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
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The armed forces’ capabilities allow the Ministry of Defence to meet a range of domestic and global commitments. Defence is reorganising and re-equipping to face future threats. However, as I have previously stated, as the threats change, we need to change with them. Any specific changes related to personnel numbers or military equipment capabilities will be determined once the update to the Defence Command Paper has concluded, which I expect to happen in June.
Mr Baron
While I am conscious that my right hon. Friend has accepted the conclusions of last year’s 1922 defence committee report in drafting his Command Paper, I am also conscious of the fact that there is real concern, as we are about to hear, about the integrated review and, indeed, one-off increases. What does he think it will take for this House to sustainably increase defence spending, given geopolitical events?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First and foremost, we have been sustainably increasing our defence since 2020. The Prime Minister recognises the dangerous world we are in, and in the autumn statement both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister recognised the importance of increasing defence spending. The Prime Minister has obviously talked over the weekend about defence spending. There will be a Budget later in the week, and then I think there will be some further discussions to have.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Of course, the former head of the British Army, Lord Dannatt, said last month:
“The planned cuts in the strength of our army must be stopped...and fresh investment must pour into our artillery, air defence, communications and logistic capability.”
What is the Secretary of State, who has overseen some of these cuts, now going to do to reverse and build back the capacity Lord Dannatt and others are calling for?
Mr Wallace
If the hon. Member had been listening, he would know that, in our Defence Command Paper, we are investing in air defence, electronic warfare, signals intelligence and communications—all the things he has just reeled off—but maybe he did not bother to listen originally. [Interruption.] I think it is interesting that Labour Members are heckling. We have not heard about a single penny of their defence plans in the last few years. Even the Royal United Services Institute speech by the shadow Secretary of State himself could not put a finger on the money. First and foremost, we are investing in our defence, and we have had a record increase since 2020. That compares with the Labour Government record: in 1997, they inherited 2.7% of GDP, which continued to fall all the way through, and only at the very last minute, when they had a £36 billion black hole, did they try to rectify it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am conscious that there is a statement to follow, but may I just pause and say thank you to the Defence Secretary and his team for the tireless work they have done in trying to secure additional funding of £11 billion and an increase in defence spending of 2.5%? It was not to be, and our military will be affected by that, not least our land forces. However, I do welcome the AUKUS agreement, which will secure hundreds of highly skilled jobs up and down the country. Is any part of the £3 billion of additional funding for the nuclear enterprise part of the £10 billion reserve for Dreadnought, or is it ringfenced for the AUKUS procurement programme, and is any of the £5 billion coming through subject to VAT, which would of course mean that one fifth of it will go back to the Treasury?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the details of the announcement. Obviously, the details will come forward in the Budget. What I can say is that the £2 billion-plus is new money. It is not part of the reserve or anything else, and it is separate from the £2.3 billion for Ukraine. It also comes on top of the £560 million of extra money for weapons and restocking announced in the autumn statement. On the nuclear chapter, the £3 billion is a recognition of the need for increased defence capability in that space, but also of the need to invest now in infrastructure, which, if we do not start now, will not be fit for purpose when AUKUS starts towards the end of the decade.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
As we understand from the press, and as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said, we anticipate an additional £5 billion for defence between now and 2025. The Ministry of Defence has said that the Secretary of State is delighted with the settlement, which represents a commitment to an upward trajectory. Given the impact of defence inflation and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, what does he make of plans to reduce the size of the Army to 72,500 by 2025?
Mr Wallace
The reduction in the size of the Army was coupled with record investment of £24 billion in the armed forces at the same time. It was also a recognition that the most important thing is to ensure that we give the men and women of our armed forces, whichever service they are in, the correct equipment at the correct time, and create a 360° armed forces. There is no point in playing a numbers game if we do not equip, house, care for and deploy people properly. The hon. Gentleman might want to play a numbers game, but I do not want to turn our soldiers into cannon fodder.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The whole House will be delighted to see you back in your seat, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the entire team for the battle they have fought with the Treasury over the past few weeks, but the £5 billion is disappointing, particularly if £3 billion goes to AUKUS, and £1.9 billion goes to filling up our warehouses. It actually means a cut in defence spending, rather than an increase. Nevertheless, I was encouraged by what the Secretary of State said a moment ago about the Budget on Wednesday, and various other remarks that seem to indicate that there may be more money to come. Am I being over-optimistic?
Mr Wallace
As my hon. Friend will know, all Departments are within their current comprehensive spending agreement, and the next comprehensive spending review is due in 18 months to two years’ time. Although all Departments, including those of Defence, Transport, and Health and Social Care suffer from pressures with higher inflation, it is right to ensure that we live within the envelope and, where possible, seek relief for a range of challenges. That is what I have been seeking for the next two years with the Treasury. I have also said consistently that the most important thing is the headmark for the long-term direction of defence spending, so that it is no longer declining, as it has done for the past three decades, but is on an upward trajectory. Since 2020, it has been on that upward trajectory. This grant of extra money continues that momentum, which is incredibly important, and I hope that the headmark will soon be announced in detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In November, the Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee that
“yes, the inflationary pressure on my budget for the next two years is about £8 billion”.
From the media briefing at the weekend, we know he has a welcome £5 billion earmarked for stockpiles and the UK’s nuclear programme, but the armed forces will see that funding as a defeat for the MOD in Government. There is no new money for pressures on the core defence budget or to help deal with capability gaps, or even to deal with that inflation. The National Audit Office has already said that the MOD cannot afford the capabilities needed in the 2021 integrated review, so how will the Secretary of State ensure that precisely the same does not happen again with today’s 2023 integrated review?
Mr Wallace
What I am going to do, which the right hon. Gentleman’s Government failed to do, is ensure that the Defence Command Paper reflects the budget I have. I have always been consistent that the Government’s ambition should match their stomach, and match the money. If we do not get that in tandem, we will discover that black holes grow over the years. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government was part of that last time, as were previous Conservative Governments. I have come to this House consistently to take responsibility for what our Governments have done in the past, and I would be interested to see whether he will.
