are incredibly powerful in legal terms if they are made deliberately with the purpose of ensuring that there is complete clarity and no ambiguity when it comes to the intention of legislation.
If he will not accept this amendment, I want him to be very clear about the explicit limits of this offence. Can he put beyond any doubt that no journalist doing a legitimate job of exposing wrongdoing and failure by the state will be caught by this future Act of Parliament —if that is what it becomes—if they are not working on behalf of a foreign Government or agency? As I said, I want to listen to him, and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, my noble friend Lord Black and the rest of the House to do the same, because that is what I will do.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have also added my name to Amendment 18. I have very little to add to what has already been said by those who have spoken in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has given a very good summary of the ruling of Pepper v Hart, although there first has to be ambiguity for the Minister’s words to have particular effect. None the less, I entirely agree with her that we will listen with great interest, as indeed will the media in general, to what the Minister has to say, to see whether he can give the assurance that is genuinely needed.
All I will add to what noble Lords have said already is that public interest journalism is genuinely under threat. It is very expensive to undertake, and editors can easily be deterred by the possibility of a wild goose chase. It would be an additional impediment to their encouraging proper journalism if they felt that one of their journalists or their publication was in some danger of finding themselves contravening the provisions of this very important Bill, which I also support in all respects. That is why this is a very significant group of amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, citing Roosevelt, freedom of expression is fundamental. The press and the recognised publishers reflected in this amendment represent a very significant part of that freedom, and I hope that, in the Minister’s response to this group of amendments, we will get the reassurance that is so badly needed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name in support of my noble friend’s amendments seeking further clarity on
“the interests of the United Kingdom”.
I remind the House of the very significant penalties that are associated with these offences. Since this is my first opportunity on Report, after speaking in Committee, I thank the Minister and his team for listening, and not just listening but acting, engaging with us on these Benches and bringing forward amendments that we believe will make the Bill fundamentally better. Ministers have been true to their word in acting, and I appreciate that. The way the Minister and his officials have conducted themselves is to be commended, and I put that on the record so that it is perfectly clear.
The area that is outstanding, however, as my noble friend indicated, is that we still retain a concern that simply referring to “interests” and relying purely on the judgment within the 1964 Chandler case is insufficiently wide. As I stated in Committee, I am in a significant minority in not being a lawyer but, from reading the judgment in Chandler, which I remind the House also related to nuclear and defence policy, the only reference the Government have given to highlight what the case law definition would be of
“the interests of the United Kingdom”
is a defence and security interest. That is the only reference to the only case the Government have referred to. Therefore, it is not a significant leap to simply state in the Bill that this legislation is linked to security and defence interests. Without that, as my noble friend indicated, there is a concern that any government policy of the day that is not associated with defence interests, but is nevertheless activity that is directed by a foreign power, could be covered within this. Therefore, we still believe that there is a case for that to be defined.
I hope the Minister will respond to that point and say whether the Government are open to having further clarification of how “interests” are going to be defined, rather than just relying on that individual case. The reason I believe that that will now be necessary is because of one of the welcome concessions by the Government, which is to have an independent reviewer. We will come to government Amendment 85 later, but there will be a reviewer of this part of the legislation. For that reviewer to do their job properly—and we have noted reviewers and former reviewers in the House today—clarity on the Government’s intent regarding these interests will be important for the reviewer to look at the proper functioning of the legislation. I hope there will not be a grey area where there needs to be clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated.
My second point is that I welcome the Government seeking to narrow the area of information known to someone who is likely to fall foul of this legislation. Journalism is incredibly important. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I do not have friends at the Telegraph or the Sun to message me—we on these Benches do not often receive friendly messages from those journals—but I defer to her contacts with the Sun. Of course, she raises an important point in the context of what we debated last week in Grand Committee, the situation in Iran. We know that not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated, is free, fair, impartial and independent journalism under threat around the world, but journalism is under threat in this country. There are countries that are persecuting journalists for operating within this country; therefore, the strongest defences for journalism are important. We believe very strongly that my noble friend’s Amendment 79, on a public interest defence, will provide a very sound defence for journalists carrying out their activities.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Black. My understanding of the way that his Amendment 18 is written is that it would also cover whistleblowers. We have made the case for there to be protection for whistleblowers but, as I read his amendment, the defence is for a person who is not necessarily a journalist, but the intent is that the action will be for
“publication of material by a recognised news publisher”.
As I read it, Amendment 18 is therefore not limited to journalists. There may be unintended consequences that we may consider positive but the Government may not. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Black, will an opportunity to respond, so I ask the Minister whether his interpretation of Amendment 18 is that it could include whistleblowers. The main result may be to protect those who have a public interest defence in operating within all these parts. We will debate this in the next group on Amendment 79. I hope that will be our opportunity to draw the ditch—if not die in it—fight our case and divide the House on ensuring that there is a defence for journalists and a proper public interest defence for those carrying out legitimate activities not to be captured by this Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government’s amendments. We recognise that they have come a long way since Committee. The amendments in this group seek to address the unintended consequences of offences for journalists and NGOs. Concerns have been raised throughout the Bill that the legitimate activities of journalists, such as the possession of leaked information, could lead to their prosecution. The main focus of today’s debate is Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Black. It aims to give a specific offence, whereas our Amendment 79B calls for an assessment of the impact of this group.
Given the significant concessions made by the Government, I will not divide the House on Amendment 79B and we will abstain on Amendments 18 and 72 if they are moved to a vote. However, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, when she said that she would listen to the Minister, deliberate and see what will be done. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will press Amendment 18 to a vote even if the noble Lord, Lord Black, chooses not to. Either way, the Labour Party will abstain on those votes.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their very warm words. The strength of opinion highlights how important journalistic freedom is, and the Government take it extremely seriously. Whistleblowing will be dealt with in the next group, so if the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, allows, I will not deal with it in my response.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Black for his amendment and for his general comments in support of this Bill. As I have said, we have listened to concerns raised by the media sector and noble Lords. The Government’s amendments are a direct response to them. I will endeavour to provide the clarity that my noble friend Lady Stowell asked for.
On my noble friend Lord Black’s amendment, the Government cannot accept a defence linked to the definition of a recognised news publisher. Rather than taking activity out of scope, the defence would act as a way for foreign powers, particularly those seeking to cause the UK harm, to avoid prosecution under this clause and engage in harmful espionage activity. If a journalist is deliberately colluding with a foreign intelligence service in relation to their UK-related activities, such as by revealing intelligence capabilities that could be exploited by that intelligence service, it is absolutely right that they should face criminal sanction.
I acknowledge that the amendment seeks to provide a targeted protection for journalists by referencing “a recognised news publisher”. The Government have serious concerns that any individuals working under the cover of journalism in foreign media organisations operating in the UK would be able to abuse this provision. Even if hostile state actors did not currently use journalistic cover to engage in espionage, having a defence such as this would almost certainly encourage them to do so. This defence would apply even if the conduct in question was probably against the public interest. This is simply not acceptable; it would give foreign states a back door to commit espionage. Accordingly, the Government cannot accept this amendment and I ask my noble friend not to move it.
However, I want to reassure the media sector that publication of an article that was critical of the UK Government, and which might incidentally be capable of assisting a foreign intelligence service, would not fall within the scope of this offence; nor would the handling of materials in the course of genuine journalistic activities, nor likely the other offences in this Bill. For an offence to be committed under Clause 3, an individual would need to engage in conduct intending
“to materially assist a foreign intelligence service”,
or know, or should have known given the information they had at the time, that it was likely that such conduct would do so.
The Government may profoundly disagree with the conclusions of some journalists, but we will not hide behind the criminal law to suppress genuine competing views and it is almost inconceivable that genuine journalism will be caught within the threshold for criminal activity. My noble friend raised some specific examples and there are many—for example, those relating Snatch Land Rovers a few years ago—but the Government do not consider that the publication of an article that was critical of the UK Government, and which incidentally might be capable of assisting a foreign intelligence service, would fall within the scope of this offence. I think it is worth repeating that.
Many of the examples that have been provided in various articles are stories which relate to terrorism. No journalist has been prosecuted for an offence under terrorism legislation. Even where examples are relevant to state threats activity, no journalist has been prosecuted for an offence under the Official Secrets Act. This Bill will be no different and the Government do not accept the view that it criminalises the activity described in the media.
The test of material assistance is key. To be “material”, the assistance to the foreign intelligence service must be important, considerable or in a significant way. As with all criminal offences, it is the specific circumstances of the case that will be important and will be a matter for the prosecuting authorities, but we would expect prosecutions to involve those with known links to foreign intelligence services, including evidence of a relationship, tasking or payment. Absent these links, the Government struggle to envisage even the most provocative piece of journalism meeting the threshold for the offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, noted the Statement made last week on Iran International, and many noble Lords will have read it; it highlighted the potentially lethal operations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps taking place in the UK. Far from criminalising the important work of journalists, this offence is intended to protect Iran International, and others who live and work here, from such direct attacks on our people and values.
I turn to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with regards to security or defence interests under Clauses 1, 3, 4, 8, 12 and 14. These amendments seek to narrow the definition of “interests of the UK” to ensure a focus on the protection of national security and defence interests, alongside economic security interests. Similar amendments were tabled in Committee, so I will reiterate the concerns the Government continue to have with these changes, as they remain relevant. Narrowing the interest element to cover only security or defence interests significantly moves away from the “safety or interests of the UK” test that already exists and is understood within current espionage legislation. I am afraid these amendments move away from the status quo by creating a test with an unduly narrow focus on national security. While the noble Lord importantly made specific reference to interests pertaining to the UK in its economic security, these amendments continue to not include other critical UK interests relating to public health or, for example, the preservation of our democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the case of Chandler v DPP, as did his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. “Safety or interests of the UK” has been considered by the courts to mean the objects of state policy, determined by the Crown, on the advice of Ministers. We expect this interpretation to carry forward to the new legislation and there are safeguards in place to prevent the Government using this legislation inappropriately—for example, by deciding that somebody is acting against government policy but where there is no national security impact.
Each offence under this legislation includes a test that must be met in order for the offences to be committed. For example, for a person to commit a Clause 1 offence, they must obtain or disclose information that is protected for a purpose
“that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”
and the activity must be conducted for, on behalf of or with the intention to benefit a foreign power. This limits the type of conduct capable of being caught under this offence, and in particular the foreign power condition ensures that there is a state link. Designing the offence in this way clearly focuses the offence on harmful state threats activity.
I now turn to Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The most concerning consequence of this amendment is that where a state threats actor, acting under a proxy, has been engaged in harmful activity, which was an offence under the Bill, they would not commit an offence even if it could be shown that they were receiving specific funding in relation to that activity from a foreign power. The House will note the references to “state threats”, “foreign powers” and “national security”. Much as the amorous adventures of Matt Hancock may be of interest, clearly none of those falls in the scope of this offence.
It is no secret that those with hostile intent try to hide their activities through genuine means, and through this amendment there is a real risk that they could operate through proxies in order to make it more difficult to be prosecuted. It is therefore clear to see that narrowing the scope of the foreign power condition will have a damaging impact across the Bill. The Government considers this amendment would create unnecessary loopholes for state actors to exploit.
I would like to remind the House that the Government amended Clause 31(2)(c) in the other place to put it beyond doubt that there needs to be a clear link between the conduct and any assistance or funding from a foreign power for the condition to be met. It is the Government’s view that this puts the focus on the foreign power, ensuring that financial or other assistance from the foreign power is caught only when it is provided to enable the person to carry out the conduct, not when it is just any financial or other assistance.
I would also like to make it clear that Clause 31(2)(d), which concerns activity carried out in collaboration with, or with the agreement of, a foreign power, requires the foreign power to be actively involved in that collaboration or agreement; it does not cover cases where a person’s activities align with state objectives. The Government therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, not to press her amendment.
To conclude, as all speakers have noted, the Government have moved a very long way in ensuring that journalistic freedoms are not being unduly encroached in this Bill, so I hope noble Lords will accept our amendments and withdraw or not press theirs.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, I will offer one point of clarification. I will of course respond to the chair when called to do so after the next group, but I want to say that I am very grateful for the assurances he has given about the scope and intent of the Bill with regard to responsible reporting. My noble friend has made clear that Parliament’s intent in passing the Bill is not to interfere with the free press or investigative journalism and, on that basis, I will be withdrawing my amendment.
“(1A) Section (Public interest defence) applies to any offence under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in Lord Marks’ name, are connected to Lord Marks’ amendment after Clause 38 (Public interest defence) to apply a public interest defence to the offences under Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill and to offences under Section 5(6) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group concerns the public interest defence which is contained in Amendment 79 in my name, and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, to whom I am very grateful for their help, counsel and support. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has made it here so far because he is in court, but I expect him shortly, although he may not speak.
Our amendment would introduce a public interest defence to offences under Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill, together with the amended Official Secrets Act defence, amended by Schedule 17 at paragraph 5. The group also contains associated amendments, together with Amendments 18A and 79A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby.
Although, as discussed in the last group, the Government have made a number of welcome concessions since Committee in tightening up the offences set out in the Bill, there has been no concession on a public interest defence. That is despite the repeated strong calls in the press and elsewhere, from many quarters, for such a defence; and despite the fact that such a defence is available in our Five Eyes partners and that the Law Commission recommended one here in 2000, and so did the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Each expressed the view that the lack of such a defence risked our being in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
While the Government may not have moved, we have. Amendment 79 is significantly changed from the amendment I tabled in Committee, in large part to meet the reservations expressed on my amendment in that debate. First, the burden of proof has been changed. The amendment in Committee would have imposed the burden of proof on the prosecution to disprove the offence once it was raised, and to do so to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Some noble Lords thought that this imposed on the Crown a burden that would be too difficult to discharge in a security-sensitive context. While I am doubtful that that is the case, I accept the point, and I also accept the difficulties of proving a negative. So our amendment now imposes the burden on the defence to prove its case on the balance of probabilities—the civil standard that is usually applied in these cases.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, before we get on to the substance of the Bill, perhaps I might just correct something that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that I said in Committee. I did not speak for the protection of the lives of intelligence officers, such as I once was. I was speaking of concern for the lives of human sources who give us intelligence at the risk of their lives and those of their families. That was the concern I highlighted. There was no worry about my own safety; I was talking about those sources.
Lord Garnier (Con)
After that intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, had better watch out for his safety.
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks, one of the co-signatories of Amendment 79, for explaining the arguments behind it with such clarity and so dispassionately. I appreciate that he, along with many others, has invested a lot of time and thought in it, and I am somewhat of a latecomer to this particular party.
I have put my name to this amendment, along with those of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, not because I think the Government will accept it without question—clearly they will not—but because the question of whether such a defence should be available has long since arrived, and it is certainly possible to say that it is almost too late for us to start debating it now.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that the Labour Party’s stance and its inability to whip its members to support this amendment in the Lobby was a shame. I am afraid that I will be the subject of shamefulness as far as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is concerned, because I will not push this to a Division, and if others do, I am afraid that I will not join them. However, the reason why I think this debate is important is that, as I said before, it has not been had before, and certainly not in relatively recent memory. That may seem illogical but let me do my best to explain.
I realise that, in matters of national security, no Government, of either of the main parties, and certainly not a coalition Government, will cut and paste an amendment emanating from outside the Government. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, are in their places. I know from my time as a law officer, who had from time to time to consider matters to do with the Official Secrets Act, that the security services, as well as the lawyers who work for them, do not initiate prosecutions under the Act unless there is both a clear public interest in a particular prosecution and sufficient evidence to warrant it. It is my experience and clear recollection that they were all strict adherents to the rule of law in general and the provisions of any relevant statutes in particular, and wanted them applied lawfully and dispassionately in every case. In every case I dealt with I had their support and they had mine in ensuring that things proceeded with propriety and that no shortcuts were taken.
I therefore follow the previous debate on the first group and come to this amendment with a high degree of realism and more than academic or theoretical interest, albeit in a spirit of inquiry, to see where the Government’s thinking is on the matter. Clearly, anything that looks as though it may make the lives of those who want to damage our national interests less difficult, or make prosecutions in the right cases more difficult, must be considered with care, and will, at least initially, be likely to alarm those charged with the day-to-day care of our security. However, I hope that the arguments in favour of this amendment have been heard and that, once they have been digested, the Government will take some time to respond as fully and as openly as they can. My purpose today is to provoke that discussion, not to embarrass the Government. Nor is this group of amendments an opportunity to debate Clause 31 and the foreign power conditions, although Clause 31(3) and (6) clearly need careful attention. As I said at the outset, my intention is to raise the public interest issue firmly in Parliament.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Perhaps I might intervene. Ships alter course and go in all sorts of directions. There is a general trend, of course, and the general trend of the “Belgrano” and her group was towards a sudden pincer that would have attacked our force. That was why she was sunk—quite correctly. It was the right decision. In the context of this amendment, I would not want that to be confused.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I would not describe the noble Lord as a young man in a hurry although, had he waited just a second or two, he would have discovered that he and I might be in closer agreement than he might otherwise have imagined. But there we are. Let us ignore for the moment the direction in which the ship was going, understand that it was sunk and understand that Ponting disclosed that it was going in a particular direction when the Government had announced it was going in another. That is the end of that little anecdote. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. In my view, the short point is that it was an enemy ship that was generally threatening our ships. We were at war with Argentina. Argentinian warships were at risk of being sunk if they came within range of British Armed Forces. I do not have any particular sympathy for the Argentinian ship—albeit of course that it led to the most appalling loss of life for many Argentinian sailors.
However, it is not satisfactory for juries faced with a case where they think that a conviction on the evidence before them is unjust to be forced to bring in a perverse verdict in breach of the judge’s clear direction on the law and how it applied to the facts of the case. I suggest that this amendment is conservative with a small “c” and not a traitor’s “get out of jail free” card. The burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate that the disclosure was in the public interest and that the factors set out in proposed new subsection (3) are met. It would not allow for someone to disclose national security information because they thought that their view of the world was more attractive than that of the Government or the security services, or out of greed; nor would it allow for a Snowden or a Wikileaks scenario where vast swathes of information were dumped into the public domain.
If, for example, there was a better way of dealing with the sensitive information—noble Lords should look at proposed new subsection (3)(f)—the defendant would be hard pushed to persuade the jury that public disclosure was in the public interest. In my view, the proposed amendment accepts reality and prevents juries bringing in perverse verdicts in order to achieve informal or dishonest justice. A law that is not respected or is avoided by perversity, perhaps following some intellectually dishonest advocacy, is not worth having. In an era of electronic media, when information gets out pretty much immediately across the world in vast quantities, it may be better to inhibit desperados and attention seekers by getting them to think about what they will need to prove to found their public interest defence.
It seems to me that we can either carry on pretending that perverse verdicts do not happen—and swiftly change the subject when they do—or face up to reality and legislate sensibly for a really very unradical public interest defence that will neither bring down the state nor damage respect for the rule of law.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, although I sympathise with Amendment 79, which seeks to protect those who act genuinely in the public interest, I do not support it, for a number of reasons.
First, although I accept that, in its comprehensive 2020 review relating to the protection of official data, the Law Commission recommended that a public interest defence be introduced, that was in relation only to the Official Secrets Act 1989. Its recommendation did not suggest that such a defence should be incorporated into the rest of the Official Secrets Act regime, which is what in effect this Bill seeks to replace.
Secondly, in any event, the risks of introducing such a defence need to be carefully considered and balanced against the benefits of potential alternative approaches. This includes the creation of an independent commissioner to receive and investigate complaints of serious wrongdoing, which the Law Commission also recommended.
Thirdly, any introduction of a public interest defence needs to form part of a wholesale reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989, which this Bill does not seek to do. As I said at Second Reading, the ISC was disappointed to see that the Government were not reforming that Act. I will not repeat what I said then, other than to say that it is a very significant missed opportunity. That is particularly so because the Government have accepted the need to change the OSA for years, and this Bill represented a clear legislative route to do it.
Lastly, this amendment is very broadly drafted. It would introduce a public interest defence into a range of offences that do not require one, such as the offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service. For those reasons, I cannot support it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I recognise the Government’s argument that these spying offences need to be broad enough to capture the wide range of illicit activities that foreign powers may undertake to harm the UK. However, if that is so, equally broad defences are needed to protect innocent people who may become ensnared in the broad definition of the offences. Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is absolutely vital; it must be in the Bill.
I want to respond to the Minister’s comments in our debate on the previous group. I heard his reassurances about journalistic freedom, which I am sure were very sincere, but promises can be broken. Ministers move on. Governments move on. Commitments can be forgotten. I just do not think that, if it is not in the Bill, it can be held to be the law.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I acknowledge the changes that have been made to Amendment 79 since it was introduced in Committee, but I still do not feel that it would be appropriate and right for us to accept it. The noble Lord, Lord West, has pointed out a number of the reasons why, but I emphasise that we are being invited to introduce a public interest defence for what is, straightforwardly, espionage on behalf of a foreign service. I do not believe that we need to provide a public interest defence when an individual obtains and provides protected information on behalf of a foreign power while recognising that this is prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom.
I also recognise that the amendment extends to the Official Secrets Act 1989 but, again in support of the noble Lord, Lord West, I say that, if we are to change that, we must do so in a careful and deliberate fashion and bring forward legislation to do so. The 1989 Act does not deal with espionage on behalf of a foreign intelligence service. It is drawn up for different purposes. Therefore, it is separate from the issues that we are considering regarding the Bill. More broadly, it remains extremely dangerous to encourage or to lead individuals to believe that there is a public interest defence to the disclosure of highly sensitive information. Any one individual is unlikely to be able to make an accurate assessment themselves of whether their declaration and their disclosure is damaging to national security. That must be considered carefully, and it is not something for an individual official, however senior, to take on themselves. Therefore, any legislation and any amendment that might encourage them to do so is misguided.
Also, once a disclosure has been made, it cannot be withdrawn. Even though there may be benefit in prosecuting an individual for having done it, that does not stop the damage that has already been done. Therefore, we must have care not to lead people into believing they will be able to defend themselves having already made a disclosure, because the damage will have occurred.
Finally, on the question of evidencing damage, I recognise that the change in the burden of proof is a significant change to the amendment. Nevertheless, we are then faced with a situation where a person who has been accused of this offence will be trying to argue that they did not cause damage. In so doing, they are likely to adduce more evidence and more contextual material which might itself be damaging. It is not clear that this makes it easier in terms of the evidence or that it makes the prospect of prosecuting people for harmful activity any easier. For these reasons, I do not support this amendment. I hope that the House agrees.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I have a question on a point of clarification. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes regarding those offences which may be at the direction of a foreign power, as in espionage. However, the Bill contains offences that are not necessarily at the direction of a foreign power. His point would mean that my noble friend’s amendment would offer no public interest defence for those offences in this Bill which are not under the direction of a foreign power—as in, not espionage offences.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
If I am being invited to comment on whether I would support a different amendment, I say that might well be the case. However, I do not support the amendment that is before us.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, concerns have been raised that legitimate acts in the public interest could lead to prosecution under the Bill. The Government have insisted that a public interest defence could legalise instances of espionage or sabotage. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has said that he will press his amendment to establish a public interest defence. While we in the Labour Party support this in principle, we believe that the amendment is too broad and that it could in effect legalise espionage. We believe that there need to be appropriate safeguards built into any future legislation.