John Healey
In 2010 when Labour left government, we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence—a level that has been nowhere near matched in any of the 13 years since. The Secretary of State is now the Conservative party’s longest serving Defence Secretary, which means he has a track record of his own. He has cut the Army to 76,000 with more cuts to come. The Ajax armoured vehicle is six years late, with still no in-service date. He has cut and delayed new Wedgetail and Sentry planes, and he has growing doubts from allies about Britain meeting its NATO obligations in full. Last month he admitted to the House that forces have been hollowed out and underfunded with Conservative Governments. Will he accept that his extra defence funding today can only mean more of the same?
Mr Wallace
If people came to this House with real, genuine honesty about the track record of the Governments they were part of, the armed forces might be in a better position. What we should strive for is for the men and women of the armed forces to know that their political leaders are prepared to be clear about past mistakes and to talk about the future with some honesty. The National Audit Office report gave a view on the Labour party’s governance of defence. I have it here, because Labour Members often forget it. It said that the Department’s poor financial management had led to a severe funding shortfall of up to £36 billion in defence spending over the next 10 years.
Mr Wallace
So what the National Audit Office says is not true, Madam Deputy Speaker—it made it up. It said that when the Department signed the contract for the aircraft carriers, it was aware that the overall defence budget was unaffordable. Labour Members were party to the crime at the time, but they will not come to the House now and be honest about their role in it and the things that need to be done to fix it in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will not have interventions from people who are sitting down. There are plenty of opportunities to ask questions when you are standing up.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say how nice it is to see you back in your place? It is a very great pleasure.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his excellent Front Bench team, because I know for a fact that they are fighting for every single penny they can get. However, as has been said, and I must agree, £5 billion is not sufficient to ensure that our core armed forces are properly equipped and prepared for—God forbid—something we all dread, as the world potentially totters towards world war three. What on earth is going through the minds of Treasury officials?
Mr Wallace
In defence of my colleagues in the Treasury, the Treasury is trying to balance an economic situation post covid that means we have to make sure that we cut our cloth and return to an economic credibility that is so important for growing our tax receipts and our income. One role I can play is to come to the House and be honest about the state of our armed forces. I can be honest about what caused the 30 years of challenge that both my hon. Friend and I experienced serving in the armed forces, and honest about what we can do to fix things. That is the first thing. The Defence Command Paper will ensure that we are very clear on where we will spend the money to make sure that the future is secure for the men and women of the armed forces.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
On military personnel, what is the Secretary of State’s understanding of the recruitment crisis in defence, with the Army in particular and especially in the Royal Regiment of Scotland? The 4th Battalion the Highlanders satisfies almost 20% of its vacancies from the Commonwealth. Is it the poor service accommodation, mediocre pay, lack of career opportunities or substandard equipment that is driving young Scots away from a career in the British Army?
Mr Wallace
As an officer in a Scottish regiment, I remember distinctly not being allowed to recruit in towns or schools where SNP councillors ran those schools. I distinctly remember that the SNP was so unwelcoming to members of the armed forces it was having a detrimental effect on recruitment. I would be very interested to know if the SNP has now changed its tone. It certainly has on NATO membership. We remember that it used to not want to be part of NATO; it now does. I do not see the Army categorised as the hon. Member has just described it. If he carries on talking the armed forces down like that, no wonder people are not that keen to join. There has been a recruitment challenge for the infantry for as long as I was serving in the Army. That is over many, many years under both Labour and Conservative Governments. We have to ensure that the offer is improved. That is one reason why we did wraparound childcare to reflect how people live, and why we are investing in both married and single accommodation.
Dave Doogan
The Secretary of State says that he does not recognise the characterisation, but it is based in fact. Sticking to reality, where Germany allocates an extra €100 billion in response to Ukraine, the UK allocates an extra £5 billion. The United States is frustrated that the British Army is no longer a top-level fighting force. The RAF takes 10 years to train a pilot in combat, Army procurement could not order a pizza and get it delivered on time and on budget, and the Navy barely has enough F-35s for one aircraft carrier much less two. Is it not the case, to the great frustration of men and women in uniform, that this Tory Government over the last 13 years have created an ornamental defence force—nice to look at; don’t ask it to do very much or sustain it for very long?
Mr Wallace
I am getting lessons from the SNP on procurement, when Ferguson shipyard is clinging on by its fingernails. When push comes to shove, Scotland buys its ferries from Turkey, not from Scotland, when it has a perfectly good Clyde in which to build them. The hon. Gentleman goes on about all the things that he thinks are wrong with the armed forces, yet he will campaign to break Scotland away from the UK, reduce the Scottish armed forces to a rubber dinghy and tell everyone else that it is all the fault of the English. The reality is that Scotland is a proud contributor to our armed forces—it has been in history and is today. Also, the accommodation, the experience and the equipment that the soldiers have today are far better than many of us had in the early ’90s. It would be nice if, once in a while, the SNP in Scotland did more than stand in front of ceremonial troops, and instead got out there and helped to recruit soldiers and helped the schools to talk about what is important about defence, rather than always talk it down.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Our commitment to NATO and Euro-Atlantic security is unconditional. In response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, we have enhanced our force posture in Estonia and have sent warships and fighter aircraft to south-east Europe and the Mediterranean. We contribute to every NATO mission and declare the UK’s nuclear deterrent to NATO. The UK is committed to remaining NATO’s leading European ally.
Chris Elmore
A recent report by the Defence Committee raised concerns about the UK’s lack of ammunition reserves. The Committee said that the inability to restock our supplies puts at great risk our own defence, along with our commitments to supporting Ukraine. The Minister will say that the Department is announcing today that there are £2 billion-worth of stockpiles, but he cannot magic up munitions off the shelf—they can take years to be created. What assurance can he provide to me and the House that the shortage will not impact our domestic abilities and our wider commitments to NATO?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. The Select Committee’s report is being read at the moment and will be responded to as would be expected. There is an important distinction to make: only a small proportion of the equipment and stockpiles that we are providing to the Ukrainians come from the current active inventory and stockpiles of the UK military. A very large proportion of the ammunition is at or slightly beyond the date by which we would normally seek to dispose of it, and an even larger proportion of it—the majority—is sourced or manufactured from stockpiles or manufacturing capabilities overseas.
Samantha Dixon
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s earlier unwillingness to play a numbers game, the reality is that Ministers plan to cut the size of the Army to 73,000 by 2025, at a time that NATO has agreed to increase its high readiness forces to 300,000. Will the updated integrated review halt cuts to Army numbers?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear all along that if the facts change, so will our approach to force structure. It is important to note that force size and readiness are not necessarily directly connected. A future force may require fewer people because of automation and artificial intelligence, or it may not. We are studying the lessons from Ukraine carefully. We came to a clear judgment in the last IR. As we work towards the publication of a refresh of the defence Command Paper, we will look at whether the assumptions of the last Command Paper are still sound.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Could I ask my very good friend the Minister whether the additional money for defence will allow us to provide more teeth arm units, plus the support arm units—enablers—to NATO?
James Heappey
It may do. The reality is that we are still providing a large number of frontline units to NATO, particularly in the maritime and air domains, but my hon. and gallant Friend’s principal concern will be about land forces. Even there, the UK continues to provide the most credible high readiness formations to the alliance. He made an important point that we can have as many fighting units as we wish, but without the logistics and the strategic enablers that get them to the front line, they are not worth having. The Secretary of State, Front-Bench colleagues and I have been clear for years that what urgently needs reinvestment is not a regrowth of our fighting echelon but a re-fleshing out of the logistics and the enablers, which—for good reasons—over the last 20 years have not been needed, but now so desperately are.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
On the point about logistics and enablers mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), when we look at our obligations to NATO and to Ukraine, particularly on stockpiling and ammunition, are Ministers looking at what procurement can be done commonly with NATO allies?
James Heappey
Absolutely. As the House might imagine, the UK is not alone in rediscovering the importance of stockpiles and strategic enablers over the last year. It is also not alone in finding out that industrial capacity cannot be turned on just like that, so working with allies around the alliance, both through the alliance itself and bilaterally, is clearly a very attractive option.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
In this weekend’s newspapers, a senior British military officer raised doubts about whether the UK could still claim to be a leading NATO member, because of the hollowing out of the Army’s war-fighting capabilities. The Minister has so far evaded the question, but with today’s funding announcement limited to nuclear enterprise and stockpiles, can he confirm whether it is still his Department’s policy to cut troop numbers by 10%, to cut the reserves and to provide no additional funding to plug the gaps in Britain’s war-fighting capability?
James Heappey
As the representative of a naval constituency, the shadow Minister does our armed forces a huge disservice in focusing on simply the Army when looking at our contribution to NATO. The UK is the only country to commit its entire nuclear deterrent to NATO; in any given year, the UK commits a number of maritime task groups to NATO—more than almost any other NATO ally; the UK commits handsomely to air policing and other air deployments; and, through the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, the 3rd (United Kingdom) Division and the various high-readiness Army formations, the UK contributes prominently in the land domain as well.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to see you back? I declare my interest as a veteran.
On 2 March, I jointly commissioned with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs a review into the role and scope of Government welfare provision and services for veterans. This will include provision by the Ministry of Defence under Veterans UK. The review will focus on examining the effectiveness and efficiency of welfare services for veterans, and help it to do better as part of a programme of continual improvement.
Robbie Moore
Armed forces breakfast clubs provide vital support and social opportunities for veterans and serving armed forces personnel. We have one in Keighley and we are hoping to get one off the ground in Ilkley. Will the Minister join me in praising those who are involved in organising them and set out what additional support the Government can provide for these fantastic veteran-led organisations?
Dr Murrison
I am really grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is absolutely right that armed forces and veterans breakfast clubs are an excellent initiative that have taken root across 14 countries, with 150,000 members. They provide a sense of belonging and community to many who have served our country. On a personal level, I like a good Yorkshire breakfast and, if the opportunity arises, I would love to visit his breakfast club.
David Simmonds
My constituent Steve Graham served in our armed forces for over 20 years, travelling the world and finally settling overseas, at the site of his last posting. Despite being a UK taxpayer, with a UK home, when he sought to retrain he was required to pay the full overseas rate and treated as a foreign student in order to re-educate himself for his post-services life. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the case of Mr Graham and other people who may seek to retrain following long service in our armed forces, but find themselves facing significant financial barriers to do so?
Dr Murrison
I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, and of course I will meet him. At the moment, for an adult to be eligible for funding for further education, they must ordinarily be resident in England on the first day of the first academic year of the course, and throughout the three years immediately preceding that date. The matter is primarily one for the Department for Education, as he will know, but I am happy to discuss it with him and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to see what we can do on this matter.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
What efforts will be made through the recently announced review of veterans’ experiences? Following the excellent work of the survey carried out by the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, of which I am a vice-chair, what attention will be paid to the different experiences of veterans in the four nations to ensure the best possible outcomes? Sadly, they appear in many cases to have been overlooked and ignored.
Dr Murrison
I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman and his co-chairs later this week, I think, when we can discuss the matter in some depth. I am absolutely sympathetic to the notion that we need to do more for veterans, of course, which is one reason why I have instituted the review to which I have referred. We need to be consciously aware of the lived experience in each one of the four nations of this country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
A review of veteran welfare services is long overdue, but I might remind the Minister that it is his Government who have been responsible for worsening veterans services over the past 13 years. Veterans’ mental health waiting times are a week longer than last year, veterans are having to rely on charitable support just to get by, and veteran ID cards are nowhere to be seen for many. Action is needed now to fix these failures, so will the Minister tell the House when we can expect the review to be completed and its findings to be published?
Dr Murrison
We are recruiting a person to run the review right now. I anticipate the review being completed within three months, if that gives the hon. Lady an idea of timelines. Just so that there is no misunderstanding, may I give an indication of the appreciation or otherwise for the services provided by Vets UK? There were 122 complaints since April last year, versus 1,715 thank you letters. To be clear, the people at Norcross who are working on behalf of veterans—I have visited them; she probably has not—are doing a sterling job and are highly committed to what they do.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The UK has provided substantial support to our NATO allies as we continue a united response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Over the past 12 months, the Royal Air Force has been deployed in Romania and Lithuania and across the Mediterranean and has completed patrols over the Black sea. We continue to contribute to NATO air activity across Europe. The Army has been deployed in Bulgaria, Romania and Estonia, where we have our enhanced forward presence battle groups. The Royal Navy has completed a major European deployment from the North sea to the Mediterranean. Our UK armed forces continue to strengthen interoperability with Finland and Sweden in anticipation of their accession to NATO. Beyond the US armed forces, no nation has contributed more.