Further to this, we believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, fails to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations; that was a point made by my noble friend Lord West. I will instead press Amendment 18A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, to a vote; that is for a consultation on the introduction of a public interest offence, which we believe can establish some mechanism for addressing the concerns of the House. We believe that the amendment is a tighter and more focused approach than the alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. To address wider concerns on whistleblowing, we have also tabled Amendment 79A to establish an independent statutory commissioner, although we will not press it to a vote in due course.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments covers the introduction of a public interest defence—a PID. This topic has been debated at length throughout the passage of the Bill. As the House will hear, the Government agree with the criticisms of Amendment 79, just elucidated so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
I thank all noble Lords for their remarks during this debate, especially the degree of involvement we have had in the development of the Bill generally, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the last group. However, it is right to say that the amendment does not address the issues that arise, and the Government therefore cannot accept it. As I set out during the debate in Committee, the offences in the Bill target harmful activity from foreign states, not whistleblowing or public interest journalism. Our view, therefore, is that a public interest defence is not only unnecessary but risks significantly undermining the utility of the provisions in the Bill.
The Government’s principal position is that a public interest defence in relation to espionage is not appropriate. While we note the changes made to the amendment, this does not change the Government’s view on the matter. Notably, the risk with a public interest defence is that, at the point that the defence comes into play, the harm will already have been done. Seeking to rebut any form of public interest defence in criminal proceedings risks only compounding the damage. This, of course, is a point already eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans.
Furthermore, the proposed public interest defence for onward disclosures of information obtained via the espionage offences in the Bill, as has been proposed here, is inherently damaging to the national interest. I also entirely agree in this regard with the noble Lord, Lord Evans. To permit onward disclosures of this information under any circumstances would significantly undermine the weight we are affording to these offences.
The questions posed about the Law Commission’s recommendations relate to the Official Secrets Act 1989 which is not, as we discussed in Committee, the topic of reform in this legislation. We have heard strong views and concerns raised about the 1989 Act in our public consultation, and we need to take time to give proper consideration to those concerns. Therefore, we are not reforming the Official Secrets Act 1989 in this Bill.
It is clear to us that reform is complex and engages a wide range of interests. It is only right that proper due consideration should be given to the concerns that stakeholders have raised in the consultation. Furthermore, we need to prioritise delivery of our wider package of measures to tackle state threats and ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence partners have the tools that they need to keep us safe from those seeking to do us harm. We do not want the complexity of Official Secrets Act 1989 reform to distract from this. To that end, I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Evans, said.
I turn to the points raised in the previous group by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in relation to whistleblowers. We say that there are sufficient safeguards for whistle- blowers in the espionage offences. For the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information, that activity has to be for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. If an individual uses appropriate whistleblowing routes, their conduct would not meet this requirement—a point powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, when these amendments were being considered in Committee.
For the offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets, the activity has to be unauthorised. Using appropriate whistleblowing routes would not meet the requirement for unauthorised activity. Moreover, there is a damage element to the offence in Clause 2(2)(b). For the offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service, the person has to know or reasonably ought to know that their conduct may assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK activities or intend their conduct to do so. This is very different from reporting something to an appropriate regulatory body as a whistleblower.
It is not the case that there is a reliance upon juries in the place of a whistleblowing defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, appeared to contend. The role of a jury, when advised by the judge, is to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented during the trial. This takes up many of the points raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier in his speech a moment ago. This is an integral tenet of our justice system and applies in 1989 Act cases. This does not mean that the Official Secrets Act 1989 legislation is deficient. There is, of course, no statutory public interest defence in the 1989 Act, and therefore it is already clear in the law that juries should not acquit a defendant on the basis that they consider that the public interest in making a disclosure outweighs the damage caused by the disclosure. The Government are clear that we do not consider the introduction of a public interest defence in the Official Secrets Act 1989 to be appropriate. It is not the safest or most appropriate way for an individual to raise a concern of wrongdoing and have it rectified. It is already possible to make disclosures of information that are not damaging without breaching the 1989 Act.
However, the Government have heard and understand the concerns that the Bill could inadvertently capture genuine journalistic activity, as we discussed in the previous group. Even if the Government were to accept that these offences risk criminalising such genuine activity, a public interest defence would not be an appropriate way to address this. This sentiment was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, during the debate on the public interest defence in Committee, for which I am grateful. Indeed, a public interest defence would create loopholes that hostile actors would use to commit espionage against the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was quite correct in saying, the difficulty for whistleblowers is that they have an imperfect picture of the available information. It is not for the whistleblower to determine the extent of potential damage caused by the disclosure in the public interest.
The question of damage was raised in the debate. It was suggested that a damage requirement should be added to these offences. The Government’s position is that this would significantly undermine their utility. The type of activity described in the offences is inherently damaging. For example, in Clause 1, if an individual discloses protected information to a foreign power or otherwise on their behalf or for their benefit with a purpose
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”,
this is inherently damaging. Including a damage requirement would mean that we may need to prove the damage caused by disclosure in court. This, of course, would risk compounding that damage further. If we could not prove that damage in court, for example, because the risk of compounding the damage was too great, a person could freely provide protected information to a foreign power with the intention to prejudice the United Kingdom.
I already noted the potential risks and loopholes that could be created and exploited. This is not a defence in relation to Clause 3(2). The Government have extensively considered the arguments for and against a public interest defence but have concluded that the risk this could cause to the United Kingdom and the fact that this would undermine the purposes of the Bill mean that such a defence is not appropriate. Therefore, there is no need for an assessment and formal consultation on the inclusion of such a defence as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, at Amendment 18A and the Government do not accept that amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noted, there have been significant changes to the oversight provisions in the Bill. It is correct that this amendment should be viewed in light of those changes in position by the Government.
Instead, we say that the focus should be on ensuring that the drafting of the requirements and offences in the Bill is sufficiently tightly drawn to ensure that genuine activity, including by journalists, is not in scope. This is why the Government have responded by tabling amendments to the provisions in Part 1, as stated a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Sharpe. This includes clarifying the phrase “ought reasonably to know” and the amendments to Clause 3. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the tabled amendments.
I move now to Amendment 79A, which proposes the establishment of a new office for the national security whistleblower. I am grateful for the indication from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that he will not be pushing the matter to a vote but let me outline the government position in relation to that. This proposal differs from that debated in Committee in this House. The Government’s view remains that such a role is not required in relation to these offences. As I set out in Committee,
“The Government are committed to ensuring that our whistle- blowing framework is robust, and I confirm that the business department intends to carry out the promised review of the existing framework, and that further details will be set out in due course in relation to that.”—[Official Report, 18/1/23; col. 1913.]
We have just debated how the Bill targets hostile activities for and on behalf of foreign powers. I have been explicit that this legislation is not targeting the genuine work of journalists. By extension, it is therefore clear that the Bill does not target genuine whistleblowing. Consequently, a whistleblowing office in relation to this Bill misunderstands the aims of the legislation. Again, I refer the House to the Committee stage, when I and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, set out the options available where an individual has a genuine need to raise a concern and I shall not repeat those here. The Government are committed to ensuring that these channels are safe, effective and accessible. For these reasons, we cannot accept the tabled amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to these amendments, but it has disclosed a very sharp distinction between those of us who believe that a public interest defence can do no harm and a great deal of good, and those who do not. We regard as a complete mischaracterisation of the public interest offence the suggestion that it is likely to encourage or enable espionage or other disclosures that would be damaging to the national interest. By way of contrast, we see the presence in this Bill of a proposed series of absolute offences—as discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—where there is no defence for journalists, no defence for campaigners acting innocently, no let-out for whistleblowers and no protection for members of the public. We are concerned by a system that relies on perverse acquittals rather than acquittals according to law. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the test for when a person commits an offence under Clause 3(2).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the test for when a person commits an offence under Clause 3.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 3, page 3, line 25 and his second amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 27.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(ba) as a lawyer carrying on a legal activity, or”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates a defence to the offence in Clause 3 for lawyers carrying on legal activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the defence in subsection (7)(c) applies where a person assists a foreign intelligence service carrying out UK-related activities in accordance with an agreement with the UK.
“(8A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) it is a defence to show that the person engaged in the conduct in question was acting with a view to publication of material by a recognised news publisher as defined in Schedule 15.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(9A) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must consult, and publish a report of that consultation, on proposals for a public interest defence in relation to an offence under subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the government to formally consult on the introduction of a public interest defence for offences committed under Clause 3(2).
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
““lawyer” has the meaning given by paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 15;“legal activity” has the meaning given by paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 15;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 3, page 4, line 13.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 97 (amended by the Government) adequately reflects the context and importance of Sovereign Base Areas to UK national security and defence, and allows for Orders in Council, with appropriate modifications, to extend Part 1 to the Cyprus SBAs. This is consistent with other UK legislation to date.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, we move from the rather contentious issues of the last two groups to a little bit of sunshine, for this group is all about Cyprus. It is slightly technical, but the point of principle is easily stated, so I will deal with the technicalities first—but not before I have stated that I am very fortunate to have as companions on this amendment my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
Clause 97 of the Bill has been helpfully amended by the Government. It deals with the extent of applicability of the provisions of the Bill outside the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) states:
“His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any provision of this Act other than section 22 to extend (with or without modifications) to the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia”.
That seems pretty straightforward, so it would appear from that that there is a proper procedure—an Order in Council which could be modified and which would bring into the Bill those sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. On the other hand, if one turns to Clause 7, which is headed “Meaning of “prohibited place””, the definition of a “prohibited place” means Crown land in the United Kingdom, or the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which are used for UK defence and other purposes. It seems to me, and to those of us who have put our names to this amendment, to be nothing more than a mistake.
Originally Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the sovereign base areas, were included in the Bill; the Government very sensibly changed their mind by amending the original Clause 97, but they failed to remove the part of Clause 7 that includes Akrotiri and Dhekelia. As the signatories of these amendments, we simply wish to apply some consistency to the Bill and remove those sovereign base areas, understanding, of course, that there is every potential in appropriate circumstances—and I can imagine circumstances which could be appropriate— for the extent of the Bill, apart from Clause 22, to be extended to those sovereign base areas.
I should say to your Lordships that this is not a declaration of an interest—it is the opposite, because I made the coffee myself. I had the pleasure of a visit from Andreas Kakouris, the High Commissioner of Cyprus—a very able, interesting and delightful person, and a very modest and diffident person on these issues, along with a very senior and able member of his staff. I know that other Members of your Lordships’ House have been approached by the High Commission, and so have the Government; one of the reasons why the High Commissioner came to see me, and other members of your Lordships’ House and the other place, was that he had the impression that the very simple point he was trying to make had not been fully understood by the Government.
I will remind your Lordships that Cyprus has a very new President, Nikos Christodoulides; he has formed his Government and his Cabinet members are there to see—Members can look them up on the internet if I am boring them. Not a small number of them, I am delighted to say, have legal qualifications obtained in the United Kingdom, and therefore one can safely assume that they are able at least to see both sides of some problems—but they do not see one side of this problem. The new President and his predecessor have already formed significantly close relations with the United Kingdom Government, and at a diplomatic level the High Commissioner emphasised to me the pleasure he had gained from the quality of the relations that he, his previous Government and his new Government had been able to make with the United Kingdom Government—and particularly with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
But they are understandably sensitive to the sovereign base areas being put in Clause 7 of this Bill in a way that makes them feel like some outer province of the United Kingdom, which they are not. They are, as all your Lordships will know, in the European Union, they are very west-leaning and they understand the problems that there are. There are problems in relation to economic issues in Cyprus, including the nature of investors and so on, and they are very sensitive to that. But they do not understand why they have to be treated in a way that is insulting not to the Government, because they are people who do not feel insults and just want the right thing to be done, but to the population of Cyprus. Apparently, the Cyprus Government have received significant representations to that effect.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I declare my connection with the Government of Cyprus, as detailed in the register, and, like my noble friend Lord Carlile, I have spoken to the High Commissioner about this. Clause 97, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, is a sufficient and constitutionally appropriate way to apply legislation of this Parliament to the SBAs. In light of that power, like my noble friend I have difficulty in understanding why it continues to be thought necessary for Clause 7, by its definition of “prohibited place”, to apply Clauses 4, 5 and 6 to the SBAs directly.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said nearly everything, so I will make just two points, addressing what I have seen to be arguments that the Government have sought to make in respect of these clauses. Firstly, there is said to be a partial precedent in Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act 1911—well, what may have been appropriate at the height of empire is surely not appropriate now. Secondly, it is said that these clauses are evidently not intended to apply in the SBAs, as may be seen from the fact that the police powers in Clauses 5 and 6 are vested only in UK officers; yet the phrase “prohibited place” in each of those clauses is clearly defined as including the SBAs. The impression given by those clauses is that powers in the military areas, and indeed in adjacent areas lived in and farmed by local people, are vested in British constables.
That impression may not respond to realities on the ground, but it is certainly unfortunate, and I hope the Minister will do what he can to dispel it, hopefully by accepting these amendments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is also on these amendments, and I have also spoken with the High Commission; my noble friend Lord Purvis has spoken to both the Minister on the Front Bench and to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in the Foreign Office. If I have an interest to declare, it is that 25 years ago I worked on the Cyprus conflict and discovered a fair amount about the complexities of Cypriot politics—and they are no less complex today than they were then.
I will make a number of domestic comparisons. This is in my experience very much a Home Office Bill; it does not appear to take into account diplomatic niceties or the sensitivities of other states. We have some bitter experience in this country of sensitivities about sovereignty and the attempts by other states to exert legislative authority over this country, in relation to the EU. We are still being told that the European Court of Justice has imperial ambitions, and that we had to regain our sovereignty because it was trying to legislate for us, about our country.
Beyond that, of course, we have US bases in this country. I am very familiar with RAF Menwith Hill, which is close to where I live in Yorkshire, and I know a fair amount about RAF Mildenhall. The Minister will remember that when it appeared that the wife of a US serviceman at RAF Mildenhall was trying to evade British law by claiming diplomatic immunity and then going to the United States, there was a campaign of outrage in the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and others over this incursion into British sovereignty.
I remind the Minister that the agreements between the UK and the United States over US bases in this country are extremely discreet: the details have not been published; they are renewed every 10 years without parliamentary debate; and the two countries negotiate quietly about the conditions under which they operate. They do not involve Congress legislating with reference to these extraterritorial bases in the United Kingdom. Indeed, if Congress were to legislate with reference to RAF Mildenhall, RAF Menwith Hill and other bases, I am sure that the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and others would be outraged on our behalf at this apparent imperial incursion into British sovereignty.
I am conscious that Cypriot domestic opinion has as many elements, from the right to the left, as we have in this country. Of course, it would be a populist, nationalistic, mischievous campaign to provoke a public outrage in Cyprus about this apparent incursion into Cypriot sovereignty, but we in Britain now have some hard-won and bitter experience of how easy it is for populist and mischievous politicians to cause nationalistic outrage.
These references are not necessary. Clause 97 is enough. I hope that the Minister will take advice and consider that the Government should withdraw the references to the sovereign base areas in these other clauses. I repeat: Clause 97 is enough. The good will of the Government of Cyprus, and of the public in Cyprus, is important to this country, and we should not offend them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, this group covers a variety of related topics. The House has heard only about the amendments pertaining to the sovereign base areas, but I will address the other amendments advanced by the Government. The group covers amendments to the meaning of “government department” and changes to Schedule 2 to the Bill, and it deals with the amendments on the sovereign base areas, which I will come to in a second.
I start with a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in Committee. The question at the time was whether the reference to “government department” in the meaning of “Crown interest” in Clause 7 may include the departments of the devolved Administrations. It is the Government’s intention that any reference to “government department” within Part 1 of the Bill, including those falling under “Crown interest”, applies only to government departments of the United Kingdom. This means that we are not seeking to extend the meaning of “government department” to the devolved Administrations. I hope that this goes some way to settling the noble Lord’s concerns.
The Government have also made a number of changes to Schedule 2 to the Bill. In Committee, they made an amendment so that the Bill makes explicit provision that a Schedule 2 production order can be made to a judge without the subject being given notice of the application in advance. Currently, sub-paragraph (d) of condition 5 of the search and seizure powers at paragraphs 9 and 25 of Schedule 2 outlines that this condition may be met if the service of notice of an application for a production order may seriously prejudice an investigation. Without further change, this condition is no longer operationally effective because a warrant for search and seizure would not be granted in instances where the use of a production order more generally, which had been given without notice to a judge, would prejudice an investigation.
This group of amendments therefore closes the gap by bringing condition 5 closer to the equivalent provisions of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which sets out that the use of a production order would not be appropriate because an investigation may be seriously prejudiced unless a constable can secure immediate access to the material. It is important to stress that it has always been the Government’s position that the use of production orders should be considered in the first instance, resorting to a warrant where such an order is not appropriate to the investigation.
Finally, government Amendment 60 simply makes it clear that Acts of Adjournal made in relation to the production order powers in part 2 of Schedule 2 would be made by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. This is already the case within the current drafting, and we seek only to make this clear. Government Amendments 55 and 59 simply add the offences under Schedules 3 and 4—which were added to the Bill in Committee in the Commons—to the list of offences for which the powers of entry, search and seizure in Schedule 2 are not available.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. These amendments seek to remove references to the sovereign base areas from the prohibited places provisions in Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. The sovereign base areas are critical for UK defence and include a unique governance structure among the overseas territories given that the administrator, who is also the commander of British Forces Cyprus, has all the executive and legislative authority of the Government of the UK overseas territory.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Is the Minister classifying the sovereign base areas as having the same relationship with Britain as overseas territories? I was not aware that the SBAs were formally overseas territories.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the SBAs are a special structure, as set out in the 1960 treaty. As I say, they have a unique governance structure which I have already described. The unique context of the SBAs is precisely why we are including the option to extend the legislation to the SBAs in their entirety.
The thought behind these amendments is that the power in Clause 97 to extend the legislation to the SBAs is sufficient on its own. I understand the thinking behind this. However, these references are quite distinct and achieve different aims. References to the SBAs in Clauses 7 and 8 ensure that harmful activity taking place in respect of prohibited places will be prosecutable under UK law, in UK courts, only where it constitutes an offence under Clause 4. It is important to stress that the offence under Clause 5 cannot be committed in the SBAs, as this clause does not apply outside the United Kingdom. Similarly, the police powers under Clause 6 are conferred only on constables under UK law, and as such cannot be used in the SBAs. This inclusion of the SBAs maintains the status quo, given provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which already cover prohibited places in the SBAs as part of His Majesty’s dominions.
Clause 97, however, creates a power to extend any provision in Part 1 of the National Security Bill, with or without modification, to the SBAs. Should the power be used, the provisions will then form part of SBA law, and this would allow harmful activity to be prosecuted in SBA courts. Removing references in Clauses 7 and 8 to the SBAs would mean that those sites were no longer protected under UK law. That would reduce the protections currently afforded to them under the Official Secrets Act 1911, which will of course be repealed through this Bill. Furthermore, it is critical that these protections are afforded under UK law given that there is no guarantee that an Order in Council would be made so as to extend this part of the Bill to SBA law, leaving those sites potentially without any legislative protection. To reiterate the point I made in Committee—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, an Order in Council can be made by His Majesty’s Government. I do not understand when the Minister says that there is no guarantee that such an Order in Council could be made. I hope he is not suggesting that the Government might forget to do so.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The point, as the noble Lord will appreciate, is that the Bill should endeavour not to leave any potential vacancies which would potentially deprive the SBAs of applicability to this very important statutory provision. I reiterate the point I made in Committee that the Government consider that any references in the Bill to the sovereign base areas will not in any way undermine the provisions of the 1960 treaty, concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, between the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus.
To address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I can confirm that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the SBAs were consulted extensively throughout the Bill’s development and agree on its conclusion. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord that relying solely on Clause 97 would cause no harm.
I hope this explains the need to maintain the references in Clauses 7 and 8 and why the Government cannot accept the tabled amendments.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister has given us an explanation and I accept that the reference to a constable is to a United Kingdom constable, but Clause 6 gives the constable the power to clear people out of prohibited places. Why is it necessary for United Kingdom law to apply? Why is it not enough that this power should exist under the Order in Council applicable to the SBA? Since only the United Kingdom constable is covered in Clause 6, how can it possibly be necessary to define “prohibited place” for the purposes of Clause 6 as including places outside the United Kingdom? I just do not understand it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Government take the view that it is necessary to have the matter protected in UK law in addition to SBA law, and that, I am afraid, is the answer.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister was careful when he said that the SBAs and the FCDO were consulted by the Home Office on bringing forward this decision. I would assume that one department would consult another in its own Government with regards to a Bill—I think we can take it as read that the Home Office should have consulted the FCDO. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made was that there was no consultation with the Government of Cyprus, which is embedded in the principles of the establishment treaty in 1960. That is why there is a problem with it.
With regards to the further point from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, if it is only a UK constable, and only within UK domestic law, who enforces it within the SBA area? Who enforces it within the adjacent area to the SBAs, given that the measures are much wider than simply activities here in the UK? Who enforces it there?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I hope I have already made clear, it is only Clause 4 that applies. Clause 6 does not apply in this context.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am afraid I am very puzzled as a result of the Minister’s reply.
First, I think he was suggesting that the Government of Cyprus had been fully consulted. If he was suggesting that, all I can say is that that is the opposite of what I was told, and what the noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord Wallace and Lord Anderson, and everybody else who has been spoken to has been told. Secondly, why did the Government change Clause 97? Clause 97 provides for the powers earlier in the Bill to be operated within the SBA following an Order in Council. Are the Government saying that the justice provisions in the SBA are inadequate in some way? I can tell your Lordships that those of us who live around the legal profession know an awful lot of people who go and do cases and even sit as judges in those places, and that is not what they have found on the whole.
I would suggest that the Minister’s reply was insensitive—if I can be forgiven for using that word—and injudicious, and I invite the Government to consider it between now and the coming into law of this Bill. I am not going to press this to a Division tonight; I am not going to ask for the opinion of the House. But I feel a strong sense of dissatisfaction at the explanation, such as it is, that has been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that “Crown interest” includes interests belonging to a government department of the United Kingdom only.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that “Crown interest” includes interests held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department of the United Kingdom only.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the burden of proof on the defendant from a legal burden to an evidential burden.
“(5A) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (5) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies how the burden of proof may be satisfied in relation to the defence in subsection (5).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes an amendment to the Online Safety Bill which makes an offence under Clause 13 a priority offence.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 40, 41 and 50 relate to the offence of foreign interference.
Amendment 40 makes a procedural and technical tweak to address changes to the timetables of this Bill and the Online Safety Bill. The addition of foreign interference to the list of priority offences in Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Bill is government policy, which has been agreed at every stage of this Bill since its introduction. Designating foreign interference as a priority offence under the Online Safety Bill would disrupt state-backed disinformation targeted at the UK through the duties imposed on platforms by the relevant provisions in the Online Safety Bill.
However, now that the National Security Bill has overtaken the Online Safety Bill in its parliamentary passage, we must address the procedural challenges posed by this change to respective timetables. Government Amendment 40 will remove the reference to the Online Safety Bill from Clause 13(8) of the National Security Bill. The Government will then seek to add the offence of foreign interference to Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Bill via an amendment to that Bill. The effect of this amendment will be exactly the same as the current approach; it is simply the change in timetabling that means this amendment is necessary.
Government Amendment 41 clarifies the scope of the foreign interference effect contained within Clause 14(1)(a) to ensure it is not misinterpreted. Foreign interference includes interference with rights and freedoms that are protected under domestic law, such as freedom of speech. We know that foreign states have sought to intimidate or threaten diaspora communities with punishment to prevent them engaging in lawful protest activities. We want such activity taking place in the UK to be covered by the offence of foreign interference. Government Amendment 41 simply changes the wording in the offence to “in the United Kingdom” as opposed to
“as it has effect under the law of the United Kingdom”.
This will ensure that it is not misinterpreted to have a broader effect than we intend. It does not change our policy or affect the operational utility of the offence.
Amendment 50 is minor and does not introduce new policy. It simply reinforces the Government’s intention behind what is originally meant by “political decisions”.
Some concerns have been raised that references to proceedings in Parliament in both the offence of foreign interference and the foreign influence registration scheme risk creating unhelpful ambiguity about the prohibition on impeaching or questioning proceedings in Parliament contained in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The Government’s position is that such references did not and could not displace provisions in the Bill of Rights and were not intended to do so. However, we have amended the provisions to ensure there can be no suggestion of interference with privilege.
To address these concerns, government Amendment 48 removes references to proceedings of the UK Parliament and devolved legislatures from the definition of “political processes”. A key element of foreign interference is the infiltration of our democracy, including the institutions and processes which uphold our democracy. The other amendments we have tabled therefore seek to ensure that the offence still protects against such interference.
Amendment 49 adds to the definition of “political processes” a reference to
“the activities of an informal group consisting of or including members of”
the relevant legislatures of the United Kingdom. The policy intention remains the same—to capture foreign interference in Parliament targeted at the heart of our democracy—but we are achieving it in a slightly different way. I will briefly explain how we will do this.
The majority of what we wish to capture in relation to interference with Parliament will be covered by the effect in Clause 14(1)(b)—the limb relating to public functions—as MPs and other officials within Parliament will be exercising their public functions. It is right that we seek to criminalise activity where, for example, somebody is acting for a foreign power and threatens violence to affect how a person exercises their public functions.
However, with this amendment we ensure that we also capture activity that is part of our democratic processes but which does not have official status within Parliament. We have therefore added reference to informal groups, which will include APPGs, to the definition of “political processes”. Foreign powers seeking to interfere in political processes through those who do not have public functions—for example, an external secretariat—will continue to be caught by the offence.
I turn briefly to government Amendments 42 and 44, which give effect to the new approach I have outlined, with Amendment 44 relating to the “legal processes” limb. They give effect to the new approach such that those interference effects apply otherwise than in the exercise of public functions. Government Amendments 43 and 47 are consequential amendments following from the change in definitions.
Taken as a whole, the amendments do not introduce new policy but simply reinforce the existing policy on the interference from foreign states that this offence is designed to protect against. I therefore ask noble Lords to support the inclusion of these amendments and beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 51, which stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friend Lord Evans of Weardale.
This is about transparency. When the electors go to an election, obviously they consider the policies that are placed before them. They also consider the personalities that are placed before them, because they are voting for an individual to carry out the important and valuable role of their Member of Parliament. They also should be entitled to enough transparency to judge the ethical matrix in which each political party operates, as represented by the individuals who stand as candidates. This moderate and temperate Amendment 51 is an attempt to improve the knowledge that voters have about the ethical matrix of the political parties that stand behind the candidates they are able to vote for and have to choose from.
We know that there are problems about the ethical matrix of political parties. Sometimes it is not their fault, because outside forces, hostile actors from foreign countries, make interventions into elections—for example, via the internet—in an attempt to slant the vote in one direction or another. However, there is also a serious risk—I accuse no party of impropriety in this respect, at least for the purposes of this contribution to your Lordships’ debate—that foreign actors, foreign powers, may seek to influence an election, for example by making substantial donations to that party’s election fighting fund which enable it to fight the election at an advantage compared with other parties.
I will not go back to my days as a very happy Liberal and then Liberal Democrat MP and talk about the disadvantage we always started from because we had less money than the other parties. However, we were always worried, in those days at least—I am sure it is still the same today—by contributions that might have come from foreign powers and that would give an even greater advantage, concealed from the electorate, to those political parties.
So what this amendment seeks to do is protect us from the likes of Putin’s cronies, who might, one way or another, find their way to dinners, contribution events and even meeting people in this great building. We seek to establish a register. In effect, each political party would have to create a policy statement which meant that they were obliged to disclose at least the outline of contributions made by a foreign power—we are not talking about rich foreigners or wealthy businesspeople but about a foreign power which has a political reason for trying to influence the result of an election, either made directly or through an intermediary.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, one of the reasons for supporting the amendment, to which I have added my name, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, is the Government’s recent change which allows long-term expats to continue to be on the UK electoral register and therefore to be permitted donors to UK political parties. This means that someone living —for the sake of this argument—for 40 years in, say, Russia, to take the example just given, can be on the electoral roll here. A British subject, living for 40 years in Russia, can now be on the electoral roll here, with no checks or questions asked, and that person can then donate money to a British political party—no names, no pack drill, and importantly, of course, no checks whatever on the source of the money they are able to donate to a British political party.
PPERA—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, as most of us know—requires parties to check only that the donors are “permissible”; no checks are needed on the source of their funds. They are not even required to carry out enhanced due diligence on donors operating in high-risk countries which are listed in the money laundering and terrorist financing regulations 2022. There are no obligations on political parties to do the due diligence that we would expect of anyone else handling money from any of the countries on that list.
Incidentally, that is very, very different from those of us—well, all of us in this House—who are PEPs under the AML rules. Indeed, at this moment in the Moses Room the financial services Bill is being discussed, which is trying to reduce the extraordinary number of hoops that we and our children all have to go through in our banking activities because of our presence here. However, Russian-based UK citizens, who long ago gave up paying taxes of any sort here, can donate money, without any question as to its provenance, to a UK political party, surely influencing our democracy way beyond some of the other minor activities that this Bill seeks to make transparent—an issue we will return to later.
Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would capture any possibility that the money could come from a foreign power. As the amendment states, it would include donations made through an intermediary. We on this side would certainly like to know the source of donations made from outside the UK to a political party, whether in government or opposition, or to a party with no elected Members.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has been very helpful on this Bill. To our surprise, in Committee, he claimed that our existing electoral law has
“a stringent regime of controls on political donations to ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections”—[Official Report, 21/12/22; col. 1166.]
can donate. I question that in respect of someone who has been out of the country for that long, does not use any of our services and does not pay our taxes. Even more, do we check the legitimate interests of those long gone who can put in money from another source?
I trust that the Government have now looked again at what was a rather complacent reply and that they share our interest in revealing full details, including instigating proper checks. I hope that they will therefore accept Amendment 51. As the Minister knows, it has the full support of the Electoral Commission. I hope that he would welcome a duty on political parties to check the true source of donations and assess the risk of accepting money from overseas, particularly from those on the list of the AML regulations. Rather along the lines of “know your customer” which the banks have to do, there should also be a “know your donor”. This should be a culture in all our political parties. It would mean assessing the risk that donors might pose, especially those from overseas countries. There would be an enhanced due diligence on new donors and proper recording of such checks.
I received a letter from the Minister today which I think has not yet been shared with the House. It says that it is in the national interest to have greater openness about the influence on British politics by foreign powers. We agree. Amendment 51 would ensure that all overseas donations were openly made and disclosed.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 51, which would help increase the transparency and accountability of our political system. The ISC’s Russia report of 2020 recognised that the UK had clearly welcomed Russian money, including in the political sphere.
The Government have previously assured the House that the protections within the electoral financing laws are “sufficient”. However, as other noble Lords suggested in Committee, there are clear differences between the requirement on companies to undertake due diligence when receiving foreign money and that on political parties, which have no such duties. This would help close the gap.
I note that the amendment requires a political party to publish a policy statement within three months of the passing of the Bill. The Secretary of State also has three months to produce the accompanying guidance. It may be advisable for the Secretary of State to publish the guidance before political parties are required to produce their policy statements. I simply raise that as a practical point. It does not affect my support for the amendment.
As regards the government amendments, it is not clear why they seek to exclude parliamentary proceedings from the definition of political processes, thereby moving them outwith the scope of any new foreign interference offence. I appreciate that the Government have said that it is to clarify that the Bill does not intend to interfere with parliamentary privilege, but I do not see that the answer is to remove the concept entirely.
To commit the foreign interference offence, one needs to conduct “prohibited conduct” which has an “interference effect”. “Prohibited conduct” includes a variety of unacceptable behaviours—from a criminal offence to threatening to damage someone’s reputation or causing financial loss. Surely, it is critical to prevent any foreign interference in parliamentary proceedings which involves a person conducting such unacceptable behaviour. Perhaps the Minister could explain how including parliamentary proceedings in the foreign interference offence would undermine parliamentary privilege, given the need for the prohibited conduct of the offence to apply. Even if the amendment is warranted, could the Minister explain why the Government have not replaced it with wording similar to that in Clause 70, as amended. This refers to interference with
“a Member of either House of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament”
rather than “parliamentary proceedings”, which would ensure that no gap was created.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the all-Peers letter which the Minister sent to us on 28 February states clearly and strongly that what we need is in this Bill is
“transparency on which foreign powers are influencing our politics”,
which it states
“is vital to defending our democracy”.
This reasonable amendment fills one of the loopholes left in the Bill. We are all concerned about the integrity of our elections. We are conscious that foreign donations are part of what can undermine that integrity.
The Minister may have had drawn to his attention a letter in yesterday’s Financial Times which points out that the new proposals for a football regulator include among its duties the need to ensure stronger due diligence and checks on the sources of wealth of those who wish to buy or own football clubs. It is anomalous, to say the least, that we should have stronger checks on people who wish to buy British football clubs than on people who wish to give sometimes very large sums of money to British political parties. I remind the Minister that the question of Arron Banks’s very large donation to the Vote Leave campaign is still being litigated in the British courts. We still have no assurance as to the origins of that donation, since he has refused to give one.
I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said, by reminding the Minister that there are now 100,000 British citizens living in the United Arab Emirates—some of whom already donate to British political parties. It would be quite easy for some of those to become intermediaries for the sovereign powers concerned. Other wealthy British expatriates live in Thailand, Singapore or Hong Kong. Their business depends heavily on the Chinese economy and state.
It is entirely desirable, reasonable and appropriate to ensure that British political parties play their part in mitigating the risks of foreign interference in British elections by being required to show that they are conducting careful risk management in accepting donations from overseas. There have been a number of instances in recent years of which we are all aware. Some of them were touched on in the ISC report on Russia. It is clear that such management has not been in place. It ought to be. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment as a means of filling this loophole.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In 2021, my committee reviewed the regulation of electoral finance. I have to tell the Minister that “stringent” was not what we concluded as to the rigour of the arrangements in place. We felt that there were a number of loopholes which could quite easily be remedied. We made recommendations to that effect. Regrettably, the Government decided that they did not wish to accept any of those recommendations; therefore, the loopholes are still there.
I have added my name to Amendment 51 because it is a modest step in the right direction. The rules that apply to the financial services industry and, as appears likely, are shortly to apply to the football industry are considerably stronger than those that apply to our elections. A modest step in this direction would not provide a high level of assurance that money from illicit sources of various sorts might not reach the electoral process, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
It is important that we should take that step because we know that the electoral system in this country and in other western democracies has been under attack. It is vital to maintain public confidence in the electoral system; it is still pretty good. The Electoral Commission publishes regular research on attitudes towards the electoral system. At the moment, we are in a reasonably good place, but it is very important for the health of our democracy that we retain that public support. This is a small step in that direction. I have been scratching my head to work out why, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, any political party would not support this for the integrity of our electoral system. It is not massively bureaucratic or intrusive. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to say that we very much support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile; were he to push it to a vote, we would certainly support him in that Division.
I do not want to repeat much of what has been said by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Wallace, Lord Evans and Lord West. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was right to say that, although this is a modest amendment, its consequences are quite serious. There is no doubt that people are concerned about some of the issues that they have read about in the papers around foreign interference in elections and the funding of political parties. One of the things that we often debate in this House is confidence in our democracy and democratic system, including the threats to them and the erosion of that confidence. Sometimes, these may be small steps but they are important ones that can contribute in our trying to do all we can to protect our democracy. People are worried about foreign interference in elections and the integrity of our democratic system.
It is right to point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, did, that, through this Bill, we are requiring significant steps to be taken by businesses, organisations, industry, financial services and all sorts of other bodies to ensure that they conform to certain regulations that protect our national security. It would be right for them to ask, “Why is there one rule for us but another for political parties?” It is quite right that this amendment is supported; I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will seek to test the opinion of the House and that his amendment is supported by the majority of Members, because it is an important step in protecting the integrity of our democracy in the way that noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Hayter on the Labour Benches, pointed out.
Having said that, I want to ask one practical question with respect to many of the amendments that the Government have brought forward, which, by and large, we support. I want to deal with Amendment 49, the explanatory statement for which says:
“This amendment adds to the definition of ‘political processes’ the activities of groups such as all party parliamentary groups.”
I understand the bit about all-party groups but the implication there is in “such as”. Are the Government saying that the amendment is relevant to other groups? If so, can the Minister explain that to us?
With that, as I say, I very much support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it is very important.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group.
I will start, if I may, by addressing the question from the noble Lord, Lord West, by repeating something that I said in my opening speech; I think it goes some way to answering him. The majority of what we wish to capture in relation to interference with Parliament will be covered by the effect in Clause 14(1)(b)—the limb relating to public functions—as MPs and other officials in Parliament will be exercising their public functions. It is right that we seek to criminalise activity where, for example, somebody is acting for a foreign power and threatens violence to affect how a person exercises their public functions. I hope that answers his question.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about Amendment 49, let me say that he is completely right. The reference to
“the activities of an informal group”
in this amendment is, as I think noble Lords know, designed to capture interference activities in APPGs by foreign powers. We are seeking to capture interference whether or however any person participates in the activities of these informal groups. We expect that to cover MPs and people external to Parliament and government who participate in the actions of such groups, but we also envisage informal groups to include things such as “friends of” groups. The use of the term “acting in that capacity” ensures that we do not capture things such as parliamentary book clubs but instead focus on those caught, such as the 1922 Committee, although they could also be covered by the public functions limb of the test. I hope that clears this up.
I know that Amendment 51 is a duplicate of a previous amendment, now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary, I am afraid. I was going to quote myself and say again that UK electoral law already sets out a stringent regime of controls, but I am slightly more reluctant to do so after hearing the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Evans. However, we believe that our regime ensures that only those with a genuine interest in UK elections can make political donations and that political donations are transparent.
I will go into more detail on this point, if I may, because I believe that the noble Lord’s ethical matrix is already in existence. It is already an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information or knowingly being involved in an arrangement to facilitate the making of an impermissible donation. This provides a safeguard against impermissible donations via the back door. Political parties must already report all donations over a certain value to the Electoral Commission; these are then published online for public scrutiny. Political parties are by law required to undertake reasonable steps to verify whether a donor is permissible and obtain their relevant details for the reporting requirements. Donations that do not meet the permissibility tests or are unidentifiable must be reported and returned to the Electoral Commission, which also produces guidance outlining how the recipient of a donation can undertake these checks.
As I say, UK electoral law already sets out a regime of donation and spending controls to safeguard the integrity of our democratic processes, so only those with a genuine interest in UK electoral events can make political donations; they include UK-registered electors, UK-registered companies, trade unions and other UK-based entities, as well as otherwise eligible donors such as Irish citizens who meet prescribed conditions and can donate to parties in Northern Ireland. Parties and other campaigners are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor. The failure to return such a donation either to the donor or, as I just described, to the Electoral Commission within 30 days of receipt is an offence; any such donations must also be reported to the Electoral Commission. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a restriction on ineligible foreign third-party campaigning above a £700 de minimis threshold.
The transparency of electoral funding is obviously a key cornerstone of the UK’s electoral system. All political parties recognise that third-party campaigners and candidates must record their election spending and report it to the Electoral Commission or their local returning officer; that information is publicly available. For transparency, all donations to political parties and campaigners must be recorded and certain donations must be reported to the Electoral Commission; as I said, these include donations from impermissible donors and donations from the same permissible source that amount to over £7,500 in one calendar year. To ensure transparency, donation reports are published online by the commission for public scrutiny.
To register as an overseas elector, a British citizen has to present ID. However, it is a long-standing principle first introduced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998 that, if you are eligible to vote for a party in an election, you are also eligible to donate to that party. We believe that overseas electors are important participants in our democracy, but it is only right that they should be able to spend in UK elections in the same way as other UK citizens registered on the electoral roll.
I think that this is a reasonably comprehensive set of rules. There may be some debate as to whether it qualifies as a stringent regime but the fact is that donations to political parties from foreign powers, whether they are made directly or through an intermediary, are illegal. Political parties already have a legal duty to check that all donations they are offered are permissible.
In closing, I very much thank noble Lords for engaging so constructively in this debate. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, not to press his amendment in this group and ask noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I just want to check one thing with him. He said that overseas electors will have to present ID. I was involved in the passage of the now Elections Act, which does indeed provide stronger, more limited ways in which correct ID has to be presented by people voting in person in British elections. However, I do not recall extra requirements around the presentation of ID for people who are resident overseas and wish to vote.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that I made it reasonably clear that to register as an elector overseas, you must present ID.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the scope of subsection (1)(a).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment restricts Clause 14(1)(d) to participation in political processes otherwise than in the exercise of public functions. The exercise of public functions is caught by Clause 14(1)(b).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the changes to the definition of political processes by Lord Sharpe’s amendments to clause 14, page 12, line 36 and clause 14, page 13, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment restricts Clause 14(1)(e) to participation in legal proceedings otherwise than in the exercise of public functions. The exercise of public functions is caught by Clause 14(1)(b).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 14, page 12, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes from the definition of “political processes” proceedings in the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and Senedd Cymru.
“(e) the activities of an informal group consisting of or including members of—(i) one or both of Houses of Parliament,(ii) the Northern Ireland Assembly,(iii) the Scottish Parliament, or(iv) Senedd Cymru,(acting in that capacity).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds to the definition of “political processes” the activities of groups such as all party parliamentary groups.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the definition of “political decisions” includes decisions taken by a Minister of the Crown or a government department.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
“Foreign interference in elections: duties on political parties(1) A UK-registered political party must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a policy statement to ensure the identification of donations from a foreign power (whether made directly or through an intermediary), and must keep that policy updated in accordance with guidance issued under subsection (2). (2) Within three months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must publish guidance on the provisions of this section.(3) A UK-registered political party must provide the Electoral Commission with an annual statement of risk management that identifies how risks relating to donations from a foreign power (whether made directly or through an intermediary) have been managed, and what measures have been put in place by the party to such effect.(4) In this section, “UK-registered political party” means a political party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.”
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. It is notable that around the House, apart from the Government Front Bench, everyone has spoken in favour of this amendment and nobody from the Conservative Party chapel, as it were, has spoken against it.
I was particularly taken by the metaphor from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about knowing your donor—KYD. It is analogous with KYC—knowing your client—which, as she said, is universally applied by businesses these days when they receive funding from abroad.
The Minister is trying to be as helpful as he can. However, can I say kindly to him that he has missed the point of this amendment? Amendment 51 seeks to place an overarching responsibility on political parties to say how they will deal with direct or indirect foreign donations if they are offered to them. That makes it much easier for a candidate or a party official to say, “Sorry, we can’t take that because it’s in our statement of principle as to what we do”. Even though this is a relatively modest step, it would enhance the transparency of an honourable political process. We have lost some ground, compared with some other European countries in particular—not just western European countries but some central European countries too—in the transparency that we offer in elections. People are uncomfortable about it and the media are hounding on it.
With that in mind, and despite the blandishments of the Minister, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
““Crown employment” ;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment incorporates into Clause 17 a definition of “Crown employment” (by reference to Clause 3).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(v) Schedule 3 (disclosure orders);(vi) Schedule 4 (customer information orders);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds offences under Schedules 3 and 4 to the list of offences to which the powers in Part 1 of Schedule 2 do not apply.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test for the grant of a warrant under paragraph 9, to align with paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test for the grant of a warrant under paragraph 9, to align with paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
“(c) the investigation may be seriously prejudiced unless a constable can secure immediate access to the material.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test for the grant of a warrant under paragraph 9, to align with paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
“(v) Schedule 3 (disclosure orders);(vi) Schedule 4 (customer information orders);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds offences under Schedules 3 and 4 to the list of offences to which the powers in Part 2 of Schedule 2 do not apply.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that an Act of Adjournal made under paragraph 24(1) of Schedule 2 would be made by the High Court of Justiciary and would be without prejudice to the general power in section 305 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test for the grant of a warrant under paragraph 25, to align with paragraph 29 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test for the grant of a warrant under paragraph 25, to align with paragraph 29 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
“(c) the investigation may be seriously prejudiced unless a constable can secure immediate access to the material.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test for the grant of a warrant under paragraph 25, to align with paragraph 29 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to Northern Ireland legislation to a defined term.
Lord Beith
Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that any immunity from prosecution conferred by this Clause does not extend to the activities of the Armed Forces in general, but only to those activities carried out in support of the Intelligence Agencies.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the amendment to which I will speak was designed to limit the scope of the immunity which the Bill originally proposed to activities in support of the intelligence services, rather than extend it right across the Armed Forces. However, we now have a change, which I will come to in more detail; we are no longer discussing an immunity, thank goodness, but a statutory defence.
Intelligence gathering is difficult, and in the world of intelligence it is quite difficult to avoid breaking the law sometimes. When you are dealing with a hostile state or terrorist organisation, trying to get information from it which it does not want you to have can be quite complicated. There are ways of dealing with the issue, such as a public interest decision by prosecutors not to press a charge, or the expectation that such a charge would not be pressed. That needed to be backed up by authorisation at the highest political level for action which could be politically embarrassing or worse. No such authorisation should be given to torture, rendition to torture or other serious international crimes.
In the Bill, the Government presented us with a blanket immunity, precluding prosecution and unsupported by any specific ministerial authorisation, with no exclusion of torture or other egregious offences. So I strongly supported the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Purvis, which has now been adopted by the Government, to strike out Clause 30 and replace it with a statutory defence based on the existing domestic provision. That is government Amendment 66 in this group. It is a lot better than the original Clause 30, but still raises some of the same questions.