Fleur Anderson
Are the Government working with NATO allies to set up a full 2023 action plan for Ukraine specifically—for military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian support to help to give Ukraine confidence in a sustained stream of future supplies, to urgently ramp up our own industry, to encourage allies to do more across NATO and to make it clear to Putin that things will get worse, not better, for Russia?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady asks an excellent question, but I hope that she will not mind if I draw an important distinction. NATO is not involved in the planning of or in direct support of the Ukrainian war effort. That is a really important point, because Putin claims the exact opposite to the Russian public and is entirely wrong to do so. Those who support Ukraine do so as an alliance of friends of Ukraine outwith NATO, but of course NATO is invariably supportive of the work that we are doing.
The hon. Lady is right to observe that NATO has a job of work to do to strengthen its eastern flank, to provide wider deterrence against any sort of growth or escalation in the conflict and to make sure that the lessons of modern peer-on-peer war fighting in Ukraine are learned by the entire alliance, and learned quickly.
Liz Twist
Labour has fully backed moves to bolster NATO allies in response to the illegal invasion of Ukraine. What steps is the UK taking to ensure that our NATO obligations in respect of enhanced forward presence are completely fulfilled?
James Heappey
In the immediate response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, we doubled the size of the battle group in Estonia as a further show of support for the Estonian Government and recognition of the importance of the enhanced forward presence category. We have also contributed to EFP battlegroups in Poland and Romania in the last 12 months. What will change, and what was announced at the summit in Madrid, is that there will be a new NATO regional defence plan, which will be an evolution of the in-place EFP battlegroups, alongside national defence plans. Of course the UK will be very supportive of the plan in the region that NATO assigns to us, but that is very much under review, and the UK looks forward to hearing the details from NATO once it has finished its work.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Following the very successful Franco-British summit at the end of last week—which was the fruit of an enormous cross-Government effort—does the Minister agree that renewing the bilateral defence partnership with France, the second largest European contributor to NATO, is an important part of not just strengthening the NATO alliance but enhancing European security, particularly in the east?
James Heappey
I really do. It is noteworthy that while relations elsewhere in Government may have been slightly more fraught, within the UK and French Defence Ministries the relationship has remained very tight, and necessarily so. The interdependence between the UK and France is very obvious. Our industrial collaboration is widespread, and will grow as a consequence of last week’s summit—and it is not just in the far east that the UK and France can work together, but in west Africa, where our interests are also very keenly aligned.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
We are driving the delivery of capability in the frontline. Most of our programmes are delivering on time and on budget. For the second year in a row under my stewardship, the Ministry of Defence has set out an affordable 10-year equipment plan to ensure that our armed forces are being given what they need while living within their means.
Bill Esterson
Defence procurement is essential to the success of a domestic steel industry, but, as the Secretary of State will know, the UK is currently the only country in the G20 in which steel production is declining. Given that steel is a vital industry of national security importance, will the Secretary of State ensure that we do not see a repetition of what happened with the fleet solid support contract, under which an overseas lead contractor had no obligation to use UK steel in the construction of UK Navy ships?
Mr Wallace
We always try to use as much UK steel as possible where we can, and when we do not, it is often because we do not manufacture the type of steel that needs to be used in a certain type of product. As for the fleet solid support ships, whether Navantia is part of the consortium or not, the hon. Gentleman should not listen to the union briefing. He will find that across the provision of those ships there will be plenty of British components—in fact, they will be in the majority—and the full integration of the ships will take place in a yard in Northern Ireland.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State update the House on the status of the Ajax procurement programme? I understand that the supply chain is being geared up to produce 589 vehicles.
Mr Wallace
As my right hon. Friend will know, the Ajax was decided on in, I think, March 2010, under a Labour Government. As I have often said, it has been a troubled programme. Since I have taken over this office, we have sought to rectify the issue on almost a weekly basis, and with the determination of both the former Minister for Defence Procurement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), and the current Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). The vehicle has passed its user validation trials and is now undergoing its basic field trials. It is doing extremely well, and I am given a weekly update.
Although the programme is being delayed—and we are doing our best to rectify that—overall it has not cost a single extra penny, because the contract, which was agreed under the Conservative Government after the selection of the vehicle by the Labour party, involved a fixed price. Yes, the programme is being delayed, but we are fixing it, and it is showing good progress.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
May I say first that if the Secretary of State is going to quote the National Audit Office, he should read the entire statement rather than doing so selectively?
In large, multibillion-pound contracts in the private sector, a project lead with expertise is usually put in place for a number of years. In defence procurement, well-meaning and committed individuals with very little expertise in project management are there for a short period. Is it not time to look at the ways in which we project-manage these large multi-year contracts, and to move from what appears to some to be an amateur approach to a more professional one?
Mr Wallace
I do not disagree with some of the right hon. Gentleman’s observations. Consistency in these programmes is incredibly important. As he will know, some of them, even when on track, can be 20-year programmes, and consistency is important. It is not just about the senior responsible owners, by whom those programmes are led, but he is right to suggest that we are seeking to see whether we can have more longer-term or permanent SROs. They are accompanied by programme deliverers from Defence Equipment and Support in Bristol, who are more permanent.
There are lots of lessons to be learned about procurement, some of which are within our gift to fix. Some of them, sadly, have been observed as problems for decades, and we only have to the read numerous reports from the last Labour Government and my Government to know that they have not always been rectified. Some are out of our control owing to inflation, change of threat or changing technology, or because they involve an international consortium in which we have less control when we start. An example is the Typhoon, which is a four-nation project. Sometimes it is harder to control those projects. Overall, in my experience the key is that we have to manage expectations, get our pricing right, seek consistency of skills and reward that skills base for the long term. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely on that.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend agree that defence procurement is a complex issue but not the total disaster that it is often presented as? When compared with the naval procurement of some of our closest allies—for example, the United States ended up spending $5 billion per destroyer in the Zumwalt class and the Canadians took over 30 years to procure a ship—the MOD produces Type 26s, Type 31s, aircraft carriers, hunter-killer submarines and more under a fixed price, showing that it tries to do its best in always tight financial circumstances.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who served with me in the Department. I miss his time in the Department. One of the biggest drivers of cost overruns is a decision by the Government of the day to defer decisions about whether they should cut or delete something. Deferring the aircraft carrier under the Labour Government cost £1 billion. Deferring the F-35 buy under this Government cost about £500 million. If we defer things, they cost more in the long run. That is always the battle that the MOD has with the Treasury and others. That is one of the fundamental challenges and one of the cost drivers. However, many other projects are delivered on time and successfully and our men and women in the armed forces have some of the world-leading equipment they need to do their job.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Minister, Chris Evans.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
May I join the other voices welcoming you back to your position, Madam Deputy Speaker? I think I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that the House has missed your ability to turn people to stone with just a few words when they fall foul of the rules in this place.