First, will there be any change to the system of ministerial authorisation at Secretary of State level for activity which might be covered by this clause? That ministerial authorisation is a very important part of the system and its absence would be very damaging. Clearly a general immunity dispenses entirely with any need for it; I was extremely worried about that consequence. Some of the decisions which have to be taken are quite political in character; if an agency were discovered doing something contrary to the law of another country, as well as to our own, very serious political embarrassment could result. So it is in many ways a political decision, and there should be a process by which it can be made.
Secondly, why are we using the National Security Bill to confer a statutory defence not just on intelligence activity, but on any action which is
“the proper exercise of a function of the armed forces”?
In other words, we are creating a new defence for actions on the battlefield, or in a counter-insurgency operation, in areas in which international law is potentially involved. This has very significant consequences for those who break it.
When I first examined the original clause, it seemed to me that the Government were trying to embrace, within an immunity, those members of the Armed Forces who were engaged in intelligence work alongside the three civilian agencies. This would include military intelligence, both uniformed and civilian personnel—now, of course, I think that more fully recognises that the fourth pillar of UK intelligence operations, the military intelligence itself, is brought within the purview of the Intelligence and Security Committee. But I expected that the Government were trying to cover other Armed Forces personnel deployed to assist the intelligence agencies, which they do in a variety of ways. My Amendment 65 was designed to limit the coverage to those groups. But it appears, from the more explicit drafting of the Government’s new clause, that they intend the statutory defence to apply to any proper exercise of the functions of the Armed Forces. I find it surprising that we should attempt so fundamental a change in the law governing the Armed Forces on a tail-wind from a piece of national security legislation.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in relation to Clause 30 and the different amendments being proposed, including the government amendment that seeks to insert a new clause to replace Clause 30 and the amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which seek to amend the government amendment.
Our efforts have been on the basis that everybody in both Houses is working to ensure that our men and women in the intelligence agencies, often working in extreme danger to tight timelines, are provided with appropriate protections. This does not mean an exemption from the safeguards in place regarding behaviour. I should say at the outset that, as noble Lords will understand, I will not comment on behalf of the ISC in relation to the applicability of the clause to the Armed Forces, since that falls outside the ISC’s remit. The ISC has focused on scrutiny of the clauses that relate to the intelligence community.
To our mind, the original version of Clause 30 provided a rare exemption from liability for the intelligence community when working abroad and is completely unacceptable. Not surprisingly, it received fierce criticism from across both Houses. Concerns included that there is already a reasonableness defence under Section 50 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 and that the agencies can already seek immunity from liability for activity undertaken abroad under Section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The ISC was concerned about the lack of a proportionality requirement, the absence of an oversight mechanism, the breadth of the immunity provided and the potential damage to the reputation of the intelligence community.
In the Commons, the Bill Committee recognised that there might be classified information underpinning the Government’s rationale for the clause that could not be disclosed to it, and the Government therefore committed to provide the ISC with that evidence. The ISC considered that classified evidence, and I outlined the committee’s conclusion at Second Reading. The ISC found that Clause 30 potentially identified a legitimate problem since, despite the existing legislative protection, there might still be a risk of criminal liability for junior members of the intelligence community, even when they acted appropriately, and that this could potentially have an operational impact.
While the ISC therefore sympathised with the aim of the clause, it was firmly of the view that Clause 30, as written, was not appropriate. While the existing mechanism to avoid liability may not be entirely comprehensive, there was simply no justification for incorporating a broad automatic exemption with such limited accountability. At Second Reading, I noted that the ISC had been given an assurance that the Government were developing an alternative approach to meet its concerns.
Before I turn to the ISC’s view on the detail of the amendment that the Government have now tabled, I want to touch on the Home Office’s handling of this matter. Following the constructive session with the intelligence community on Clause 30 ahead of Second Reading in the Lords, where the committee provided a series of recommendations to improve the clause, the ISC’s chair wrote to the Security Minister requesting that the Government provide the ISC with a draft of the amendment in advance of it being formally tabled, with sufficient time for it to scrutinise it and make any further recommendations. This was with the intention of ensuring that the amendment was appropriate to the problem and would therefore not attract the same fierce criticism from this House as the original Clause 30. Our intention was to help. Indeed, we are working, as I have said, on the basis that everyone in both Houses is working to ensure that our men and women, who often work in extreme danger to tight deadlines, are provided with the appropriate protections while incorporating the required safeguards and maintaining a sufficient level of accountability and oversight.
However, the ISC received no response from the Security Minister or any other Home Office official for almost five weeks. The draft amendment was finally received on 21 February, but was then immediately tabled on 22 February, despite the committee being scheduled to discuss it with the intelligence community on 23 February. This left the ISC with no time to consider the amendment. The Government clearly tabled it as a fait accompli, with little regard for appropriate parliamentary engagement. This is in spite of the Government’s commitment in Committee to continuing to work with the experts in this House, and those in other places, to reach a consensus on Clause 30.
At Second Reading, I referred to the catalogue of problems relating more broadly to the handling of this Bill which have seriously undermined effective parliamentary scrutiny. I emphasised then that the Bill, which is about our national security, is too important to be handled in such a chaotic manner, yet the Government seem to continue to ignore these concerns. The Home Office’s failure to engage is disgraceful—and I say this with some sadness, having been a Home Office Minister for some three years.
The ISC is the only organisation which can scrutinise the classified evidence underpinning the rationale for Clause 30 on behalf of Parliament and the public. The Government need to stop treating the ISC and wider Parliament like the enemy. Effective parliamentary scrutiny must be taken seriously by the Government. We should be working together, constructively, to ensure that the Bill is as effective as possible and in the best interests of the country; having talked with the Minister, I think that is now beginning to happen. However, I take this opportunity to put on record that the Home Office’s complete failure to abide by its commitments made in this House to engage with the ISC is in contrast to the efforts of the intelligence community, with whom the ISC has continued to have constructive discussions on Clause 30 and the rest of the Bill.
I turn to the detail of the clause. In the ISC’s view, this amendment is certainly an improvement when compared with previous versions. It has changed the automatic exemption to a more limited defence using similar wording to the defence in Section 13 of the Bribery Act. Rather than an automatic carve-out from liability, this will require the facts of any case to be put forward and considered properly in a court. The amendment also introduces a level of accountability. The head of each intelligence service is required to ensure that their service has in place arrangements designed to ensure that the relevant activities are necessary for the proper exercise of their functions. These arrangements must also be to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction, which introduces a level of ministerial accountability.
Nevertheless, we are not quite there yet. The ISC still has concerns and questions that need to be answered. First, there is a glaring omission of any requirement of proportionality in the new defence. As the amendment is currently drafted, for the agencies to use this defence they need to demonstrate only that their activity was necessary; it is not explicit that their activity needs to be proportionate. There is therefore no need for the nature and likely consequences of any activity to be reasonable. In short, it appears that the intelligence community could avoid liability even where an act was entirely disproportionate or unreasonable.
I note that this defence is based on the intelligence community’s defence to bribery offences in Section 13 of the Bribery Act 2010. However, the bribery offence is rather less serious than those being considered here. This clause provides a defence to assisting or encouraging any offence overseas, however serious. There is therefore a much stronger case for a proportionality requirement to be explicitly set out in this defence.
I have therefore tabled two amendments on behalf of the ISC to subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause inserted by the government amendment explicitly to incorporate a proportionality requirement. The Government may seek to argue that this introduces greater uncertainty or that the criminal law does not generally put proportionality into legislation. However, these are not sufficient reasons for completely omitting a concept of reasonableness from a defence to assisting serious offences overseas. There must be an appropriate level of accountability.
The Government may also argue that this addition is unnecessary as proportionality is already implied in the defence, specifically within the words
“proper exercise of any function”
of an intelligence service. If that is the case, the Minister needs to state this explicitly from the Dispatch Box to ensure that the courts take this into consideration.
While the ISC has sought to amend only the government amendment to address the proportionality question, as that is the most serious, it also has a number of other questions that should be answered. In particular, it is not clear whether this new defence is connected to the internal arrangements that must be established by the head of each intelligence service to ensure that activity undertaken by their service is necessary. Specifically, can an activity which is necessary but does not comply with these internal oversight arrangements be considered as falling within the proper exercise of an intelligence service’s function?
Given that the purpose of requiring these arrangements is to ensure that there is a layer of senior official accountability, it is vital that all activity undertaken by the intelligence community complies with these internal safeguards. Where an act does not comply with these arrangements, it should fall outside the definition of “proper exercise” of the intelligence community’s functions, automatically preventing the intelligence community using this defence. If this is the case, the Minister should say so explicitly from the Dispatch Box.
The third point the Minister might wish to assure the House on is precisely what those arrangements are. They are not defined in the defence and are therefore too vague. For this uncertain wording to be acceptable, the Minister must set out what the arrangements include and what principles are incorporated within them. Do they, for example, incorporate the principles of necessity and proportionality throughout? Do they simply include general internal risk management procedures within the agencies, or do they also incorporate specific policies such as the Principles, which relate to the detention of and the passing of intelligence relating to detainees, for example? Again, the Minister needs to confirm this explicitly from the Dispatch Box.
A further important question is the extent to which this defence has an impact on existing legislative provisions for oversight. In Committee in the Lords, in response to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Minister said that Clause 30 as originally drafted would mean that, in some cases, authorisation by the Secretary of State will no longer be a requirement. I want to pause on the significance of those words. Despite previous assurances that Clause 30 would not have any impact on ministerial accountability or oversight of the intelligence community, the Government admitted in this House that the ministerial authorisation for encouraging or assisting offences overseas, for example Section 7 warrants under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, would sometimes no longer be required. That is astonishing and I am sure that many in this House find it extremely concerning. It shows that the Government were willing fundamentally to undermine existing ministerial accountability and oversight, which is already set out in statute and provides a vital check on the significant powers wielded by our intelligence community.
We do not expect our intelligence community to be acting inappropriately. On the contrary, it shows how justified Parliament’s concerns were in relation to this clause and how important it is to resolve them. It also demonstrates the need for clarity as to exactly how the new defence will have an impact on existing accountability legislative measures before we approve it. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s confirmation that, unlike the previous exemption, this new defence will not lead to fewer ministerial authorisations sought by the intelligence community or less daily oversight from Ministers and/or judicial commissioners of intelligence community activity.
These four issues are those which the ISC is most concerned about. We have also noted that, as drafted, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution rather than the defence, which makes it more favourable to the intelligence community than the defence in Section 13 of the Bribery Act. However, there are many fine legal minds here who I am sure will know a lot about this, and I bow to their experience on that subject.
In conclusion, the government amendments to Clause 30 recognise that the defence is significantly better than the exemption that was previously provided, so we are more pleased with it. It will help to protect the junior members of our intelligence community, who work tirelessly to protect our country. We cannot let the Government’s poor handling of the Bill affect our consideration of the substantive issues. As the clause stands, the ISC has three concerns on which it requires assurances from the Minister today. We have already notified the Home Office as to what they are, so I trust that the noble Lord has come equipped to speak on those three points.
To recap, they are, first, that the proper exercise of a function of an intelligence service already incorporates proportionality; an act could not be within the proper exercise if it is not proportionate. Secondly, what is the meaning of the arrangements that the heads of each intelligence service are expected to establish? What do they consist of and what principles do they incorporate? Third, we require assurance that proper exercise is connected to the internal oversight arrangements that each intelligence service head must ensure exists, so that an act could not be considered within the proper exercise of a function if it does not comply with the oversight arrangements.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 68 on the supplementary sheet in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The immunity that preceded this Clause 30 may have been doomed from the moment the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, began her speech in Committee by saying that
“it seems to me that it is wrong in principle for members of the security and intelligence services to have immunity from the law”.—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1452.]
She was right. That was just one reminder of how fortunate we are in the calibre and integrity of our intelligence chiefs, including those who have found their way into your Lordships’ House.
We now have a further statutory defence which would bite on encouragement or assistance of foreign crimes, which, although unreasonable and thus outside the scope of the existing Section 50 defence, is none the less considered necessary for the proper exercise of a function of an intelligence service or the armed services. A defence is, as has been said, in any view more acceptable than an immunity. But the likely marginal gain of this one seems limited, and its purpose is obscured.
So I ask the Minister in this new context to deal with the issue which, as we have just heard, the ISC did not look at. Why is this defence so broad in its application to the Armed Forces? The Minister indicated in Committee that the immunity was
“confined very much to the intelligence support by the Armed Forces”.—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1458.]
We all know that the Armed Forces sometimes deploy in support of intelligence work overseas by the agencies. We also know that the Intelligence Corps has its own abilities for the gathering and analysis of intelligence. That is captured by my amendment, though perhaps not by that of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
What justification is there for extending this new defence to activities of the Armed Forces that are not intelligence related? Exceptions to the rule of law should be tightly controlled. Why should service personnel be exempt from the same law that applies to the rest of us outside the special circumstances of intelligence? From the debate in Committee, I understood those were the only circumstances thought relevant. I hope the Minster will be able either to explain this or to accept my amendment to his amendment. In the light of what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord West, the Minister also has a great deal of explaining to do in relation to the important points that he raised.
I would like to make two comments on Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord West. I have two reservations about it. Necessary and proportionate is the test, and I would have thought that conduct that is necessary and proportionate is also reasonable, and therefore would benefit in any event from the Section 50 defence. I just wonder how much this really adds.
Secondly—I defer to more experienced criminal lawyers than me, of whom there are at least two in the House—the concept of proportionality could be quite a complicated one to explain to a jury. I am not sure I can think of any other criminal offence in which that concept exists. Proportionality in law, as I recall, is a four-part test, explained by the Supreme Court in the Bank Mellat case. That might rather complicate the route to a verdict. However, those are technical points.
The objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, are very serious. It is in the interests of the agencies to co-operate to the very fullest extent with the ISC. It is in the interests of all the rest of us, and I am quite sure it is in the interest of the Home Office as well. It is very distressing to hear that that did not happen in this case. So, in view of the serious points that the noble Lord made, and despite my rather lukewarm feelings about his amendment, I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in response. I sense that perhaps this is a discussion that will need to continue.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly, I hope, to say that, first, I agree with everything that my noble friend just said and will not repeat it. Secondly, I regard Amendment 66 to be a considerable improvement on what we were faced with before we started the Bill. Indeed, it is not a provision that provides immunity, it is evidence-based, it has a strong public interest element, but it is not perfect. One of the complaints I have received—only anecdotally but from authoritative sources—is a lack of understanding, among fairly senior public servants, of why the Secretary of State no longer carries any responsibility for the sort of decisions referred to in Amendment 66. The requirement in its subsection (5) that the Defence Council must ensure that the Armed Forces must have various arrangements in place is welcome as far as it goes, by why are Secretaries of State being eased out of any level of responsibility for decisions of this kind? I am not sure there is total confidence, among the kind of officials I have referred to, in the Defence Council to be as definable a source of responsibility as the Secretary of State.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I understand that our order of business has been changed today. The Government Whip did not consult our Front Bench and, for those of us who had engagements during the dinner-break business, I think it is a discourtesy not to have at least consulted the Front Benches of other parties about changing the order of business.
That said, I welcome the government’s amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is absolutely right. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, had indicated her hope that there would be government amendment in this area, and I thank the Minister for listening during Committee and for bringing forward these amendments. In Committee, I went to some lengths to outline what domestic procedures are in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, asked something I thought was rather threatening: if she could have a quiet word with me outside the Chamber during the hour for other business we had then. I am glad to say now that I will accept that and bring the Minister with me, because there may be an element of consensus on a more sensible way of dealing with concerns raised about immunity for, potentially, very serious crimes committed overseas.
I am grateful that the domestic practices will now be considered similar to extraterritorial processes, acknowledging that there have been distinct differences. My questions, to some extent, are linked with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, on how this will be operated. In Committee, I highlighted the Government’s Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers and Service Personnel on the Detention and Interviewing of Detainees Overseas, and on the Passing and Receipt of Intelligence Relating to Detainees. I referenced the Ministry of Defence joint doctrine publications, and I highlighted the Security Service guidelines that had been released in a trial, and we now know more about them. There are a number of existing sets of guidance for the Cabinet Office, from the MoD and within the security services themselves on how, as the amendment states,
“arrangements designed to ensure that acts of a member of the service to which a provision of Schedule 4 applies are necessary”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how guidance will be put together that will be for both domestic activities and now those in regard to defence under this part, whether that will be made public, and how it will interact with MoD guidance to address the similar concerns of my noble friend Lord Beith and the noble Lord, Lord West.
We know what MoD joint doctrine says regarding detainees overseas, but we do not know the principles that will apply to these new areas. Therefore, we need clarification on what they will be. I welcome the Government’s move. There needs to be further illustration of how it will be operable, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide that and give an indication of when guidance will be put together and will be published.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is a really important debate. Government Amendment 66 is a considerable improvement on what we had before, with respect to Clause 30. We have heard from noble Lords about their belief in that and their pleasure that we now see Amendment 66 before us. As my noble friend Lord West—I will come back to him—the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, and others have mentioned, there are still questions that the Government need to answer. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly to my noble friend Lord West, who very effectively laid out the fact that although the ISC welcomes the new clause proposed by Amendment 66, there are still some important questions for the Government. It is extremely important that the Government put their answers on the record, so they are there as testimony of what the Government expect of how the new Clause 30—as it will be—will operate.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the inclusion of the Armed Forces in this deserves a proper answer from the Minister. It is good to see the Armed Forces Minister here to have heard the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord West laid before us how we got here, the relationship between the Home Office and the ISC, and the lack of a speedy response to some of the requests, which have led to some of the difficulties we have seen. If people had attended the committee, spoken to the committee and discussed with the committee —even if some of those discussions may have been difficult—some of these problems would have been resolved. Yet we have debate in the other place, debate here, and now it is only on Report that we get to a position where we seem to be on the verge of achieving what we all want.
I go back to a point I find quite astonishing, referring to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report. My noble friend Lord West pointed to the lack of Home Office response. I lay this before each and every one of you: when do noble Lords think was the last time the Prime Minister went along? Do not answer that—there is no need to shout out. It is quite astonishing to read in the annual report that, despite repeated requests, no Prime Minister has been to the Intelligence and Security Committee since 2014. That is absolutely disgraceful. The committee was set up by this Parliament to oversee intelligence and security matters and to receive intelligence at a level we cannot be briefed on—quite rightly—and, despite repeated requests, the Prime Minister has not gone. How can a Prime Minister not go to the committee set up by Parliament to discuss matters of intelligence? I find it incredible.
A few weeks ago, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, why this has not happened. The Government say, “The Prime Minister has been very busy over the last few weeks”, and he has been; he has been not just to Belfast but to numerous other places, including Parliament, to meet various groups. Why has it not been possible to meet the Intelligence and Security Committee? This is incredibly serious.
Lord Beith (LD)
I put it to the noble Lord that this is not a formality. The point of the Prime Minister meeting the committee is that it can draw attention to failings or problems that it cannot publicly disclose. The only route by which those failings or problems can be brought to account is by direct contact with the Prime Minister.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, and that is why it is so incredible that no Prime Minister has discussed that with the committee since 2014. I say this in relation to my noble friend Lord West’s points about the failure of discussion and people’s failure to involve the committee at an early stage. Had that been done, we would have avoided much of the debate and controversy over Clause 30 or, now, government Amendment 66. My noble friend Lord West mentioned this on behalf of the committee, and I mentioned and highlighted yet again the failure of the Prime Minister to meet it since 2014, which is simply and utterly unacceptable. Something needs to be done about it, and the Prime Minister needs to hear this—I know that the Minister will take this forward.
This is a really serious matter. I could not believe it when I read it, and I do not believe that many noble Lords here would either, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, reminded us. According to the report, this was a regular occurrence:
“Since its establishment in 1994, and for 20 years thereafter, the Committee met annually with the Prime Minister to discuss its work”.
But, despite repeated requests for suitable dates, we are yet to receive a response. This is unacceptable, and it is why we get the sort of situation that we had with Clause 30.
Notwithstanding that, I thank the noble Lord the Minister and the Armed Forces Minister for their engagement in bringing forward Amendment 66, which is a considerable improvement on what went before. I note the change from automatic exemption to the reasonableness defence. No doubt the Minister can address the issues and questions that my noble friend Lord West raised on proportionality and other areas. It is important that the point of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is also addressed. With that, we welcome Amendment 66, but we also look forward to the reassurances that my noble friend Lord West seeks on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate on Clause 30, the Serious Crime Act 2007 amendment. Before getting into the detail, I very much thank the noble Lords, Lord Beith, Lord West, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for their amendments tabled in advance of today’s proceedings. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, who have consistently shared their time and expertise with me and my team, across a range of national security matters.
I also extend my gratitude to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which recently took the time to write to the Home Office on this measure and cast a keen and critical eye, with officials, over the Government’s amendment tabled for today. I carefully noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord West, as did my right honourable friend the Security Minister, who sat on the steps when he made them. I will obviously make sure that we reflect on that internally. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that my noble friend the Leader of the House heard his comments, and I am sure he will reflect them back to the Prime Minister, but I am not responsible for the Prime Minister’s diary, so I cannot go further than that at this point. However, we will return to this subject in group 12, when the ISC MoU will be debated.
The Government’s shift in approach on the SCA amendment reflects our maintained commitment to ensuring that individuals working for UKIC and the Armed Forces are protected when conducting their proper activities in service to this country. The Government’s amendment replaces Clause 30 with a new clause that provides a defence for acts that are offences under Part 2 of the SCA by virtue of the extraterritorial provisions in Schedule 4. This defence would apply to those carrying out the functions of UKIC and the Armed Forces in supporting activities overseas; that is, it will be a defence for a person to show that their act was necessary for the proper exercise of a function of an intelligence service or the Armed Forces. I will shortly go into more detail on the Armed Forces, at the behest of my noble friend from the Ministry of Defence, so please bear with me.
As noble Lords will be aware, the current reasonableness defence in Section 50 of the SCA would cover encouraging or assisting crimes domestically. We believe that it is right that this new defence is limited to where UKIC and the Armed Forces are supporting activity overseas. The territorial applicability of this measure is identical to that of the original clause. This is because the acute issue caused by the SCA offences, and therefore justification for this amendment as presented to the ISC, relates to support to key international partners’ activity overseas.
The defence provides UKIC and the Armed Forces with more reassurance than the current reasonableness defence, in that the defence is based around the proper exercise of the functions of UKIC and the Armed Forces, rather than the more subjective requirement of proving “reasonableness”. We must remember that the tasks we ask these individuals to undertake, and the operational arrangements we have with our international partners, are ever more complex.
We still do not think it is appropriate that a potentially junior member of the agency or Armed Forces should be faced with the legal burden of proving that their activities were reasonable. Instead, the new defence imposes an evidential burden of proof on the individual to raise the defence. Once the defence has been raised, the legal burden would be on the prosecution to disprove it. It must be remembered that this amendment does not change the position for an individual who acts outside of those proper functions; they would remain liable for any wrongful acts. I believe that this strikes the right balance of providing appropriate protection while also having a clear route by which there can be proper legal consideration of any potential wrongdoing.
Noble Lords will now see an explicit responsibility on the heads of agencies and the Defence Council to ensure that their respective organisations have in place arrangements designed to ensure that acts of a member of their service that would otherwise be an offence under the SCA by virtue of Schedule 4 are necessary for the proper exercise of their functions. To be clear, that means that an act could not be considered within the “proper” exercise of a function of an intelligence service if it does not comply with the “arrangements” set by the relevant heads or the Defence Council.
In addition, the Government propose that there is ministerial responsibility for these arrangements; that is, the relevant Secretary of State must consider that the arrangements put in place by the heads of agencies and the Defence Council are satisfactory. Nothing in this proposed defence will change the current compliance and oversight arrangements, such as the Fulford principles and Overseas Security and Justice Assistance guidance, which is monitored by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office—
Lord Beith (LD)
On that point, there is a world of difference between the necessary task of a Minister satisfying himself that adequate arrangements exist within an agency—indeed, such arrangements have existed for years—and the Secretary of State being made aware of a potential action and required to approve of it, or prevent it from happening, once he has considered the major political implications it might have. If the system does not extend to that role in relation to individual actions, it will be severely deficient.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will turn to ministerial responsibility if the noble Lord will bear with me. In fact, I am going to do it now. The Government propose that there is ministerial responsibility for these arrangements; that is, the relevant Secretary of State must consider that the arrangements put in place by the heads of agencies and the Defence Council are satisfactory. I have already said this, but there is more to say on the subject. Nothing in this proposed defence will change the current compliance and oversight arrangements, such as the Fulford principles and Overseas Security and Justice Assistance guidance, which is monitored by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office—IPCO—via regular inspections and regular scrutiny by the ISC. I will return to this in a second.
I now turn directly to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beith, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, which, in short, seek to do two related things: to restrict the activities covered by the defence for the MoD to those which are related to intelligence activities, and—in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beith—to restrict the defence to apply to the MoD only where it acts for UKIC.
I will now speak on behalf of the MoD and my noble friend Lady Goldie, who has sat through this debate. With reference to the Armed Forces, the amendment will enable more effective co-operation with our international partners. It will address operational challenges and remove the personal risk that trusted and dedicated individuals face for carrying out their proper official duties, whether as serving members of our Armed Forces or as intelligence officers within our UK intelligence community.
The amendment is principally concerned with addressing risks arising within an intelligence-sharing context, a primary activity of UKIC. What is perhaps less understood is the criticality of intelligence activity from an Armed Forces perspective, with intelligence sharing often forming a necessary part of wider co-operation with our allies. I assure noble Lords that the amendment is about clarifying the law and removing liabilities which sit onerously with individuals going about their lawful and legitimate duties.
The UK is committed to the rule of law and we would never collaborate or share information with a foreign partner with the intention of supporting unlawful activity overseas, but the SCA amendment does not change that. All aspects of the activities of our Armed Forces will continue to be bound by the relevant law of England and Wales and of international law. There will be no change to the UK’s international legal obligations, including under the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on assisting an unlawful act under Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
This defence will apply only where activity is necessary for the proper exercise of a function of the Armed Forces, and any individual found to be working outside the proper functions of the Armed Forces will remain liable for those actions. Actions not in compliance with the MoD’s robust internal policies and processes, again such as the Fulford principles and the OSJA Guidance, which are designed to ensure that MoD officers do not knowingly support unlawful activity, would not be in the proper exercise of a function of the Armed Forces.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. My noble friend Lady Goldie thanks him for the opportunity to discuss this with him. I understand that, because of a technical omission, he may not move his amendment tonight, but my noble friend Lady Goldie has—
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
As a point of correction, the omission has been remedied and the amendment is on the supplementary sheet.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend Lady Goldie has not been able to discuss that with our right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is currently abroad, but she undertakes to do that and to engage with him on his return.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord West. I am grateful for his contribution at Second Reading, where he confirmed that the ISC recognised that the government amendment identified a legitimate problem. This proposed amendment seeks to insert proportionality into the defence we are proposing in Clause 30. The objective of proposed new Section 50A is to provide clarity on how an individual working for UKIC or the Armed Forces can defend against a case in which they face personal criminal liability for the SCA offences.
For the reasons outlined previously, the Government consider that the existing reasonableness defence in Section 50 of the SCA does not achieve this, given we would be asking a jury to consider what is reasonable in the complex operational circumstances in which our intelligence agencies and Armed Forces work with our international partners to protect the United Kingdom. The Government consider that inserting a proportionality requirement would have the same effect, in that it reduces the clarity of the defence, which not only does not achieve the objective of providing greater certainty to those who are carrying out vital work to protect us all but complicates a defence which is currently based on the functions of the organisations concerned. On that basis, we think that explicit reference is best left out of the defence, and we therefore cannot accept this amendment.
However, to be clear, considerations of proportionality are a crucial component of operational planning and delivery, and core to many of the legal frameworks with which UKIC and the Armed Forces are required to comply. Any joint working with a partner must be in accordance with domestic and international law, including relevant principles of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality. Where the intelligence services or Armed Forces do not apply proportionality consistently with their legal or policy obligations, that would not be a proper exercise of their functions. To be completely clear, a person’s lack of compliance with their legal and policy obligations could be considered by the prosecution and would impact the availability of the defence —that includes proportionality.
Arrangements in place ensure that UKIC and the Armed Forces apply rigorous safeguards, standards and internal processes for determining that activity is lawful and properly exercised. The arrangements include the following: operational decisions are recorded, taken at appropriate seniority and made with the benefit of advice from specialist legal advisers to ensure compliance with domestic and international law; all personnel receive mandatory training on their legal obligations; policy documents set out specific requirements for different activities, including what authorisations are required and how to decide whether activity is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. Compliance with these requirements ensure that acts are within the proper exercise of the functions of the organisation concerned.
Some of these policies have been published, such as the Fulford principles, where the passing and receipt of intelligence relates to detainees, the compliance of which is assessed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, as I have already noted. Arrangements can also go beyond pure legal considerations, with ethics counsellors in post to discuss the difficult decisions we sometimes take when balancing risk.
To go back to Secretaries of State, they are accountable for the work of the intelligence services and the Armed Forces in Parliament. A central part of their obligations will remain authorising the required operational activity at the appropriate time.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister knows that, in Committee, I quoted quite a lot from the OSJA human rights guidance, which I have before me. It also addresses the fundamental point of my noble friend Lord Beith. Both the security service guidelines—which are not published, but about which we know because of judicial processes—which categorise the means by which authorisations have to be secured, and the OSJA Guidance outline the risk assessments that officers must go through. They conclude that, if there is high risk, ministerial approval is necessary. The Government’s amendments do not state categorically that authorisations and ministerial approvals will be necessary for breaches of the SCA offences. Can the Minister confirm that it will be the case that, if there are breaches of the SCA which are forecast through risk assessments and during the processes, ministerial authorisations will have to be provided?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I cannot confirm that from the Dispatch Box, but I will write to the noble Lord with the appropriate clarification. I do not actually have a copy of the OSJA Guidance in front of me, but I appreciate the points he is making.
I return to the third concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord West. I can confirm that, where a member of the intelligence services or the Armed Forces conducted activity that did not comply with the arrangements—namely, the rigorous safeguards, standards and internal processes that I described earlier—this breach of the arrangements could be scrutinised by the proper oversight mechanisms; for example, an error would be reported to IPCO for a breach of the Fulford principles. It could be considered by the prosecution and would impact the availability of the defence. I also assure the noble Lord that the introduction of this new defence, in and of itself, will not lead to fewer ministerial authorisations sought by the intelligence services or to less daily oversight from Ministers and/or judicial commissioners over intelligence activity. I know that he asked me for an explicit reassurance on that point.
I conclude by saying that, for the reasons I have outlined, the Government cannot support the amendments tabled by noble Lords against Clause 30, and therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments. I also ask the House to support the new SCA defence amendment tabled by the Government.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister has been helpful, but I hope he can be more specific. When does he think the encouragement or assistance of an overseas crime, conduct which is penalised by the Serious Crime Act 2007, might be necessary for the proper exercise of a function of the Armed Forces, other than in the intelligence context? For my part, I am quite prepared to accept that it may be necessary in the intelligence context; what I have not heard from the Minister is any suggestion of any other context in which it might be necessary, yet he asks me to withdraw my amendment, which would limit the application of the defence to the intelligence context. It may be that his answer will be in what I think he said about the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, needing further time to consult ministerial colleagues, but if I am to withdraw my amendment, and those discussions have not yet taken place, what assurance can he give as to possibly bringing back the issue at Third Reading?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I go back to what I said to the noble Lord in previous debates on this subject: the activity is restricted to intelligence activity, and as such I believe that the amendment is eminently sensible. However, we cannot accept this current amendment, but the Government will take a very careful look at this apparent gap and will consider the best way to close it.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, that was a very interesting final remark from the Minister. I hope it will prove to have some substance, otherwise we are left with legislation that I do not think can be interpreted in the way the Minister describes it. I am quite puzzled, but he has shown willing, so I hope he pursues it. I express my gratitude, particularly to the Minister for the Armed Forces for the care she has applied to this matter—we had a very detailed discussion with her and her officials—and to the Minister who is answering this debate, particularly for the amendment that gets rid of the awful Clause 30 and gives us something that is certainly a significant improvement in its place.
I still have perhaps three areas of particular anxiety in addition to the definitional point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised about “in support of intelligence”. One is the very fact that we are changing the law about what happens on a battlefield and what happens in a counterinsurgency, apart from the context of the discussion about the use of our Armed Forces in the non-intelligence world. This does not seem to be a good way to legislate. There would have been people involved in and engaged with the legislation if that is what it had been generally about, if it had been applying to the Armed Forces, but that is a rather unsatisfactory feature and not one that we can change at this stage.
I found what the noble Lord, Lord West, said about what happened between the ISC and the Home Office profoundly worrying. It really was disgraceful. I trust the accuracy of what he said and I am sure it can all be correctly documented, but that really is no way to deal with intelligence. Accountability for intelligence in the democratic context has always been quite difficult. The ISC has been developed over decades to provide a good mechanism to deal with that. When it is treated in that manner, it really is very serious and I hope the Minister has recognised that and is determined to go back to the office and really make a noise about this. It is just not acceptable and should not be acceptable to either House of Parliament.
My final worry, which I think can be resolved without statutory means but certainly remains, is the ambiguity about whether Secretaries of State will authorise significant measures that could fall within the scope of the new clause. In my view, it is an essential part of the system that agencies have the backing of a senior Minister when they engage in particularly difficult tasks, and that senior Ministers know what they are doing and are aware of what is being undertaken. If there is a political or legal risk, then Ministers should be aware of it. It is one thing to have a very good internal system—and I believe the agencies have good internal systems now—but quite another to be sure that, at the highest political level, there is both knowledge and authorisation. Frankly, if I were the head of an agency, which I have never been, my instinct would be to try to set up such a system, because otherwise the agency will always get the blame, even when the Secretary of State should have taken responsibility and might even have come to a different conclusion. I think that, over time, we need to make sure that Secretaries of State are sufficiently closely associated, otherwise they drift apart and agencies live in a world of their own. That is not how it should operate. But that, as I say, could be resolved without further legislation if there is determination to resolve it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
The arrangements which must be in place by virtue of subsection (4) or (5) must be arrangements which the Secretary of State considers to be satisfactory.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces Clause 30 with a new Clause which provides a defence for extra-territorial offences under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.
Lord West of Spithead
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to incorporate a proportionality requirement into the overarching defence.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I think our concerns have been assuaged by what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box and I think we should be pleased that we have done something that is going to be very useful for our intelligence services in the future. This is a very difficult, complex area. I have been involved in intelligence not as long as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, but probably for about 40 years and it is a very difficult area. It is always dancing on pinheads, I am afraid, but I think we have achieved something here, so I am delighted. I shall not move my amendment.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the application to the armed forces of the new defence to charges under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act by limiting it to the exercise of intelligence-related functions.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
Given the Minister’s undertaking, I shall not move the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to the amendment to page 23, line 40 in the name of Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this amendment comes with Amendment 75, which is the substantive amendment. I suppose I should declare a certain underlying prejudice as I start: more than 30 years ago, when I was in charge of research at Chatham House, the international affairs think tank, when we worked with departments across Whitehall on foreign policy issues, we found that the Home Office was the most resistant to the idea that foreign interests had to be taken into account. I have a vivid memory of a conference at Chatham House convened on behalf of the Metropolitan Police with police from the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain and elsewhere, at which a number of Home Office civil servants stood in a corner of the room during lunch rather than talk to foreigners. I am sure, 30 years later, that the Home Office is far better than that, but I think there is a problem of how the Bill, as it becomes an Act, looks to our closest friends and allies.
The aim of the Bill is to guard against foreign interference in British politics and British life by hostile foreign powers—above all, by China, Russia and Iran, but also other non-democratic states that want to undermine open societies and democratic government. Yet the definition of “foreign power” does not discriminate in any way between the more than 190 foreign powers with which the UK maintains political, economic and social relations, except for Ireland as a special case. I understand that there have been critical comments from within the US Administration and several European Governments. Yesterday, the German party foundations were speaking to my noble friend Lord Purvis about their worries about being caught by the new red tape which this threatens to impose on them.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 74 in my name. It deals with the definition of “foreign powers”, which clearly is a key part of the overall Bill.
However, I first need to talk about this part of the Bill in relation to FIRS, which we will cover next week—or maybe the week after, or the week after that, given the rate at which we are going; I hope not. I need to do that because the definition of a foreign power in Clause 32 determines who will be covered by the scheme we will come to later. In doing so, I make it clear that I greatly welcome the changes to FIRS contained in the government amendments, which again we will come to later, as they take account of the arguments made in Committee.
However, there is an anomaly that remains which particularly worries me. Many external political parties, including those from friendly states—not only NATO, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned, but New Zealand and Australia—will find themselves subject to registration and reporting requirements on issues completely unrelated to Government policy, let alone security issues. This is the National Security Bill we are discussing, not a lobbying Bill. These states will be caught on issues that have nothing to do with government policy or security.
Clause 32(1)(e) defines a foreign power as a political party whose members form the Government. At the moment, that would mean, for example, the Democrats in America, the Labour Party in New Zealand and Australia, and En Marche!—or whatever it is now called—in France. The Minister will know better than I do which of the Conservatives’ close associates are also in Government in various countries and therefore would be caught by this. The definition in Clause 32 covers the whole Bill, which might be appropriate for some parts of the Bill but certainly not for Part 3. The registration and reporting of activities in Part 3 has an enormous number of requirements—if we leave this definition to cover that—for political parties on non-security issues.
Assuming the Minister’s amendments go through, perhaps most worrying is the new Clause 70(3)(d), which means that FIRS covers any communication by a relevant overseas party—one whose members form the Government—which could affect, or is about,
“the proceedings of a UK registered political party”.
Stop and think about that. This will cover a political party in a friendly country having to register its activities in this country. The Minister will immediately pop up and say, “No, not if they do it directly—only if they do it through a third party”, but that is what happens, as we do these things through third parties. For us, it means if a fellow member of a sister party that is in Government—I do not know if the Conservatives call their friendly parties “sister parties”, but we always use the phrase—uses a consultancy, for example, or a PR firm, to ask us to support the change in the venue for the next Party of European Socialists Congress, or our work on the environment or an equality manifesto, the publication of something in a newspaper, an ad about a disaster or anything completely internal to our party-to-party relationships; but if is done by an intermediary, it becomes reportable to the Government, not of our political persuasion at the moment, of course, and published.
I doubt that is what the Government want because this is not about transparency now. We are into Big Brother land. I ask the Minister whether, if members of a party in Government, not the Government itself, contact any of us—if you look at Schedule 14 it could be not only us but, for example, councillors, even candidates, mayors via a conference organiser or a public affairs adviser—about any issue, such as a free trade agreement or a completely non-government issue such as an upcoming internal seminar being run between parties, where we tend to use intermediaries such as conference organisers, and they want to invite a party member as a speaker, it would have to be reported because it is via an intermediary. That is how I have read it and it is what he said when we had a very helpful meeting: if you use an intermediary, it is reportable.
Similarly, if party staffers from the party in Government organise a stall or a workshop at a party conference, and do so via a conference organising company, they are paying these intermediaries; therefore, they are acting under their direction. Those were the very helpful words the Minister gave me. They are therefore doing it on the order of the sister party in that other country. They are being directed by that party; the party is paying them to contact us to appear in a seminar or whatever it is. Is that reportable, and is there a criminal penalty if they fail to do it?
If they use an intermediary, who could be an interpreter or a translator, and they pay for that expertise, and they are again directing that party as to what they should do, would that be reportable—not just reportable, but reportable, for us as the Labour Party, to a Conservative Secretary of State, and a lot of this published? Non-governing parties are not covered, so the French socialists can come over and do what they like with us, and that is fine because they are not in Government, but it applies if we start holding seminars which the German Social Democrats, for example, set up using an intermediary such as a conference facilitating company.
For the Minister’s own party, some of their sister parties would also be covered by this when they go to Birmingham, or wherever the Conservatives have their party conference. I doubt very much that, at the beginning, it was the intention of the Government for their definition of foreign influence to get down to this level.
Over the weekend, or perhaps on Monday, some of us were sent very helpfully all the draft regulations and the forms that have to be filled in with people’s private mobile numbers and all sorts of details about what is going to happen, the dates of it, its purpose, the desired outcome, the individuals involved, contact details, the contact for the intermediary, and the invitations and which MPs they are going to. For possibly one meeting on the fringe of a party conference, or a TV interview, or the drafting of an article done by a party via an intermediary, all this would need to be reported.
I am not asking Ministers tonight to redraft this. I am asking—and I think there may be some willingness to do it—for the Government to look hard at whether it is really the intention that FIRS should include this party-to-party relationship, or party-to-politician relationship, where it is done via a third party. I hope that we can get some satisfactory answers or an undertaking that we could perhaps meet, and, if necessary, that some further tweaking might happen to this part of the Bill.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I completely support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire in moving our Amendment 75, in respect of the exclusion of NATO members from the definition of foreign power, for all the reasons he gave and that I gave in Committee.
Put shortly, we cannot see any valid reason for treating NATO members as foreign powers on the same basis as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. We are tied to our NATO allies by a treaty which imposes binding mutual obligations of defence and support. I have considerable understanding for the concern and disappointment expressed in public and in the press by representatives of some friendly nations of that unflattering equivalence of treatment. Those feelings mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wallace are not helpful to British foreign policy or diplomacy.
I also cannot see why the Government would not regard it as positively helpful to have the power to add friendly nations to a list of countries that will not be regarded as foreign powers for the purposes of this legislation. It may be that the Government will conclude in due course, even if not now, that the inclusion of all friendly countries as foreign powers may be profoundly unhelpful to our national position. To have the power, if that transpires, to exclude countries from the definition by regulation, may be regarded then as thoroughly convenient. Why will the Government not accept the flexibility that this part of the amendment offers?
As to the exclusion of governing political parties from the definition of foreign powers, this was an amendment we moved in Committee and which we supported then, and support now, for many of the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in support of Amendment 74. We see no basis for categorising all political parties that form any part of a foreign Government as foreign powers, as proposed in Clause 32(1)(e). It is unrealistic, it makes no sense and it is wrong in principle.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, this is the definition of foreign powers that governs the application of FIRS, as well as Part 1 and other parts of the Bill. It could cause all kinds of difficulties where there are coalition Governments, often without UK-style collective responsibility. It is also the case that political parties are themselves diffuse in their views and often divided. To equate all governing parties with the foreign powers in whose Government they take a part—often a small part—is, we say, profoundly misguided. Perhaps the Minister could explain how the Government justify treating even small coalition parties as the Governments of which they form a part?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I think that this part of the Bill was drawn up by someone who had not travelled very widely. It really just does not make sense.
I speak particularly to Clause 32. I do not exactly spend all my time, but I do spend a good bit of it, talking to embassies in London, largely from European Union countries that I have known for some time. I also go to Brussels very regularly because I still have interests there. I meet many people from other parties and groups—for a time I was a member of the Belgian Christian Democrat party—and I wonder where this lands. Of course, in some countries—Belgium is one—you will always have a coalition; it moves around, but it is always there.
There are also many other groups—for instance, the Kangaroo Group in Strasbourg covers all of the European Union and exists to pull down barriers to trade. I am a member of that group still because it has a foreign membership category. What are we supposed to do? Incidentally, the Kangaroo Group was set up by Basil de Ferranti, a British Conservative—though it is now a long time since he has been with us. This is a bit of a mess.
I want to deal in particular with Germany, which has a long tradition of political foundations. It has the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, which I do lectures for from time to time; I will be doing one later this month. It has the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, which is the socialist, or social democrat, one. It has the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, which is, if I remember rightly, the one from the liberal party, and it has the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung from the Greens. They all engage in trying to hold international conferences and gatherings to put across their policies, and they also invite people like me, who are reasonably well known in Germany, to go and give lectures and talks to members of their Stiftung. Part of the reason for that is to educate their own citizens in overseas political practice; it is not all one-way. I think we have missed something out here.
The Minister will say that it will not mean this and it will not mean that, but other people have looked at this Bill and at the explanations. In particular, the German foundations have concluded, reading this draft law on entities acting on behalf of a foreign power—under the law, Germany is a foreign power; that is the definition —that, if they are to get money from their Stiftung to do any work in Britain, the Stiftung will have to satisfy the German Government that it is legitimate to accept and apply for that money.
According to the German lawyers, Clause 31(2)(c), which says that any work carried out
“with financial or other assistance provided by a foreign power for that purpose, or … in collaboration with, or with the agreement of, a foreign power”,
means that the Stiftungen will fall under the scope of the registration scheme. In other words, if the Stiftungen are to be able to operate and satisfy their funders, they will have to satisfy them about this clause in our legislation. This means that a German Stiftung—a political foundation—that receives German taxpayers’ money, or for that matter a cultural institute, Chamber of Commerce or any London-based NGO or think tank that receives money from Germany, is an agent of a foreign power and has to register, according to the definition, every single interaction with UK politicians or high-ranking officials within 28 days. They have described this as making their lives “impossible”. I say to the Minister that it is not what we say the law means; it is what it means to a lawyer, and in this case what it means to a German lawyer.
I cannot agree that the concept of “foreign principle” has been removed. It has been removed and replaced with “foreign power”, but this does not cover what is needed. The fact of the matter is that, in the Minister’s letter, he very carefully said:
“Foreign opposition parties are not classed as foreign powers (for example the French Socialist party).”