Much of the innovation in the defence industry comes from the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. However, many SMEs tell me that there are real barriers to entry and to gaining access to Government contracts, and that when they do gain that access, they find that some primes are slow to pay, especially when projects are delayed. This leaves them demotivated and demoralised and with a poor experience of working with the Ministry of Defence. How will the Secretary of State ensure that SMEs have better access and are encouraged to be involved in a thriving British defence industry?
Mr Wallace
I recognise some of those characteristics of SMEs. For decades they have said that there is a challenge in engaging with wider Government procurement, whether it is in defence or anything else. I also recognise, as the guardian of the taxpayer, that one of the challenges is that risk is involved. If we commission an SME to build something large, the amount of risk it takes in relation to infrastructure is a challenge; we cannot get halfway through a project and then have the SME fail.
However, I think that changes to the battlefield will open the aperture much wider for SMEs to engage with Defence. What we have seen in Ukraine through Operation Kindred is that the winners are the SMEs. The ability for us to cut through the regulations that normally govern procurement, because we are procuring for someone else in a warzone, has enabled us to effectively go straight to the marketplace and straight to SMEs, and some of the big winners have been SMEs in innovation and space. We will know the results and whether they work when they get to Ukraine.
I think this is an exciting time. I recognise the narrative that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which has been around since I worked in the aerospace sector, but of course we should and must do more. When we have a big exciting project, such as the next generation of fighter aircraft—the global combat air programme—or the carrier alliance, it is important that something sits over the top of it to ensure that SMEs are forced in if the primes get in the way.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I look forward to the outcome of the review of welfare services, which was cited earlier. In the meantime, the Ministry of Defence is investing more than £40 million in digitising old paper-based practices, improving processes and creating a single entry point for pensions and compensation by the end of 2024. We have successfully launched a new digital claims service for compensation and pension schemes, making it easier for our people to process their claims. Over time, this will make a very big difference.
Alex Norris
The Minister says the review is under way. Of course, a review is already under way on the armed forces compensation scheme, with its initial findings stating that the processes are burdensome and even distressing for claimants, which is especially concerning as there has been a fall in the proportion of successful claims from 66% to 47%. Can the Minister confirm that the review is still ongoing, when it might report and what he thinks is happening?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is correct that the final report will be delivered within, I hope, a few weeks. He will have to await the Government’s response, of course, but it ties in with some of the findings of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, which we discussed earlier. I am concerned about any reports that the service is not as good as it ought to be. I will take that review and the APPG’s findings extremely seriously, but I am bound to cite the fact that there were 122 complaints versus 1,715 thank you letters, which I find persuasive in forming a conclusion that the people working for Veterans UK are working hard and doing their very best in quite difficult circumstances in the interests of people who serve or have served our country.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My constituents have had similar problems trying to engage with the quinquennial review of the armed forces compensation scheme. They find it slow to make decisions, difficult to engage with and not user-friendly. When the Minister publishes the review’s findings, I hope he will come back to the House to explain how he will make the system much easier for veterans to engage with, as my constituents have told me it is very difficult indeed.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady is right to raise this. As I said earlier, I cannot overstate how important it is that we are increasingly digitising the service. When people go to Norcross and see the mountains of paperwork that Veterans UK is having to cope with, they begin to understand how vital it is that we properly digitise the service and bring it into the 21st century, which is our intention.
The hon. Lady might like to know, because it is a barometer or litmus test of how the service is doing, that the proportion of armed forces compensation scheme cases going to tribunal has been falling since 2014-15, which balances some of the remarks we have heard about Veterans UK not being up to scratch. We need to review it, which is what we are doing, but I am convinced that the service will be better than it is at the moment, if that is of any reassurance.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today’s questions have rightly focused on support for our friends in Ukraine, but it is important to remember that threats are growing elsewhere in the world. The middle east continues to harbour terrorism, which is why the UK still supports the Government of Iraq as part of the global coalition against Daesh.
I want to update the House on a strike that took place a few weeks ago, as is our agreement on strikes under Operation Shader. In late December, an RAF Reaper remotely piloted aircraft conducted a strike against a leading Daesh member in al-Bab, northern Syria. The individual’s activity was related to chemical and biological weapons. The Reaper’s crew minimised potential risk to civilians before firing two Hellfire missiles, both of which struck the target accurately. These actions are vital to degrading such terrorist threats, protecting British citizens and supporting our international partners.
Mr Carmichael
I think we can all accept that there is a legitimate role for the security services in combating disinformation campaigns from foreign, hostile states. However, a recent report from the campaign group Big Brother Watch showed that in 2020 a number of British citizens had their social media posts featured in monitoring reports produced for the Cabinet Office by the British Army’s 77th Brigade. Will the Secretary of State tell the House: is the 77th Brigade still monitoring social media posts of British citizens, and, if so, for what purpose and under what authority?