That is not the German interpretation of our law. The Minister can shrug his shoulders, but the sensible way forward would be to accept an amendment such as the one put down by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, which makes it quite clear that these countries are not foreign powers for the purpose of this legislation. I invite the Minister to think carefully and come back at Third Reading with a much better definition. This general, catch-all “foreign powers” covers all of NATO but also, as has been mentioned, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Where are we going? Please could the Minister think it out a bit better and clarify it, possibly along the lines of the amendment, but certainly so that the people we deal with every day, who are cheerfully telling me about the attitude of the British Government to the reconstruction of Ukraine—which is not quite what the British Government are saying but is what the diplomats are picking up—can continue to brief us and keep us on top of things?
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to ask the Minister a question. I support what has been said by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Marks, but is Clause 32(1)(e) not possibly a case of government overreach? When it is listed that a political party involved in a Government of a friendly power should be included in the Bill in this way, does it imply that every member of that political party would be covered by this provision? Are we talking about the headquarters of a political party or the membership? That would involve so many people, I wonder whether the Government really mean to do that and, if so, whether they realise what an incredible extension and overreach that might represent.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a more wide-ranging debate than I was anticipating. The definition of a foreign power is an important issue. It was covered by the Minister in Committee, and I look forward to him expanding on what he said and particularly to address the points made by my noble friend Lady Hayter in her Amendment 74. I think I will leave it there because we have other business to deal with, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I will do my best to clarify all the points and answer all the questions that have been raised. First, I turn to government Amendment 76, which addresses concerns raised in Committee and in the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the drafting of the third limb of the foreign power threat activity provision. This provision is a key part of the Bill which ensures that police have the powers they need in supporting investigations into state threats offences. The concerns raised were that support or assistance unrelated to the harmful conduct covered by foreign power threat activity under Clause 33(3) risked being caught under Clause 33(1)(c). That is not the Government’s intention, and this amendment puts it beyond doubt that the support or assistance must be in relation to the conduct covered by Clause 33(1)(a) rather than unrelated activity. I hope that addresses the concerns helpfully put forward by noble Lords in Committee and that this amendment is welcomed.
This group also includes Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and it relates to the meaning of a “foreign power”. The amendment seeks to remove
“a political party which is a governing political party of a foreign government”
from the definition. I would very much like to thank the noble Baroness for the constructive engagement we have had on this issue. I know her principal concern is with the effect of this clause on the foreign influence registration scheme, which of course we will be debating next week.
The foreign power condition applies right across the Bill and is crucial in order that the new offences in it, such as espionage, theft of trade secrets and sabotage, work effectively. Removing it here would remove it from those other offences too. The Government’s position, as the noble Baroness is aware, is that the inclusion of governing political parties addresses situations where there is a dominant political party, or parties, within a country, to such extent that it may be difficult to disentangle whether harmful activities have been carried out on the direction of the ruling party or the Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, may I ask a question of clarification? I understand much more clearly what the noble Lord is saying: governing political parties are in effect acting as intermediaries for the state. However, certainly in the international relations which I have been engaged in over the last 40 years, many think tanks in other states also operate as intermediaries in that respect. In particular the Washington think tanks, which are very close to the Government, act as intermediaries, but foreign-funded ones in other democratic and non-democratic capitals often also do so. Should that not be included in the Bill for the same rationale that he has just given us on dominant political parties?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, ruling parties are the foreign power. As I have tried to be clear and have stressed twice now, registration will be required only where an individual or entity is directed by a foreign power—that is the condition. Therefore, if a think tank was being directed by a foreign power, the answer would be yes. If it was not, the answer would be no.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that an intermediary could be a conference-arranging organisation? If he is coming to that, I would be grateful.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I noted the noble Baroness’s questions about intermediaries, and I promise that I will address that.
I know that we have had some debate about what it means to be directed by a foreign power. I want to reassure all noble Lords that this is a high bar. The natural meaning of “direction” is an order or instruction to act. It is possible that such direction could be delivered in the language of a request but only where there is a power relationship between the person and the foreign power which adds an element of control or expectation to the request: for example, through a contract, payment, coercion or the promise of future compensation or favourable treatment. It is not enough for a foreign power to fund an activity, so generic requests, joint collaboration or simply an alignment of views, absent the power relationship, will not meet the test for direction.
I will quote directly from the letter I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—I apologise for not sharing it more broadly with the House but I was cleared to send it only this morning:
“In terms of what activity would be registrable, we consider that where a parliamentarian is to be directed by a foreign governing party, for example, being paid or on the promise of favourable treatment, to influence Government Ministers or fellow parliamentarians, this would require disclosure under FIRS.”
I will come back to my quote in a second. I digress briefly into the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Balfe and his quick canter through the Stiftungen of Germany. We are in touch with the German Government on this issue and are grateful for their constructive engagement. We do not consider that, for example, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung would constitute a foreign power under Clause 32 of the Bill. A person acting under the direction of such an institution would not be in scope of the foreign influence registration scheme. We will have another opportunity to debate these issues next Tuesday. Konrad Adenauer should be reassured that it is not covered.
I want to be clear that there is no requirement for the activity to cease, only for it to be transparent. In these circumstances, there is a strong national interest in greater openness on the influence of British politics by foreign powers. It should be clear not only to the Government, but to parliamentarians and to the public, where this influence is being brought to bear. FIRS seeks to address the gap, providing us all with more information about the scale and nature of foreign political influence in the UK.
I will answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, directly. In the example she described, the intermediary would have to register, if directed by a foreign power. The noble Baroness herself, or a foreign power, would not.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
This is at the heart of it. If the German SPD engaged somebody to set up a stall at our party conference, they would be directed, be paying and have a contract for it. This would then have to be registered. I have seen the draft regulations which the Minister kindly sent me. They would have to disclose which MPs they had invited to the event and all of that. As the Minister has just said, as soon as the intermediary—the conference arrangements organisation—is paid by an outside political party to organise this, according to the form that I have been sent, we would have to fill in our names. We may not be the ones registering, but it would be wholly disclosable. It has nothing to do with the Government nor with national security. It is a party-to-party issue. It is simply because they have used an intermediary—a conference arrangements organisation or interpretation.
I think it is clear and that we agree on this. I am not asking that we should be able to bring it back at Third Reading, but I am asking the Minister to leave a little chink of light. Having thought about it, in consultation with his colleagues, the Government might be willing to look at whether this is really what they want to achieve.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I am more than happy to continue engagement on this subject.
The final amendment in this group, concerning the definition of a foreign power, was initially tabled in Committee and has been retabled by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Wallace. It seeks to exclude members of NATO and other nations, via regulations, from the definition of a foreign power. I want to put it on record that we do not consider all foreign powers to be hostile. When this amendment was initially tabled, I put forth that the National Security Bill focuses on the harmful conduct undertaken by a person and not the foreign power they seek to benefit. I continue to believe that this is the right approach.
The Government do not seek to create gaps in the legislation which could allow states to act through proxies and thus undermine what the Bill seeks to do—to take necessary and appropriate action against harmful activity. Again, no doubt to groans, I will bring your Lordships’ attention to the case of Daniel Houghton. He is the dual British-Dutch national who attempted to sell sensitive information to the Dutch intelligence service in 2010. If this amendment were to be accepted, and NATO states excluded from the definition of a foreign power, cases such as Daniel Houghton’s would not be captured by the offences and measures in the Bill. This would not be an appropriate outcome which could undermine the Bill. I believe that the Dutch came to us on this particular occasion and I commend them for it. I ask again that these amendments tabled by noble Lords be withdrawn.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I do not want to detain the House. I asked whether the definition of a political party in Clause 32(1)(e) means all members of it or not.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thought that I answered this when I talked about direction by a foreign power. If members of a political party are directed by a foreign power, they would be covered.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation. There remains a slight degree of uncertainty. Presumably the Government will issue guidance to be put in place before the scheme is operational. We raised this at our meeting with him.
I wonder whether, in advance of us considering FIRS next week, we could have more information about what the draft guidance will look like as part of the engagement that the Minister has committed to, which is welcome. We have seen some elements of the draft regulations and heard some explanations from the Government but, if he could expand on what the draft guidance might be, that would provide some reassurance to the Stiftungen and other organisations that are hurriedly trying to find out where they fit in this area around what a foreign power will be and the interaction with either intermediaries or those who are funded by them. It is hard to outline that in the Bill but, if the Minister could provide that information in advance of next week, it would inform us very well.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister comes back, could either he or a representative of the Government talk to the German ambassador and clear up this difficulty because the Germans are quite convinced that they are caught by this? It would be good if he could come back here and say, “I’ve spoken to the German ambassador or the First Secretary and we have agreed this”. Otherwise, the confusion will carry on.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I cannot make any promises but I will certainly try. In answer to my noble friend Lord Balfe’s question, as I said in my initial answer to him, we have engaged extensively with the German Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument. That he has to go back to the single case of Daniel Houghton shows the weakness of the ground on which he stands. We recall that case, which involved a Dutch-British dual national who was uncovered by our allies, the Dutch, with whom, of course, we have a close intelligence relationship as well as a number of other things; it was therefore resolved. No such things have happened with a hostile foreign power. If we have to go back to that case, it simply shows that there is not very much evidence on which the Government can make this argument.
Many of us who know that this is an important Bill and wish it well are concerned about the unnecessary offence given to friendly Governments. The Minister has not assured us that all our friendly Governments have been consulted and are happy with this Bill. I hope that, in informal conversations between now and Third Reading, he—or at least one of his Foreign Office Ministers who actually talks to other Foreign Ministers—will be able to assure us that we will not treat all foreign powers or contact with them on a similar basis.
On that basis, I will not divide the House but I remark that I am unsatisfied with the Minister’s response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
(i) knows or believes P to be involved in, and(ii) engages in the conduct for the purpose of giving support or assistance to,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that conduct is only within Clause 33(1)(c) if it is for the purpose of giving support or assistance to conduct within 33(1)(a).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
““information” includes information about tactics, techniques and procedures;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a definition of "information" for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(e) Schedule 3 (disclosure orders);(f) Schedule 4 (customer information orders).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment excepts offences under Schedules 3 and 4 from the requirement to obtain the consent of the Attorney General or Advocate General to proceedings for an offence under Part 1.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Reviews of Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5(1) The operation of Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 of this Act must be reviewed by a person, or people, appointed by the Secretary of State.(2) The operation of Part 4 must be reviewed by the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (review of terrorism legislation).(3) The operation of Parts 1, 2 and 5 must be reviewed by either—(a) the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of that Act, or(b) a different person appointed by the Secretary of State. (4) Reviews under this section must be carried out in respect of—(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which any section in this Part comes into force, and(b) each subsequent 12-month period.(5) Each review under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.(6) The person or people mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.(7) On receiving a report under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.(8) Section 36(6) of the Terrorism Act 2006 has effect as if the references to “expenses” and “allowances” in that subsection included “expenses” and “allowances” in connection with the discharge by the person or people of functions under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for the regular review of the operation of Parts 1, 4, and 5 of the Act as well as of Part 2.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 80
“would provide for the regular review of the operation of Parts 1, 4, and 5 of the Act as well as of Part 2.”
Also in this group are government Amendments 81, 85 and 86. Of course, we welcome that the Government have engaged on the issue of oversight and introduced significant concessions. However, the purpose of Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker is to go further. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord will seek to test the opinion of the House—he is nodding from a sedentary position. If he does, we will support him. However, that is not to disregard that the Government have listened and responded positively to the points made in Committee on the need for independent oversight.
Therefore, I will support what the Government say, with just with one question regarding oversight and their intention. We have two former independent reviewers in the House at the moment. I am not sure what normal practice is, but the Government’s amendment, regarding the independent reviewer providing a report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State then laying that before Parliament, gives no indication of a timeframe for laying the report before Parliament after it has been received from the independent reviewer. Given the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, regarding Governments not providing information to Parliament in a timely manner, could this unfortunately be a wee loophole in the independent reviewing? It seems that the amendment gives Ministers complete discretion on when they may present reports to Parliament. Therefore, reports could be received from an independent reviewer but not presented to Parliament for a considerable period or at all.
I hope that is not the case and that this can be clarified by the Minister, but it is an omission within the Government’s amendment, which is otherwise welcome. As I say, the Government have moved, but I hope that the Minister can respond on the areas of omission.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, hits on a sore point for independent reviewers past and present. At the instigation of my noble friend Lord Carlile, the Australians copied the job of independent reviewer—I think they call him or her the independent national security legislation monitor, which is even more indigestible. In doing so, they provided in their statute that reports be laid before Parliament within, I think, 15 sitting days of receipt by the Minister, an excellent discipline which I rather wish this amendment had followed.
I do not wish to seem ungracious. The independent review of powers, whose exercise is attended by secrecy, is a token of good faith on the part of government. It has proved its worth since the 1970s in this country in the context of counterterrorism law. I never doubted the good faith of the Government where this Bill is concerned. This amendment will make that good faith evident to others. It will help to dampen down the conspiracy theories that are so prevalent in this area and allow us to keep pace with Australia—and shortly, I hope, Ireland—in providing for independent oversight of almost the full range of national security laws.
However, gratitude has its limits. On first inspection, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, looks even better, so if he divides the House, I shall vote for it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those contributions. There has been plenty of discussion throughout the passage of this Bill about the need for oversight of the state threats provisions in the Bill. The Government have welcomed this debate and agree on the need for the Bill to go further in this regard. The new provisions proposed by the Government do just that. I am very grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Purvis, on the Government’s movements in that regard.
I will not spend too long on this group but will set out briefly the provisions and how we expect the government provisions to work in practice. The amendments made by the Government create a single reviewer of state threats legislation to oversee the operation of the measures in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. This means that the reviewer will oversee not just the STPIM regime but the criminal offences and the exercise of police powers to ensure that their use is appropriate and proportionate.
The Government are also bringing oversight of the provisions of the state threats port stops power—Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019—within the remit of the new reviewer, meaning that all dedicated state threats legislation will be considered as part of a single reviewer’s role.
The Government have heard the argument that this role should in practice be carried out by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and can see the potential benefits this could bring. However, the Government are also conscious that the role will be of public interest and will therefore run an open competition for it, rather than appointing someone directly. Given the synergy between the roles, the Government will align the appointment cycle of this post with that of the terrorism reviewer. This will allow the role-holders to work closely together, but also provide the option of having one individual fill both roles, should that be beneficial.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his proposed amendment on this topic, which would achieve the same effect but also add Parts 4 and 5 to the remit of the reviewer. As mentioned in previous debates on this topic, an explicit commitment to oversight of Part 4 in the Bill is unnecessary, given it is already in the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I therefore suggest that there is nothing lacking from the present proposal. The provisions in Part 5 are supplementary to the rest of the Bill. The reviewer will be able to look at how Parts 1 and 2 operate in terms of commencement, regulation-making powers and territorial extent without the need explicitly to mention Part 5 in the powers for the reviewer. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendment 80 as tabled by Labour, and hope that colleagues across the House will welcome the government amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I wonder if he might be able to address my point—which I remind him is the only point that I made?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I certainly addressed the point which he generously made praising the Government for our amendments. The point that he raised in relation to the Labour amendment, on the basis that there is no timeframe in the present amendments, is not valid in the Government’s submission, because the Labour amendment itself does not contain any binding requirement on the laying of reports. In our submission, that would remove a level of flexibility. In the area of national security, it is important not to hedge about these kinds of provisions with time requirements. For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I know that this is Report and we do not have to and fro, but I was making the point that it was an omission in the Government’s amendment. It is utterly open-ended as to whether the Secretary of State will lay the report from the independent reviewer before Parliament. I was seeking clarification from the Minister that that would not be the case.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it was me who moved Amendment 80, which is the first amendment in this group. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Anderson, for supporting it. Regarding Part 5, which is covered by my amendment, the Minister described it as supplementary. Well, it may be supplementary, but it is very consequential, because it provides that the Government can make any consequential provision that is a result of this Act, and that consequential amendment can apply both within and outside the UK. It is very significant, even though the Minister may describe it as supplementary.
For that reason, and to provide a more comprehensive view of the Act, as it will be in due course, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 80.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s new Clause (Reviews: general). The new Clause provides for reviews of Part 2 and other provisions by the independent reviewer appointed under the new Clause, superseding clause 56.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to Northern Ireland legislation to a defined term.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to Northern Ireland legislation to a defined term.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to Northern Ireland legislation to a defined term.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Reviews: general(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person (the “independent reviewer”) to review the operation of—(a) Part 1, except section (Offences under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007);(b) Part 2;(c) Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, except the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner under Part 1 of that Schedule.(2) The independent reviewer—(a) must carry out a review of the operation of those provisions for each calendar year (an “annual review”), and(b) may carry out such other reviews of the operation of any of those provisions as they consider appropriate.(3) An annual review must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the calendar year to which it relates.(4) The independent reviewer must, by 31 January in each calendar year, inform the Secretary of State what (if any) reviews under subsection (2)(b) they intend to carry out in that year.(5) The independent reviewer must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under this section as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.(6) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—(a) the report (but not any material removed under subsection (7)), and(b) a statement as to whether any material has been removed under that subsection.(7) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the independent reviewer, remove from the report any material whose publication the Secretary of State thinks would be contrary to the public interest, or prejudicial to— (a) national security,(b) the prevention or detection of crime,(c) the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, or(d) the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority whose activities include activities that are subject to review by the independent reviewer.(8) “Public authority” means a public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, other than a court or tribunal.(9) The Secretary of State may pay to the independent reviewer—(a) expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the reviewer under this section, and(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for independent review of Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, and Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. It is intended that this new Clause, together with new Clause “Reviews of detention under Part 1” will form a new Part of the Bill after Part 2.
“Reviews of detention under Part 1(1) An annual review under section (Reviews: general)(2)(a) must in particular consider compliance with the relevant requirements in relation to persons detained under section 27 by virtue of a warrant of further detention under Part 6 of Schedule 6.(2) The relevant requirements are requirements imposed—(a) by or under Parts 1 to 5, and paragraph 45, of Schedule 6;(b) by any relevant code of practice under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or Article 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)).(3) The independent reviewer must ensure that a review is carried out into any case where—(a) a person is detained under section 27 by virtue of a warrant of further detention under Part 6 of Schedule 6, and(b) the period specified in that warrant is further extended under paragraph 44 of that Schedule to a time that is more than 14 days after the person’s arrest under section 27.(4) A review under subsection (3) may be carried out by the independent reviewer or by another person.(5) The independent reviewer must ensure that a report on the outcome of a review under subsection (3) is sent to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.(6) Section (Reviews: general) (6) to (8) applies to a report of a review under subsection (3).(7) The expenses mentioned in section (Reviews: general)(9) include any expenses incurred by the independent reviewer in ensuring that another person carries out, and reports on, a review under subsection (3).(8) “Independent reviewer” has the same meaning as in section (Reviews: general).”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about independent reviews of the powers of detention in Part 1 of the Bill.
Official Controls (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Official Controls (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/17), made on 11 January and laid before the House on 12 January, be annulled because (1) they are injurious to the integrity of the United Kingdom’s Internal Market given that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has not been replaced by new arrangements, (2) they thereby violate the New Decade, New Approach agreement, by giving effect to a customs and sanitary and phytosanitary border that divides the UK and treats Northern Ireland like a foreign country, (3) they seek to protect the integrity of a legal regime resulting from the imposition of laws in 300 different areas by a polity of which Northern Ireland is not a part and in which it has no representation, (4) they protect the integrity of a legal regime that undermines the 1998 Belfast Agreement, as amended by the St Andrews Agreement, which affords the people of Northern Ireland the right “to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”, given that the people of Northern Ireland can no longer stand for election to pursue democratically national and political aspirations in relation to the said 300 areas of law.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am glad to be able to rise, eventually, tonight to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I want to place on record my gratitude to the Minister for the discussions that we have had about these regulations, and for the time he has given to me to discuss these matters and his availability. They may appear to be technical in nature but they have enormous political and constitutional ramifications. This is an extremely important matter, and I know the Minister is aware of the sensitivities around all this. That may be one of the reasons why the regulations are being brought forward only now.
I have tabled this Motion in order to ensure that we have a debate and to have some scrutiny on the significant development of the Irish Sea border. This arises under the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Northern Ireland protocol. It would be fairly strange indeed if such a measure were to pass without debate either in your Lordships’ House or in the other place. Given the time that has now elapsed since the tabling of the SI, I am not sure it will be debated in the other place at all, and so this the only opportunity to raise these matters in Parliament—and it is a matter of extreme importance.
The regulations allow the Secretary of State to do anything he or she
“considers appropriate … in connection with the construction of facilities”
in relation to official border control posts, despite this being a devolved matter. It is another example, in the long line of examples that we have had recently of the Government intervening in the devolved settlement when it suits them. There are many other matters, as your Lordships will realise, that are of importance in Northern Ireland on which, even when there is an agreed position among political parties, the Government will say that they are not going to intervene because it is a devolved matter—even with the Assembly not sitting. However, on other occasions they decide to step in. It is hardly an argument for the necessity of restoring the Assembly, I have to say. It would appear that, even if the Executive were to be restored, the powers taken by the Secretary of State would remain, so there would be a co-authority: the power of the Minister in Northern Ireland and the power of the Secretary of State. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in the circumstances of the Assembly’s restoration and the Executive’s reformation, the powers would revert to the Northern Ireland Executive alone.
The regulations also allow the Secretary of State to direct the competent authority in Northern Ireland
“to recruit and employ … staff to implement Article 64 of the Official Controls Regulation”,
which applies because of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Secretary of State in a Westminster department can direct the likes of Belfast City Council, the Health and Safety Executive or whomever to employ staff in Northern Ireland. In making such directions, will there be accompanying resources to fund and sustain them for as long as they are in place? Undoubtedly, this will put considerable extra burdens on those bodies.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“These powers will be necessary to implement either a negotiated solution with the European Union, or to implement the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill”.
Well, the Explanatory Memorandum did not last long as far as the latter point is concerned. The regulations are brought forward under Section 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. That section gives power only to make regulations as appropriate in relation to the current protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. The basis for these regulations is the legal implementation of the current protocol, yet that is not mentioned at all in the Explanatory Memorandum. Why was that left out?
That brings me to the heart of the true significance of this legislation. In making his presentation on his new deal in the other place on Monday, the Prime Minister was challenged on how to square his assertion that the published framework document removes the border down the Irish Sea with the commitment in these regulations to build border control posts. The Prime Minister responded that
“the border posts are there to deal with checks in the red lane. That was something that was always envisaged. It is something that we always said that we would do. It is right that people should not be able to try to smuggle goods into the Republic of Ireland via Northern Ireland. That is why those posts, those inspection facilities, are there. The investment in them is to make sure that we can do those checks properly, as we assured the European Union that we would do. Part of having a functioning green lane is having enforcement of the red lane.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/23; col. 589.]
I quoted that in full because the words are significant, and I will come on to deal with them later. I surmise that this line has been given to the Minister replying to this debate, but I very much hope it has not because, with respect, it misses the point, for reasons that I will set out.
As a matter of general principle, we should, as a sovereign country, proceed on the basis that, if we want to protect the integrity of our single market, that is our responsibility and we should foot the bill for that. If another country wants to protect the integrity of its single market, that is its responsibility and it should foot the bill for that. I do not believe that there is an example anywhere in the world of a country building border control posts for the purposes of protecting the single market of another country. I suppose a country might seek to justify spending its taxpayers’ money to build border control posts to protect the integrity of the single market of another country if this also protected the integrity of its own single market. But in relation to Northern Ireland, far from doing that, the provision of these border control posts actually disrupts the UK single market for goods and replaces it with a Great Britain single market for goods and an all-Ireland single market for goods.
Another question arises if we are building border control posts to protect just the EU single market: why is it necessary that they be built in each one of Northern Ireland’s ports, when you could just as easily build one away from the ports altogether, as suggested by many hauliers with experience of these matters? That is what happens elsewhere. The plan, for instance, for goods coming in via Liverpool and Holyhead is for them to be sent to a single inland border control at Warrington, not at the ports.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, in many ways this Motion, as the noble Lord will acknowledge, has been somewhat overtaken by events, but he is commenting on the events. It was clear from the outset that Boris Johnson’s oven-ready deal was anything but; we know that now. The claim that there would be no restrictions or paperwork on goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland has never been true, as the Government’s website clearly showed on the day that Boris Johnson made his preposterous speech during the 2019 election.
I say to the noble Lord that I understand the way unionists see the friction he has outlined, the limitations on movements and transactions, as undermining their sense of identity. I understand that, but I do not understand why the DUP was so adamant in its determination to secure Brexit, when the EU had actually created an umbrella that allowed freedom of movement all ways. To leave the EU and expect there to be no paperwork, which is what I think the DUP wants, was never achievable. I have said that on a number of occasions in debates on this House: it was always possible, right from the outset, to secure reduced friction—the noble Lord has acknowledged that the agreement has done that—and the idea of green and red channels was in the frame from the beginning; it has been discussed for several years.
What was not on offer was trust and good will. What we were subjected to was just cheap, xenophobic rhetoric. Ursula von der Leyen’s relationship with “Dear Rishi” shows how the atmosphere has changed, and a change in the atmosphere is somewhat crucial. I welcome that. I am pleased that the way is now open to secure the UK’s associate membership of Horizon and to begin to explore, I hope, how the trade and co-operation agreement can also be renegotiated, in a similar way, to smooth the way for reduced friction for trade between the rest of the UK and the EU. It was, after all, astonishing and revealing that the Government were boasting yesterday of the privileged position of Northern Ireland as being in both the UK and the EU single markets, something that many people in the rest of the UK wish they had on offer.
It is undeniable that the protocol came about from a mess of the UK’s—specifically, Boris Johnson’s—own making. The ideology that has seized this Conservative Government has caused them to inflict more damage in more ways and in a shorter time than probably any Government in history. That said, I ask the DUP to consider carefully what it does next. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has been open in his criticism but careful not to say what he will do next.
All politics is surely about compromise; I would say that Irish politics is especially so. You can claim that playing hardball got us here, but I would refute that. Playing hardball stalled progress and engagement. There is a clear indication that the protocol Bill, far from pressurising a deal, stood in the way of it, and its abandonment is a victory for common sense. Whatever its reservations about the agreement, I suggest that the DUP should admit, privately if not publicly, that it is far better than it would have expected, even if it is not happy with it. The Prime Minister has said that it cannot be renegotiated, though there may be room for clarification here and there. I believe that the majority of people in Northern Ireland, although they may care little for the detail, will welcome an end to the deadlock that has plagued them.
I also suggest to the DUP that, over time, when this agreement is implemented, businesses with interests in Northern Ireland and the public of Northern Ireland will see that the removal of uncertainty creates economic space and a better climate. If that goes ahead and is demonstrated, the DUP will be exposed as people who opposed that improvement in circumstances in the Province. It may find that there is a price to pay.
On the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive, I have contested that there has never been a justification for the DUP withdrawal, any more than there was for the Sinn Féin withdrawal on a previous occasion. Two wrongs do not make a right. The people of Northern Ireland have voted and the DUP did not win. It is entitled to stand up vigorously for its supporters, and it does, but it is not democracy to deny the majority of citizens the right to be represented and to see government tackle the manifold challenges we all face. The protocol and certainly this new agreement pale into insignificance compared with the challenges that most people face in their everyday lives.
It has also been pointed out that one of the safeguards in this deal is the Stormont brake, but that requires the existence of an Assembly and Executive. I am hearing rather mixed messages about what different parties think about it, but I believe it was put in precisely for the benefit of the concerns that the DUP had expressed. If it is not very happy with it, maybe the easiest thing to do is remove it.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the Scottish border, which is of some concern to me—I cross it very regularly. In reality, Brexit has created a problem for the DUP—although by campaigning for Brexit it somewhat brought that on itself—but it has also created a problem for Scottish nationalists. Their ambition was an independent Scotland somehow rejoining Europe, which we all know would be long drawn out, difficult and on unknown terms and would inevitably lead to a hard border between Scotland and the rest of the UK. All these things suggest that the way forward for the UK is to recognise that this first step is the beginning of an improvement in relations with the EU and sets the potential for us to rebuild practical relations—Brexit excepted—that enable the minimum friction, not just between Great Britain and Northern Ireland but between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and uncertainty to be removed and businesses to flourish.
While I understand the reason for this Motion, the DUP should reflect very carefully. If it remains recalcitrant, the danger for it is that the rules in Northern Ireland may have to change, and the mood may change too. The DUP may be very confident of its base, but it should remember and respect that it is not a majority. There are no majorities in Northern Ireland. The only way that Northern Ireland will progress is if people are prepared to accept compromise. The DUP has made its tough stand; now is the time to recognise that compromise needs to be secured.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, that was an interesting speech on the Windsor Framework, but I did not hear any comments on the very serious specific issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds? Have the Liberal Democrats nothing to say about those extremely serious points?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I acknowledged that there were points of issue and clarification; I understand them. My point, however, is that an agreement has been reached which encapsulates some of those concerns. The choice is whether we accept the agreement or whether we use those grievances to reject it and consequently leave Northern Ireland in a double limbo, denied democracy in terms of a Government and an Assembly and continuing to have the uncertainty of a non-achievable protocol. I am giving some credit, for heaven’s sake, to this Government, who have taken a common-sense approach to try to secure something which many people did not think would be achievable—I personally always thought it was and we could have done it a lot earlier. I think they are whistling in the wind if they think that raising those objections is going to change the basis of what has been agreed by any fundamental and significant amount. I think I have acknowledged that, and I am suggesting we face political reality.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, and thank him for giving us this real opportunity, which we have not yet had, to discuss what came out earlier in the week from the Prime Minister and the EU. I say right away that it is very interesting to hear from so many people, not just here but everywhere, how awful things were and how they were not working, including in the framework document itself, where every single item starts with an attack on the protocol. It is very interesting because some of us have been saying that for a very long time and got quite a lot of pushback from Ministers and others, who kept saying, “Oh, no, nothing can ever change; the protocol has to stay.” I say gently to the noble Lord who has just spoken that his party in Northern Ireland, which I think has a very strong relationship with the Alliance Party, went down to Dublin with Sinn Féin during the Covid regulations to call for the rigorous implementation of the protocol. I may have missed it over the last few days, but maybe the Alliance Party has now decided to apologise for the nonsense of calling for rigorous implementation of something which has now been accepted by everyone to have been wrong and did not work.
I have sympathy for the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon. I know there will be lots of things coming up tonight that will not really be his direct responsibility, but I think he will understand that those of us from Northern Ireland feel that we have to take every opportunity to make sure that our grievances and our strongly held views, particularly on the issue of sovereignty, are raised at every opportunity. I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I will not go over the specific issues on some of the pitfalls of these green and red lanes. It is sufficient to say that it was disappointing that our Prime Minister so vigorously implied that now it was all sorted; the green lanes had made a great difference, and there were going to be no checks—I think he actually used the words “no checks”.
I have spent a bit of time reading—I hope, like other noble Lords—what the EU said just after the framework document was published. I have to say, it is very different in every single aspect. You look at what the Prime Minister said, you then compare it to what the European Union is saying, and it is very different indeed.
I am afraid that this means that once again there is an over-positivity coming through from the Government, and I understand that—they want to show that they have made real changes. The reality, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has pointed out is that they have not made real changes, and as each hour and each day passes, and the detail of what has been agreed is examined and scrutinised, we find more and more that it does not live up to reality.
I look forward very much—I think it will be around now or perhaps later this evening—to the first legal opinion. There will be many legal opinions over the next week or two, and it is right that the Prime Minister has said that there is time for people to study this, but the first legal opinion will come out tonight on the legality—particularly relating to the Act of Union, but on other aspects too. We are going to see some very strong legal opinions that will show that the Prime Minister has overplayed this very much.
I want to say one further thing on the green lanes, because it is important. If a trader in Bristol trades with Birmingham, and then decides the next day to trade with Belfast—part of the same United Kingdom—they must be able to trade in exactly the same way. That is not going to happen: the green lanes are going to require around 30 documents to be filled in, and then the checks that will happen will depend very much on what is in the load. If it were a genuine green lane, we would not need a green lane; we would simply be sending goods as we do to any other part of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has gone into that in detail, and I hope that people have the opportunity to listen to some of those people who are engaged in sending lorries back and forward, what they have to go through and how this will not make very much difference. Indeed, what it will do is cause a huge divergence of trade, something that was very important to the internal market within Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I want to mention a couple of things and I ask the Minister that, if he cannot answer them, perhaps he will pass them on to someone who can. I know that the Northern Ireland Office may be finding it difficult to deal with all the questions that are going in because they do not necessarily have the answers, but somebody must have this answer because somebody has agreed and signed this agreement. For example, we now understand that Northern Ireland consumers who are buying products online, which many people do, will be able to do so only if the seller is prepared to fill in customs declarations. I ask the Minister if this is right.
If a new car exported for sale by a Northern Ireland dealer will have to be made to EU standards, not UK ones, that does not seem to me like “no Irish sea border”. At the moment the regulations and standards might well be similar, but eventually there will be divergence. There is absolutely no point to us having left the European Union if we do not take advantage of the fact that we can diverge and do things differently, and live up to the standards of our own country. So could the Minister confirm whether this is correct?
Now for something that is perhaps more in his line of understanding: we understand that the GB-Northern Ireland seed potato ban—the Minister looks more interested when I talk about seed potatoes—is not totally reversed. They will be able to be traded from grower to grower, but direct-to-consumer and retail packs are still excluded. So people who I know who grow small amounts and get their seeds from Great Britain will still not be able to have that without all the bureaucracy and paperwork that already exists. I have asked about that, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who is here, has been very kind in seeing if he can find an answer to it.
Something that matters a lot to people in Northern Ireland are their pets. We have been told by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, that—great—everybody can take their pets, but they might need a little document. In fact, what the EU says is that people will be able to travel with their pets from GB to Northern Ireland—is it not good of the EU to let us do that?—with only a simple pet document needed and a declaration by the owner that the pet will not go into the EU; that is into the Republic of Ireland. How is that going to work? Is it not absolutely amazing that our own country is saying that you can take your pet to Wales or Scotland but you cannot take it to Northern Ireland without all this bureaucracy and hassle?
One of my favourite ones, which I have brought up before—again, I had hoped that this declaration might actually have the answer—and which also matters to people, although it is not a huge issue, is the question of duty-free. Since we left the European Union, duty-free has been restored to Great Britain, but it has not, of course, been restored to Northern Ireland. So, if you fly from Belfast to somewhere in the EU, you would expect to get duty-free, as you could if you flew from Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow or Cardiff. But you cannot, because we are still in the EU single market. Then you might say, “Great, so I’ll be able to get from Belfast to London, or Belfast to Birmingham”, as you can from Dublin to London. “Oh, no”, says the Treasury, “you can’t do that either”. Nothing in this document will say whether that has now been changed. We cannot just be left in this kind of limbo situation where we are allowed to do something when it suits the European Union but are not allowed when it does not suit it. So that is another question: what is the situation with duty-free?
I am not going to mention state aid. For anyone that is interested in that, if they look at the detail, they will see that the state aid issue has not been sorted—and neither has the VAT issue. There is a huge number of things that have not been sorted in any way to make things better.
Some of your Lordships may know Brendan O’Neill; I am going to give him a bit of publicity. He wrote a most brilliant article in something called Spiked, which I am not sure is regular reading for your Lordships. He wrote in a very amusing but serious way about what the framework document is doing. He talks a lot about the body language between the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission and the fact that they obviously really like each other and get on well. He said:
“Behind the niceties, what we had here was the prime minister of a supposedly free nation expressing child-like glee that a foreign oligarchy had granted him permission to enact certain policies within his own borders.”
He then goes through all the things that the Prime Minister was welcoming. For example, he has welcomed the fact that, in our own country, we are now going to be allowed to have medicines travelling properly throughout the United Kingdom.
I end by saying that I am sorry that, although everyone who is here does care about Northern Ireland, there are obviously a lot of noble Lords and Members of the other place who are interested in Northern Ireland only when something terrible has happened or when something like this is causing problems for the Government. I ask your Lordships to read the document the European Union has come out with. I am afraid that it shows that our Prime Minister has overegged the pudding—I think that is the right expression—and, by doing so, he has actually treated Northern Ireland people as if they are just that little bit stupid and that they will not understand it.
I got that feeling a bit from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce —I am sorry to be seeming to attack him again, but his attitude was one of how terrible it is of the DUP to be even thinking it might not be go back into government. But it is very clear that, if the DUP does go back into the Northern Ireland Executive, it is going to have to implement this protocol. Call it what you like, but the basis of the protocol is still there and the fundamental issue of sovereignty is still there. This issue has not been solved, and this framework document—to which I refuse to give the name it has been given by the Prime Minister—will not solve the issue. I appeal genuinely to all noble Lords to read the EU document and then compare it to what our Prime Minister has said.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I express great sympathy with the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn. I hope to do so briefly, and I will be assisted in that by the fact that, unlike other noble Lords, I am not going to talk about the Windsor Framework—which, after all, has appeared only in the last two days, while this statutory instrument has been on the table for several weeks. I am not, in fact, really going to talk about Ireland or Northern Ireland; I am going to talk briefly about the United Kingdom. I like my noble friend the Minister and I respect him for the work he does for the Government and the country at large, so he will understand that, as other speakers have said, these remarks are not intended to refer to him in any personal way at all.
It is objectively a humiliation for the Government to send up a Minister of the Crown to this House to ask permission to take powers to erect border infrastructure between one part of our country and another. It is a humiliation that is unprecedented, as far as I am aware, in any other country. I cannot think of another country that would accept it for the convenience of a foreign power. It is a humiliation that is unprecedented in our history as a United Kingdom, certainly since 1801. It is a humiliation that would astonish even the generation of politicians who, in the 1960s and 1970s, argued so strongly that we should enter the European Union, the Common Market, or whatever name it was known by at the time. It is an illustration of the constitutional havoc that our 50 years’ wrong-headed membership of the European Union has wreaked upon this country. I ask my noble friend, who has a strong and long-standing connection with Berkshire, if he would accept and advocate that the people of Berkshire might be surrounded by border infrastructure separating them from the rest of the country, and how he would expect them to feel and react if that were asked of them.
This instrument has been on the table since long before the Windsor Framework came to light on Monday. When that came to light, and the very positive words of our Prime Minister were uttered about how the border would become effectively invisible or painless—I am not quoting him, but his words were to that effect—I wrote to my noble friend and asked if I could assume that he would be withdrawing this instrument and deferring it because the situation had changed, according to the Prime Minister, in a very dramatic way. I do not accuse the Minister of rudeness in not replying to me because Ministers never reply to Conservative Back-Benchers on queries like that. I did not expect a reply, it might be said, but I put it to him now that he has the opportunity to defer this. He has an opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box and say: “We can put this to one side for a moment; we need to look at the implications of the Windsor Framework before we press ahead with this”.
These powers do nothing to the credit of the United Kingdom. They do nothing to the credit of our national pride and self-belief. They do nothing to help the people of this country in working together as one united realm.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I find it rather odd that no one has responded to the opening point from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, about the propriety of transferring these powers from elected legislatures to Ministers. I say I find it odd because I have sat here, as have a number of your Lordships, night after night, during the passage of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and the retained EU law Bill, listening to Peer after Peer from the Opposition Benches howling about Henry VIII powers and the absolute constitutional monstrosity of transferring powers from Parliament to unelected Ministers. Great, I thought, joy shall be in heaven more over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just men that have no need for repentance—how wonderful that there is now this great interest in parliamentary sovereignty. You might almost say that Brexit is already working, and that people who had previously shown no great concern for the supremacy of our legislature now care about it very much. I think I may have been premature in saying that.
Here we have exactly such an example—you may say that it is dubious constitutional propriety but you cannot say that this one is okay and all the others were wrong—and yet I look on empty Opposition Benches and hear not a single voice raised to complain about executive overreach. Perhaps we have a little bit further to go before we can say that it has worked.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I thought by now that this House would be acutely aware of how Northern Ireland is governed, but obviously it is not. We have heard comments here tonight that allude to majoritarianism. Northern Ireland is not governed that way, nor has it been. As a matter of fact, from the time I came of voting age Northern Ireland has not been governed that way.
Sinn Féin pulled down the Northern Ireland Assembly for a period of three years. I have been in this House since 2006—I know I do not look that age but I am—and I have never ever heard a single word from the Benches opposite in condemnation of what Sinn Féin had done.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
Hold on; I did not hear it —and I certainly did not hear it from the Liberal Benches.
We need to get this into our heads. What will happen if you leave one large section of the community behind, as has been advocated here tonight and was advocated from the same Benches in an earlier debate when it was said that if we do not get on with it, Dublin is waiting and will take you over—another threat? It is time that this House, and in particular the Opposition Benches, acted like adults. Do your Lordships not read any history at all? Do you not understand that we had 3,500 people slaughtered on our streets? Does it not dawn upon your souls that we do not need or want to go back to that? Please: we do not govern by majority.
There is this idea of introducing a new voting system and leaving unionists behind—they are naughty boys and girls over there, so we will leave them behind. What happens when it turns round the other way? The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is a very intelligent man, but he needs to start looking at reality. When you leave one community behind in Northern Ireland, it is a recipe for disaster. It will not work. Just because Sinn Féin has got a few extra seats and the unionists—who we represent the majority of—have not, people think that this is the time to move on. That is a recipe for disaster. Anyone who pushes down that road will live to regret it, and will see that it just does not work, even though it is the other way round. I hope the noble Lord takes cognisance of that.
Many pieces of secondary legislation are introduced without so much as a murmur from the public. It is striking that these proposals resulted in 18 submissions being made to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which published them. Together they amounted to a 48-page document. I am sure that all Members opposite and elsewhere have read them. Most of these submissions are from hauliers, expressing deep-seated concerns about the building of border control posts to service a border within the United Kingdom—a point adequately made by the previous speaker.
A number of submissions from beyond the hauliers made the important point that the purpose of these border control posts was to uphold the integrity of the different legal regime that pertains to Northern Ireland. This is because we are now subject to laws in some 300 areas which are different from those pertaining to the rest of the United Kingdom. I have never heard the Lib Dems refer to that, but maybe I missed it too. Moreover, these laws are the result not of devolution, but of an imposition on us by a polity of which we are not part and on which we have absolutely no representation. These border control posts therefore constitute the border of our disfranchisement; we have been disfranchised. I hope that Members will take note. It is their purpose to protect and uphold the legal consequences of our disfranchisement.
It is quite extraordinary that we should be considering such provisions today, less than two months from the anniversary of the signing of the Belfast agreement, which has now been in existence for almost 25 years. It has had its hiccups and its difficult days, but what novel agreement does not? In signing that agreement, the state parties—the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland—committed themselves to upholding the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to pursue their democratic, national and political aspirations at the level at which those rights were enjoyed at that time. In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland could stand for election to make all the laws to which they were subject, or they could vote for fellow citizens to represent them. Those rights were upheld until 1 January 2021, when the state parties turned their back on that obligation, approving a dramatic erosion of our democratic rights. Today, the law shouts out that the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to make all the laws to which they are subject, just as it shouts out that the people of Northern Ireland are worthy of the right to make only some of the laws to which they are subject. It is the job of these regulations to hold the integrity of the legal regime resulting from our humiliation.
In the last couple of days, we have heard about the Stormont brake which, it is suggested, will fix the democratic deficit. Doubts have already been expressed about whether it will ever be possible to use the brake, or even to find it. This all misses the point. Citizenship of the United Kingdom is about citizenship of a parliamentary democracy wherein we can stand for election and make all the laws to which we are subject, or can elect fellow citizens to undertake this task for us. If we have concern about a Bill, we can contact our legislator and ask for a meeting. They can represent our concern in Parliament in the making of the law, by tabling amendments and making the case for the rest of the Parliament to change what they believe is necessary.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to challenge some of the terms of this Motion for an Humble Address with considerable reluctance, because many of the arguments that have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and many of the things said tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I still think are totally pertinent, reasonable arguments. I certainly have no question in my mind that the DUP strategy has been effective in withdrawing from Parliament. It was a legitimate strategy to achieve an outcome. The outcome is the White Paper which, though nobody would realise it from anything that has been said tonight, is the most unionist document produced by a British Government since the Ireland Act produced by the Labour Government of 1949. I just remark on that. Nobody who listened to this discussion so far would realise that.
I absolutely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. The other side is quite right to say that this House is very random about Henry VIII powers, essentially according to fashion. For fashionable reasons, it gets very worked up one day about Henry VIII powers but, on another day, if the Henry VIII power falls on the head of the unfortunate DUP, too bad. I absolutely accept that this is a double standard, and there are many other double standards, but let us cut to the quick. I remember the “way forward” document, signed by Peter Robinson, a former leader of the DUP, as far back as 1987, dealing with the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which was a far sharper dilution of the equal citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland and was far more radical than anything in the current proposals. It was far sharper. That is a simple reality check.
However, for the unionist parties looking at the problem created for them, there is a key sentence in that report—that it can make no sense for the junior partner in a union to be permanently estranged from the larger partner. That is much more important than any of the details, even about seed potatoes. By the way, I am sure that there will be challenge and counterchallenge, and that there will be challenge against what some hauliers have said. I am certain that we are about to enter a debate.
I am pleased by the Act of Union and slightly surprised because, in another life, I wrote the Oxford history of Ireland, which is a 600-page reflection on the Act of Union. I did not know that people were so fascinated by these terms. I did not know that there was such intense feeling and so much understanding from lawyers in Northern Ireland. I did not know any of that. I wish that it had existed when that book came out, as I would be far richer today. I now discover that the world is full of experts on the Act of Union. I am slightly astounded for a variety of reasons; actually, I do not think that is a serious problem.
Regarding diversion of trade, one of the second tests and one of the things that our own figures show is that there has not been a significant diversion of trade as a function of the protocol, even up to now. Presumably there will be even less of that. It is a simple issue. Statistically, there is no argument about diversion of trade. There are many other problems and massive problems about an Irish Sea border. It is a rhetorical phrase, by the way; none of the lawyers really knows what an Irish Sea border is or what a sea border is. Michel Barnier in the EU always insisted that there was none. The phrase has quite correctly entered common use because of the vast range of pettifogging restrictions that have been implemented in the last few years, a large number of which have now gone, so the content of that phrase itself has been seriously diluted, at least.