Mr Wallace
One part of the 77th Brigade’s role is to challenge disinformation, not opinion—its role is not to monitor or counter opinion, as that is about the freedom we all enjoy in our society. The 77th Brigade is on the lookout for media manipulation of misinformation or lies from abroad, and where that is found, it is flagged to the appropriate authorities. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with fuller details about what legal authorities it functions under, but I assure him that if at any stage I have seen anything that I think crosses that line, I have, in writing, made sure that is known and it is stopped.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Mr Wallace
I completely concur with my right hon. Friend. Defence is not a discretionary spend and not an add-on; it is a core function of any state and especially of this Government. I have been very grateful since 2020 that we have turned the corner on this and started to rebuild that momentum. The extra money that I have got for this week is continuing that momentum, but he is right to say that the important thing here is that deterrence is cheaper than having to go to fight the war if it goes wrong, as we see when we look at the cost to the people of Ukraine and to their economy. We need to make people change this culture that we have got used to since probably the early 1990s where somehow defence is discretionary—it is not. I am pleased that the Prime Minister recognises that, as he did when he was Chancellor in 2020, and we need to continue on that trajectory.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The House will be thankful and grateful to the Defence Secretary for updating it on the latest Op Shader activity. If there are any questions that cannot be raised this afternoon, we will return to them. On tonight’s AUKUS announcement in San Diego, does the Defence Secretary recognise that this has Labour’s fullest support? We want Britain to play the biggest possible role in building the new Australian submarines. But beyond the subs, how will he develop the pillar 2 collaboration on artificial intelligence, cyber and hypersonic missiles?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for AUKUS, which is a decades-long commitment. People talk about procurement challenges, and when we start this journey on submarines that will be delivered in the 2030s and 2040s, with some going on to the 2050s, it is not a journey we can stop halfway along or stop for a break in. To go back to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), let me say that sometimes parts of the Treasury struggle with that concept, so I am grateful for the extra money. AUKUS pillar 2 is incredibly important. It is about the next generation’s technology. One of the most important works we are doing—and we met in the Pentagon in December—is clearing away the International Traffic in Arms Regulations challenges that for so many years have held us back in being able to share our own technology with the United States or to collaborate properly to make a step change to give us the strategic advantage we need. We are going to be working on that, and I am happy to brief the right hon. Gentleman in detail on the future of the pillar 2.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is incredibly right to point out how important France is to us. It is our main partner in Europe. It has similar-sized armed forces, with a similar expeditionary status and ambition. I speak to my colleague almost every two weeks—sometimes every week. I spoke to him twice last week, including my visit at the beginning of the week. A partnership on which we worked was more of the CJEF—the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force—where we work with them, training and exercising together; there is more work on complex weapons through MBDA, which is a great international consortium with factories in Bolton and Stevenage; and we are working together to make sure that we have the same requirements in shared operations, where we can work together in areas such as West Africa, where British, French and European interests are under threat from the likes of Wagner.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving such thorough answers, which I am sure the House appreciates, but I ask him to be a little quicker, because it would be good if we managed to get everybody in. I call Ruth Jones.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
I would point the hon. Lady’s constituents to the 2010 National Audit Office report on her Government which gave some really interesting clues about why procurement was so bad. It said that the Department under her Government contracted for aircraft carriers when it knew that that was not affordable. Or perhaps I could point her to the Public Accounts Committee, then chaired by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who said:
“Delays and cancellations to programmes”—
this is about the land systems under her Government—
“have resulted in gaps in armoured vehicle capability that will not be filled until 2025.”
There are lots of clues for the hon. Lady’s constituents—she should direct them to those reports.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his proper concern about this issue. The Sheldon review was and is entirely independent of Government, and it provided an initial draft to the MOD at the end of January. Since then, Mr Sheldon has been conducting a fact-checking and Maxwellisation exercise as part of the final stages of drafting. The timeframe, in an independent review, is not a matter for the Department. Once received, however, I can say that it will be published with all expedition, accompanied by a statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
First, I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets that we will not get the 3% to avoid the cuts. At the moment, it will be a decision on the balance of investments. He will see in the Command Paper how we apportion any savings that we have to make as a result of inflation, but overall, as I have said, our equipment programme and, indeed, our envelope are on track, subject to inflation pressures and extra operational commitments that we have made. He will also be aware that we have had an extra £560 million on top of that for restocking ammunition, and we have also had commitments from the Treasury on new for old and much of the gifting. I believe that the Army will be in a good state throughout this process, and I will make sure that when it comes to the Defence Command Paper, he gets a full read-out of why and how we make those decisions.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is a champion of SMEs, and rightly so: they are at the heart of a vibrant and flexible UK defence industry. That is why this Department helps to find and fund exploitable ideas from SMEs. To his point, however, there is nothing contradictory between the principles of ESG and the defence industry. On the contrary, strong national defence is the ultimate guarantor of the freedoms that all too often are taken for granted—human rights, democracy and the international rules-based order.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I recently set up a joint committee, chaired by me and the Nepalese ambassador, to consider outstanding Gurkha welfare issues. I must tell him that retrospective pension changes in respect of the Gurkhas have been through the system several times, including the High Court, the Supreme Court and the European judicial institutions, and the long-standing position of the UK Government has been upheld. However, I am keen to see that we do everything in our power to ensure that we give Gurkhas and Gurkha veterans living in the UK and in Nepal the very best we reasonably can to support their welfare.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that the Government are committing £2 billion to resupply the armed forces for the munitions and equipment sent to Ukraine. That is very positive news. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the importance of investing in Army accommodation will also be very welcome news to my constituents in Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill. In the spirit of honesty that he spoke about, can he tell us what he thinks it would take to convince the Treasury that we must do more than simply resupply our armed forces, and that we need a bigger Army, not a smaller one?
Mr Wallace
I do not need to do much more to convince the Treasury; the Chancellor and the Prime Minister said at the autumn statement that they recognised that Defence would need more spending. They have crossed that line, and in fact they already knew that: the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, gave us the extra £24 billion, and hon. Members will remember that the current Chancellor stood on a platform for a greater percentage of GDP when he stood for the leadership of the Conservative party. The key is now to ensure that we lock that spending in to get a long timeframe, so that we can start the investment and planning that will be required at the next comprehensive spending review and beyond.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
Maybe the hon. Gentleman cannot hear: I did not say “13”; I said there had been “30” years of hollowing out, which includes his last Government, a Government I served under as a soldier. His Government spent a lot of money going to war in the middle east, which hollowed us out too, because we were not properly refunded. If he wants to come to this House and start a debate about Defence, I would appreciate it if he did so with a bit of candour about his own Government’s role in it. We have done that—I have had the courage to do that—so maybe he might.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I thank Carshalton and Wallington residents who have opened their homes to Ukrainians. Can my right hon. Friend give me some assurance that the kit we are sending to Ukraine will indeed come with the specialist support and training needed to operate it?
Mr Wallace
In the UK, we have thousands of British armed forces, joined by Canadians, Norwegians, Dutch, Swedish, Lithuanians, Australians and New Zealanders—endless numbers of people—helping the Ukrainians with that training. We ensure that not only do they train there, but when they go to somewhere such as Germany they get combined arms training. It is important that training accompanies equipment and, where we have had feedback, we have corrected the training as well.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have really missed you. Can I ask the Secretary of State what he makes of what President Xi has been saying over the past few days? I urge him today not to do what people are rumouring that he might do—that, given the present situation, he might be thinking about resigning. Will he stay with us, but fight for more money for our armed forces?