The most important consideration I have—it goes to the heart of it, because there are many points to be made tonight—is the point that these are unique arrangements. I am not aware that the history of Ireland and its relationship to this country is not entirely unique. To say that these are unique arrangements—“I haven’t heard about anything else like this in the rest of the world”—is frankly not a case against these arrangements. It may be that at the end we decide that they are not worth while and so on, but the fact that they are unique is not in any sense an argument.
Again, to talk about a section of the business class is totally right; as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said, some hauliers have expressed their doubts about how this works. That is entirely correct. It is also entirely correct to say that the Government think that they have good replies in that respect, and this is how the debate will unfold. But the real point is this: you cannot take out one section. If we are going to talk about business classes, they were overwhelmingly in favour of this agreement. Nobody really disputes that. So if the opinion of the business classes matters, then the totality of the business classes and their opinion must also be something that people have to take into account.
But the biggest problem I have with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is Part 4 of this Humble Address. I do regret to advance this argument, but I think that it is fundamental to everything that has gone on. He says that what we are asked to do here is to undermine the 1998 Belfast agreement. What has actually happened in Parliament here since the appearance of the May withdrawal agreement—which does not even mention the Northern Ireland Assembly; that is how far we have moved, by the way, to a brake, et cetera—is a dramatic change over a period of years to try to restore the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland. There is really no doubt about that huge shift in British thinking. What has powered it is a feeling, first announced on 12 March 2019 by the then Brexit Secretary, that in the view of the Government—it was the first time this was said—they have the right to resile from provisions in the May withdrawal agreement in the light of the prior agreement, the Good Friday agreement, and that the prior agreement counted. That is the beginning of the debate in which the Good Friday agreement, the Assembly, and the democratic deficit have been at the heart of the way that British government thinking has moved.
The Government have now moved very radically to address the problems of the democratic deficit, and they have argued very strongly that their whole thinking behind the production of this new agreement is based on fidelity to the Good Friday agreement. In the May agreement, following the negotiation, frankly and to our great embarrassment—and this is the real embarrassment to us as a nation—we were being laughed at by government officials for the weakness of the negotiation and the fact that we allowed them, as stated by one of them in cold print, to take control and ownership of the Good Friday agreement. It is a joint agreement, but the greater responsibilities in that agreement fall on the government with sovereign powers, which is the United Kingdom Government. Therefore, for a government to do that is the real humiliation.
We have tried to pull back from that, and there is steady progress in the thinking of the UK Government in the period since that statement by the Brexit Secretary on 12 March 2019. It is always on the same lines; the Government said, more and more, that the Good Friday agreement must be respected. This also means, of course, not just that there is an east-west dimension, which was entirely forgotten about in the May withdrawal agreement; it also means that the Government, under Article 1, Paragraph 5, have a commitment to address the long-term alienation of either community and to actually respect the aspirations of the unionist community.
For a similar reason, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, quite rightly introduced an Irish language Act, to address the aspirations and long-term sentiments of the nationalist community, in this House a few weeks ago. The Government are pursuing the same policy with respect to the alienation of the unionist community and this document is the final proof of their efforts to deal with that, but there can be no final resolution to the alienation of the unionist community which in turn alienates the nationalist community.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord talks, as many people do, about a hard border. Could he quickly define a hard border and then say why it is not possible, given the small amount of trade that goes across it, as we know, for this border to be not at the frontier but inside the Republic of Ireland?
Lord Bew (CB)
The noble Baroness has a point. It fits with something which I think is widely misunderstood in this House. The Financial Times, which I believe is regularly read on European matters by those in this House who are pro-Europe, had a report at the beginning of December which said that as a result of this Bill the European Union is pointing out to the Irish Government that it might indeed be the case that as a result of the Bill they will have to consider these checks, which, by the way, were considered by the Irish Government in the early phase of these discussions.
There is another very important point, which is that we have signed two international agreements. I might protest about what happened in the negotiations, but it has happened and there is now no possibility of getting nationalist Northern Ireland to accept any form of checks at the border within the island of Ireland. You can say that is emotional, you can say it is carrying it too far, but lots of things that the unionist community believes are emotional and possibly carried too far. That is just where we are. There needs to be equality of esteem for both communities. We cannot escape that. The Government’s whole case for the past two years has been based on that principle and on trying to level up for the unionist community. They have achieved considerable success with this Bill. These provisions which the Minister has to defend tonight were always advertised as being technically necessary as part of these changes. There is nothing new or surprising about them. The Government’s whole case has been based on a particular line of argument. It has now reached a terminus. We are now in a new place. There is no possibility of carrying on the argument about equality of esteem or neglect of unionists’ interests. There are things that might be done or added or whatever but, in substance, we have reached a logical moment of terminus. This has changed everything. There is no point in just talking in general terms about “I’m unhappy” or “my identity.” We now have to achieve a balance of both identities. That is the heart of my problem with point (4) of this Motion: it does not actually challenge the Good Friday agreement.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
It is important, and I understand what the noble Lord is saying about the feeling there would be—although I am talking about not at the frontier but inside—but does he not accept that there is exactly the same fear and feeling about Northern Ireland people who feel British and pro-union having a border imposed on them in their country? Why does the noble Lord feel that the border at the other frontier is so much more difficult and important than having one within our own country?
Lord Bew (CB)
Because as a matter of fact it actually is, and the noble Baroness knows that.
We talk about sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. Two years from now there will be a vote in an Assembly on these arrangements. The Assembly will have the right to consider all these matters. There will be no issue of sovereignty then, and we will know what the people of Northern Ireland think. I guarantee that you will not get a majority in the Assembly for any systematic series of checks along the internal border of Ireland—that is just not going to happen—nor will you get the unionist community to accept the protocol as was. It is always a matter of balance. It is very simple.
Many things have been said about sovereignty tonight. Suppose we meet two years from now, and the Assembly has voted and accepted this arrangement, as I think most people believe is extremely likely. All these arguments about sovereignty—“I’ve never heard anything like this”, “It’s outrageous”, “It’s imposed”—would disappear. That vote is coming. To those who are so alarmed about imposition, I say that that vote is coming.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I have the deepest respect for his opinions on these matters, and he knows that. But on the issue of the vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly, would he accept that that vote, uniquely, would be by majority? The Government changed the rules of the Assembly, in breach of the Belfast agreement, which we are all supposed to protect—the Minister may shake his head, but it is true. The reality is that we vote in Northern Ireland on important issues by cross-community vote: the majority of unionists, the majority of nationalists and an overall majority. So when he says that there will be the consent of the Assembly, it is effectively a rigged vote. It is not a vote based on the Belfast agreement. It is not a cross-community vote. It has been deliberately engineered to ensure that unionists will not have the right to say no. That is the only vote of any significance in the Northern Ireland Assembly that is not cross-community or capable of being turned into a cross-community vote. That was deliberately changed, in breach of the Belfast agreement, not in defence of it.
Lord Bew (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention as it will allow me to conclude—to the relief of the House—very quickly. He is right about the nature of the vote but wrong about the context. In the first place, under the Government of Ireland Act and the Good Friday agreement, trade is a reserved matter. It was a decision of this Parliament, and the beginning of the change from the May agreement—Johnson’s agreement at least mentioned the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was not mentioned a few months earlier. It is part of the long struggle to deal with significant parts of the democratic deficit. I take the noble Lord’s point completely. You could argue that it would be better if it was a different style of vote.
However, in this new White Paper we have the announcement of a new Stormont brake, where the voting system is exactly what the noble Lord wants. Suddenly we discover that we have a voting system for a petition of concern. It is exactly what has been asked for, but it is still not good enough. There is a point at which one really has to respond to the seriousness of the moment.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I know it may dismay some Members that noble Lords from Northern Ireland want to speak on the future of our country. We were expecting this debate not to be at this time but earlier on. However, seemingly the usual channels decided to put it off so that other Members could get home and would not be inconvenienced.
I support everything that my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn said in his introduction to this debate. What we are witnessing, through the powers that are being given here, is a Defra Secretary of State being given the powers to order permanent border control posts. That is undermining the authority and power of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because this is its responsibility.
Even though they believe this will undermine the union, the decision tonight will force the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly to acquiesce—even though they disagree with it. That is not an appropriate way to go forward.
I have sat in numerous debates in this House when the Benches opposite were absolutely packed with noble Lords expressing absolute horror that the Government would dare to ever think of introducing Henry VIII powers. Yet the Opposition Benches are empty tonight because it is to do with Northern Ireland. There has been much talk of the exercise of powers that my noble friend mentioned; they are also the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but whenever it suits the Government, they will take it and exercise it here. They say it is because the Assembly is not meeting. The Assembly is not meeting at this present moment, and there is agreement across all the major parties in Northern Ireland for reorganisation of health, but that did not come here, because they have full powers. They say that the health service is in such a crisis that we need this reorganisation now. Well, why has it not been brought here when they are able to do it on other occasions? It suits them: they believe by not doing it, even though there is a crisis in the health service in Northern Ireland, that will force the DUP back in because there is constant pressure.
Tonight, we had it once again. At the beginning of the week, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, told us that if we did not accept the agreement between the European Union and the Prime Minister that was coming—even though he did know at that time what it really was; it was not called the Windsor Framework at that time—unionists should “just remember this”. He was looking across at us and said: “It is not going to be rule from Westminster; it will be joint authority with Dublin.” That was the threat that came from the Lib Dems at the beginning of the week, and now we have a threat today from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, just to add to it. If that did not make us sit up—we have been told a number of things—we will “pay a price at the ballot box”. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Members of this House, the Democratic Unionist Party is always happy to go to the ballot box; that is where we get the authority for our stand and the support. We have been written off so many times. As the Democratic Unionist Party in this House, we have been told what the people of Northern Ireland want and what unionist people want. Yet many of the people who say that have seldom, if ever, been to the Province, but they know what they people of Ulster are thinking; they know what unionist family is thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, “If you don’t accept what you are given now, we’ll change the Assembly rules”—that was tonight, that was him. We are being to do what we are told: “Sit in the corner and do what you are told, or else. This is what you’ll get, and you’ll have to suck it up.” So much for the Belfast agreement.
The Belfast agreement is premised on cross-community support. Members across the Benches, in every debate about Northern Ireland, said that the Belfast agreement is sacrosanct and the greatest treaty in the world, and nothing—but nothing—must be done to undermine it. But, when it does not suit the Benches opposite, or even some Members on the Benches around us, they tell us that they will change the rules.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for facilitating this debate. Even though we do not support fatal Motions, it is important that this debate has taken place, as he said.
I will be brief; it is very late, and I do not think that there is any need to go back and repeat the concerns and arguments which have been very clearly laid out by noble Lords this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, it is important to have a debate on this instrument, which was introduced, according to the Explanatory Notes, to implement either a negotiated outcome with the EU or the system envisaged under the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As we have heard this evening, that outcome has now been negotiated in the form of the Windsor Framework, which we have welcomed.
We believe that the agreement of a green lane, which is designed to ease the movement of goods between GB and Northern Ireland and to support the functioning of a UK internal market, will be the subject of much discussion and debate as we go forward with the framework—it has received a lot of debate and discussion tonight. There has been a lot of talk about the paperwork and checks that will come in. I read the submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and road hauliers were mentioned by noble Lords in the debate, so I know it is important that any checks or paperwork are not onerous, and that trade can continue as smoothly as possible under the circumstances.
We also understand that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his party need the time and space to fully analyse the agreement and the accompanying legal text—that is only right. We are glad that the Government have committed to providing any supplementary evidence that they may request.
The Government have also said that, if the Executive are restored, Ministers will negotiate whether and how this power can be handed back to the Northern Ireland department. Can the Minister give any more information about what assurances or commitments Defra would seek in those negotiations? We know that Northern Ireland businesses want the protocol to work and for disruption to be minimised, so there must be sufficient capacity for checks to be carried out so that they do not become too onerous.
We do not oppose the measure, but the fact that the Government have deemed it necessary is regrettable. I believe that compromise and respect would create a better situation. This is a very complex issue, and I say again that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for bringing us the time to debate it. I will listen to the Minister’s response with great interest.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by sending the whole House’s best wishes to DCI John Caldwell and his family, following the despicable attack that took place last week. As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, there is no place for such attacks in Northern Ireland or anywhere in the United Kingdom.
I thank noble Lords for their contribution to the debate, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for introducing it; I have huge respect for him and his colleagues. I will start and finish my response to the debate on the basis of years spent in Northern Ireland in my early 20s, where I saw some of the terrible things that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, spoke about—and I have heard others speak in similar ways. I understand, perhaps more than many, the levels of compromise which have been required of him and his colleagues to get to where we are today, and the levels of leadership in the communities they represent, which the rest of us in these islands will never be called on to show. They have demonstrated quite remarkable levels of compromise and leadership, and I fully respect them for doing that.
The instrument which the Motion seeks to annul, the Official Controls (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, was laid on 12 January this year. In direct response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I assure the House that, if the Assembly is restored, the implementation of these measures will become the responsibility of the Executive and be delivered through the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. Their purpose is to grant the Secretary of State concurrent powers: first, to allow Defra to construct facilities for the purposes of performing official controls, with the primary purpose of controlling goods travelling via Northern Ireland into the European Union; and secondly, to enable Defra to direct the competent authority, DAERA—the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—to hire suitably qualified staff to perform these controls.
The Windsor Framework announced by the Government this week establishes a new way forward for Northern Ireland, making substantial changes to the protocol. It addresses the full range of issues it caused, safeguarding both economic and democratic principles in Northern Ireland. It was always this Government’s preference to secure a negotiated outcome, and this agreement, we hope, delivers for all communities in Northern Ireland. I entirely respect the points made by the noble Lord, and his and his party’s wish to really study this: we must be patient with them.
Benefits from the agreement are significant and wide-ranging and I shall provide noble Lords, briefly, with a couple of examples. We have scrapped all unnecessary red tape for internal UK trade into Northern Ireland. We have also permanently guaranteed unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK market, maintaining the integrity and smooth functioning of the UK internal market. The only controls that remain are for a very limited subset of goods, such as endangered species. We have secured an expansion of the green lane for UK food retailers. Supermarkets, wholesalers, hospitality and catering companies, and those providing food to public services, such as schools and hospitals, will be able to use the green lane. We have removed the requirement for costly health certificates for individual food products; and the requirement for up to 100% physical checks is replaced with a purely risk-based and intelligence-led arrangement.
We have also successfully negotiated significant changes on plants. Previously banned seed potatoes and other commercially important plants described by the EU as “high risk”, such as British oak trees, will now be able to move between GB and NI. Overall, the Windsor Framework delivers for businesses, consumers and all people and communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
I now turn from the benefits of the Windsor Framework to this specific SI. As we have explained previously, this legislation was required in all scenarios. I pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Moylan: SPS checks into Northern Ireland have happened for decades. The whole island of Ireland has been an epidemiological area for these purposes for several decades. The SPS inspection facilities that we are talking about in this SI will ensure that goods destined for the European Union travelling via Northern Ireland are subject to EU checks and controls. These will mainly be goods travelling directly to the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland ports. They are necessary checks, as the former DUP Minister for Agriculture, Edwin Poots, acknowledged. They will ensure that checks on live animals are performed safely and with due regard to animal and staff welfare, something that is not possible at the moment with the temporary arrangements that have been put in place. This is a long-standing commitment to protect against disease, given that the island of Ireland is a single epidemiological unit, pre-dating Brexit. They ensure that Irish trucks are not using Northern Ireland ports as a backdoor into the EU without red-lane checks. So, as we said in the Bill and have always maintained, we will need to have the appropriate facilities to carry out red-lane checks.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I want to ask something just for the sake of clarification. My understanding is that the checks that have been carried out for many years relate to livestock and that most people understand SPS checks, which may technically include livestock, as checks on food, seeds, plants and so forth. While I fully accept that there have always been checks on livestock, for good reason, and that they are uncontroversial—I do not think anyone is asking that they be abolished—it slightly overeggs the position to suggest that there have always been SPS checks in the broader sense in which that term has come to be used in the course of the debate following the referendum vote in 2016. However, I am happy to be corrected.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am happy to talk to the noble Lord after this and clarify that point. Time is moving on.
I was talking about an important safeguard for Northern Ireland businesses. It means that they and they alone benefit from being part of the UK’s internal market. Irish businesses are not part of this and should not benefit from the green lane. Indeed, the implementation of the Windsor Framework can give Northern Irish businesses a competitive advantage over those in the south. We will encourage Irish firms to relocate jobs and investment into Northern Ireland.
The improvement of these facilities is also an important part of providing safe conditions for staff and animal welfare. The present contingency facilities were constructed at speed to allow controls to be delivered when we left the EU. Improving the facilities will ensure that consignments, including for live animal movements, move quickly through ports and on to final destinations, which could include Northern Irish farms. These arrangements are needed for Northern Ireland—its businesses and its reputation for high health status and high-quality agriculture and food production.
I turn to questions of timing and procedure for the introduction of this legislation, as raised by noble Lords. This legislation is time critical. As I set out, the conditions of the current facilities are of concern for both animal and staff welfare reasons. We want to ensure that, as above, the benefits of the new green lane are felt only by internal UK trade and that Irish traders are subject to full EU law checks and controls, as we have always said.
On process, although a public consultation was not required for this legislation as it relates to the implementation of an existing commitment and introduces no new policy, my officials and ministerial colleagues have engaged with industry and businesses extensively over the last two years and will continue to do so. Defra hosts a weekly forum attended by, on average, 150 businesses and organisations across Northern Ireland and Great Britain’s food supply chain, where people can raise issues, hear information and share their views. We have engaged with Northern Irish businesses, for which the integrity and reputation of their goods, from farm to fork, is critical to their success and viability. A useful example is milk; 30% of Northern Ireland’s milk is processed in the Republic, and milk and milk products were worth over £126 million in gross added value to Northern Ireland in 2020.
On the implications of this legislation for the devolution settlement, I reaffirm that the Government recognise that the delivery of these facilities is a devolved responsibility. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, it falls to the UK Government to be able to take that work forward.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords on the scope and aim of this statutory instrument. We have had a long, wide-ranging debate, but this is specifically about SPS measures that we need to put in place regardless of the changes, welcome though they may be, that have been announced in the last few days. I hope that, as the benefits we will draw from the historic Windsor Framework become apparent, we will put in place this week measures to ensure that we have proper sanitary and phytosanitary facilities in four ports in Northern Ireland. That is what the statutory instrument seeks to do. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, not to press his fatal Motion.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is usual to say it has been a wide-ranging debate, and we can certainly agree on that if not much else at times.
I do not want to go back over some of the elements of this debate, but I want to say something in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bew. He ended on a note of challenge to us, saying that we have got what we wanted but are still not happy. I want to make a point, and it is worth putting on the record. He says that we demand a cross-community vote, whether or not we accept the protocol. That is a legitimate request because it is in keeping with the Belfast agreement. That has been changed and I have outlined the reasons why it is unacceptable. He then said that we have got a cross-community vote in relation to the Stormont brake and are still not happy. But the majority vote that has been granted to the Assembly in 2024 puts an end to the current protocol and instigates a period of negotiation for something new. The cross-community vote under the Stormont brake does not veto the law. It does not give the right to the Assembly to change anything, and that is the fundamental difference.
The devil is in the detail. We have heard the grand statements. We heard tonight that SPS checks have always happened between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is exactly right on the facts of that matter. It is easy to make wide-ranging statements and claim wonderful progress when you do not actually look at the details. People are saying that we now have free access between Great Britain to Northern Ireland for all goods coming through border control posts, but as I have pointed out—and nobody has challenged this—even for goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland in the green channel, customs forms will have to be filled in. That is an Irish Sea border. Where else between any country or region of the United Kingdom does anyone have to fill in a customs form to transfer goods, and be subject to checks and to giving all the data and information to the European Union? Where else does anyone have to put goods that nobody can certify for definite will go into the Irish Republic down into the red lane, where the full checks of an international customs barrier are implemented?
We need to get real about this. No one need lecture me about entering and making agreements. I was part of the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party that sat down and entered government with Sinn Féin, and shared power for years with it on a more stable basis than the Ulster Unionists did previously, when they had the majority. These are people who went out to murder our kith and kin, and who targeted my family visiting a hospital and tried to murder me. My noble friend Lord McCrea’s house was riddled with bullets. We sat down and shared power with them. They still eulogise these terrorists and murderers; they still praise and elevate them. The Minister is right to raise the matter of DCI Caldwell, and we have already expressed our sympathy and wish him well. Sinn Féin stand today and condemn that murder and say it is terrible, but the very same Ministers and leaders of Sinn Féin will stand up and eulogise and praise the murderers of police officers in front of their children—today.
We are still willing to enter government and to move forward with the people of Northern Ireland. Nobody need lecture us about being unreasonable. We agreed the New Decade, New Approach agreement. We agreed the various agreements down through the years. There is no one who should point the figure. At St Andrews, Ian Paisley made that historic agreement with Martin McGuinness. People have this idea that it is no to everything.
We will insist on our rights as British citizens. All we demand is equal citizenship. People talk about not wanting to create a hard border on the island of Ireland. We do not want a hard border. We have never sought a hard border on the island of Ireland. But we will not accept a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. What do we mean by a hard border? What was it defined as by Sinn Féin and nationalist leaders, and by Leo Varadkar? As anything that changed—even a camera was not acceptable. How ridiculous. But for Northern Ireland there is the full panoply of border control posts, and officials jointly responsible to the EU and the UK, sharing data—all the things that are relevant to a third country. Britain is now designated for customs and trade purposes as a third country as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.
These things matter and that is why we are sitting tonight debating these issues—I wish that we could have debated them earlier and we would all be long home, but sadly that was out of our control. However, when we do debate these matters, we feel very strongly about what has been imposed. We will look in detail at all the issues that have been brought forward in this new deal. I hesitate to call it the Windsor agreement because the King was dragged into this whole affair needlessly and wrongly in a somewhat counterproductive, crass attempt to sell it to unionists—the Government should have known better and thought much more about that, as well as the overegging and overselling of it.
We will look at these issues in detail, but what we have seen thus far makes us question some of the propaganda and the claims that have been made. Be honest about it, tell us exactly what is going to happen regarding the equal citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland; do not claim that we are equal citizens and then put in place barriers between our citizenship—between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We are prepared to make sacrifices to move Northern Ireland forward, but we will not sacrifice our equal citizenship within the United Kingdom.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, just to keep the House waiting a bit longer, the Minister has addressed some of the points; not many other Members necessarily have—I wonder why. I want to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who on his birthday has taken time out to come and speak in this debate. There are wider issues that we will be coming to very soon, and we will test the House on many of them in a short time, but in succeeding in raising these issues, highlighting them, and having a debate on them, it is important that we concentrate on the wider issues that are now before us and return to them in greater detail. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.