Mr Wallace
As a Tory, you think about resigning most of the time—over the years. I am interested in trying to deliver for the men and women of our armed forces. I went into politics because the men and women of the armed forces needed and deserved better, and I am determined to try to stick that through. But I am also worried about the direction of threat for this country and for the world: not only what we have seen in China, as I think has been quoted—equipping for war, as they announced last week—but we have seen 83.4% enriched uranium being discovered, as the International Energy Agency has published in its report. That is weeks away from 90%, weapons-grade, should that be a decision. I have seen a growing problem with Russia and its violent extremism spreading across Africa. The threat is going up across the world, and we are more anxious and more unstable. I think that means long-term investment from whoever the Governments are over the next 10 to 15 years.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Flick Drummond to ask the final question.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is lovely to see you back. As a former chair of the south-east region for the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, I have seen at first hand the long shelves at Norcross where Veterans UK is based. Can the Minister assure me that the digitalisation of veterans’ records will proceed quickly, so that veterans can get quick decisions on their welfare and their welfare claims?
Dr Murrison
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s service with the VAPC. Like me, she has been to Norcross and seen the extraordinary files of paperwork. There is no way that we can provide the 21st-century service that our veterans deserve while things are in that state, so the £40 million digitalisation—though it may sound banal—will most certainly make a huge difference. Where we can, we will also address the other things that delay claims; I am thinking particularly of the difficulties we often have with our medical advisers getting reports from GPs in the NHS. I am afraid that that is one of the major hurdles to getting these things dealt with in a timely way, but I am resolved that we should do our level best to make sure things are better going forward.
Integrated Review Refresh
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the 2023 integrated review refresh. I smile because it is a genuine delight to see you back in this House and back in your place.
Two years ago, the Government’s integrated review set out a clear strategy on how the UK would continue to thrive in a far more competitive age. Our approach is the most comprehensive since the end of the cold war. It laid out how we would bring together the combined might of every part of Government to ensure that our country remains safe, prosperous and influential into the 2030s. The conclusions of that review have run as a golden strategic thread through all of our activities across defence and deterrence, diplomacy, trade and investment, intelligence, security, international development, and science and technology over the past two years.
Our overall analysis was right, and our strategic ambition is on track. On every continent of the world, the United Kingdom walks taller today than it has done for many years. We are meeting our obligations as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and as a leading European ally within an expanding NATO. We have strong relationships with our neighbours in Europe, and we will build on the Windsor framework to invigorate those relationships even further. We are deeply engaged in the Indo-Pacific and active in Africa, and enjoy thriving relationships with countries in the middle east and the Gulf.
As I am sure this House recalls, today is Commonwealth Day, and I will be meeting my fellow Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in London over the course of the week.
We have maintained our position as a global leader on international development by pursuing patient, long-term partnerships tailored to the needs of our partner countries, and we succeed because those partnerships draw on the full range of UK strengths and expertise, in addition to our official development assistance. As this House will of course be aware, the severe global turbulence forecast in the 2021 integrated review has indeed come to pass, but events have moved at an even quicker pace than anyone could have imagined just two years ago. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and attempts to annex part of its sovereign territory challenge the entire international order. Across the world, state threats have grown and systematic competition has intensified. There is a growing prospect of further deterioration in the coming years.
Due to the far-reaching consequences for the security and prosperity of the British people that these changes have brought, it is right that I update the House on what the Government are doing to respond. In our “Integrated Review Refresh 2023”, we set out how we respond to an even more contested and volatile world. Rightly, our approach is an evolution, not a revolution. I know that the House will agree that our most pressing foreign policy priority is the threat that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine poses for European security.
The UK has provided huge quantities of military support for Ukraine’s defence. We led the G7 response on Ukraine, co-ordinating diplomatic activity and working with our allies to impose the toughest ever sanctions on Putin’s Government. Thanks to the wisdom of this Government’s original integrated review, we have intensified our training for thousands of brave Ukrainian troops, who repelled Russia’s initial onslaught. That momentum must be maintained until Ukraine prevails and the wider threat that Russia and other states, such as Iran or North Korea, pose to the international order with their aggression or potential aggression is contained.
The 2023 integrated review refresh also sets out how the Government will approach the challenges presented by China. China’s size and significance connect it to almost every global issue, but we cannot be blind to the increasingly aggressive military and economic behaviour of the Chinese Communist party, including stoking tensions across the Taiwan strait and attempts to strong-arm partners, most recently Lithuania. We will increase our national security protections and ensure alignment with our core allies and a wider set of international partners. We must build on our own and our allies’ resilience to cyber-threats, manipulation of information, economic instability and energy shocks so that we remain at the front of the race for technologies such as fusion power, which will define not only the next decade, but the rest of this century.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say more on Government spending commitments in his Budget statement on Wednesday, but today I can set out a number of immediate and longer-term measures that will help us to deliver on our priorities. We will increase defence spending by a further £5 billion over the next two years. That will bring us to around 2.25% of national income and represents significant progress in meeting our long-term minimum defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP. Today’s announcement of £5 billion comes on top of the commitments made by the Chancellor in his autumn statement, on top of the £560 million of new investments last year, and on top of the record £20 billion uplift announced in 2020.
Later today, the Prime Minister will announce, alongside President Biden and Prime Minister Albanese, the next steps for AUKUS, including how we will deliver multibillion-pound conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to the Royal Australian Navy while setting the highest proliferation standards.
We will provide an additional £20 million uplift to the BBC World Service over the next two years, protecting all 42 World Service language services.
We have established a new directorate in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, incorporating the Government information cell, to increase our capacity to assess and counter hostile information manipulation by actors, including Russia and China, where it affects UK interests overseas.
We will double funding for Chinese expertise and capacities in government so that we have more Mandarin speakers and China experts. We will create a new £1 billion integrated security fund to deliver critical programmes at home and overseas on key priorities such as economic and cyber-security, counter-terrorism, and the battle to uphold and defend human rights.
We will establish a new national protective services authority located within MI5. It will provide UK businesses and other organisations with immediate access to expert security advice. A new £50 million economic deterrence initiative will strengthen sanctions enforcement and impact, and will give us new tools to respond to hostile acts. We will publish the UK’s first semiconductor strategy, which will grow our domestic industry for that vital technology, as well as an updated critical minerals strategy.
The 2023 integrated review reconfirms that the UK will play a leading role in upholding stability, security and the prosperity of our continent and the Euro-Atlantic as a whole. It underlines that this Government’s investment in our Indo-Pacific strategy is yielding significant results across defence, diplomacy and trade. Through those initiatives and many others that we have set out over the past two years, the United Kingdom will out-compete those who seek to destabilise the international order and undermine global stability. Our approach is imbued with a spirit of international co-operation and a pragmatic willingness to work with any country that does not seek to undermine our way of life.
We live in a competitive age, and the security challenges that the British people face today are the most serious in at least a generation. Time and again in our history, we have seen off the competition from countries that wish to do us no good. We were able to do so because the United Kingdom has always had more allies, and better allies, than any of our rivals or competitors. It will always be the policy of this Government to ensure that that remains the case. I commend the statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
It is very good to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
Just over a year ago, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine marked a watershed moment for European security. In the time since, 25 NATO countries have revisited their security strategies. Germany announced a fundamental shift in its security policy. Finland and Sweden have taken the historic decision to join NATO. For a year, Labour has urged the Government to revisit the integrated review, so this announcement is overdue but welcome.
We are living in an era of intensifying geopolitical competition in a multipolar world. The interdependence of the global economy is increasingly being weaponised. There has been a blurring of the distinction between foreign and domestic policy. This is a challenging moment for our security and that of our allies, and for our place in the world. The refreshed integrated review, and the decisions that it will inform, are therefore important to us all in this House. We all have an interest in the Government making the right long-term choices for our country.
Any future Labour Government will inherit the consequences of those decisions. Since the invasion, the Government have had our fullest support in providing military, economic and diplomatic support for Ukraine to defend itself, but we have pressed the Government where they have fallen short, and it is in that spirit that we approach the review today.
The original integrated review contained plenty of analysis that was sound and that could enjoy wide support in the House, but it did have serious shortcomings. It made no mention of the risk of the Taliban taking over Kabul, just months before it happened. Nor did it foresee the risks of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or mention risks related to Taiwan. It had little to say about Europe beyond NATO, and it said almost nothing about the European Union, which was given one substantive reference in the entire document.
In too many areas, from the fight against kleptocracy to the importance of international law, rhetoric and ambition contrasted poorly with Government inaction or hypocrisy. Significant and regretful decisions, such as that to cut official development assistance spending to 0.5% of GNI and the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, were taken before the review had even been concluded.
In security and defence, there was a clear mismatch between ends, ways and means. With threats increasing and a promise of “persistent global engagement”, the Government announced plans to cut another 10,000 troops, scrap Hercules planes and drop to 148 Challenger tanks. Those are the troops now reinforcing NATO allies, the planes used in the Kabul airlift, and the tanks being sent to Ukraine.
In the two years since the integrated review, in too many areas its promises have not matched reality. The so-called Indo-Pacific tilt has apparently been completed, but the UK’s diplomatic presence in key countries in the region, including India and China, has been cut by up to 50% over the past eight years. The review promised to maintain the UK as one of the world’s leading development actors; however, not only has aid been cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, but it is now being used to prop up the broken asylum system. By some estimates, less than half of bilateral development assistance ever leaves the United Kingdom.
Rather than standing up for international law, Ministers have come to this Chamber to explain how they plan to break it. Successive crises, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, have demonstrated the vulnerability of international supply chains, but we have not seen a new diplomatic drive to reflect the shifting resourcing economy. Britain is falling seriously behind. United States chips legislation will provide $52 billion in subsidies for US chip manufacturers and the EU’s Chips Act will provide €43 billion, but the Government have put aside just £700,000 to commission a research project, and they still have not published their promised semiconductor strategy.
Today’s refresh is an opportunity to address these flaws and reset the Government’s approach. A test of the integrated review is how it contributes to making Britain secure at home and strong abroad, and that is how we will judge it.
The Government will continue to have Labour’s full support over Ukraine and reinforcing our NATO allies. Labour’s commitment to NATO remains unshakeable and our commitment to Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is total. The review’s emphasis on building partnerships and alliances is welcome after a period of drift away from multilateralism. Britain is always a stronger and more effective force for good when it works with others. That is why Labour’s foreign policy vision is for a Britain reconnected. I am glad that the Government have been taking notes.
Nowhere has the sense of disconnection been stronger than in our post-Brexit relationship with the EU. It is good to see, on page 22, the Government finally acknowledge its importance. Labour would go further, seeking a security pact to co-operate on global challenges and keep us safe.
On China, we recognise the scale and complexity of the challenge that its rise represents and the breadth of our interests that are at stake. The initiative to improve understanding of China in government is vital, particularly given that the Foreign Office has been training only 14 people a year to speak fluent Mandarin. We need a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach to China, working with partners and allies, and engaging with China where our interests align to do so. It feels that after years of inconsistent and shifting approaches, this is at least something we can welcome.
It is good to see a new economic deterrence unit to help enforce sanctions, as is mentioned on page 48, because not a single individual or entity—not one—has been fined for breaching Russia sanctions since the invasion. Sanctions without enforcement are useless. I note the plan for a new Russia strategy, but the Government have not yet implemented all the Russia report’s recommendations.
On Iran, the Government are right to recognise the increasing threat, so it was disappointing that they opposed our amendment to create a new mechanism to proscribe hostile state actors such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
In an era of disinformation, the BBC World Service is a unique and unparalleled platform, so the additional funding is very welcome. However, on defence spending, today’s announcement provides funds only for AUKUS and Ukraine replenishment. That is why we welcome it, but it does not answer growing questions concerning capability gaps that weaken our national defence and undermine the UK’s NATO contribution. The National Audit Office said recently that the Ministry of Defence
“cannot…afford to develop all the capabilities set out in the 2021 Integrated Review”.
How does today’s announcement ensure the same does not happen now that the new 2023 integrated review has been published?
The reality is that the Government are dragging their feet on the big decisions. The long-term goal to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence sounds, I am afraid, a little bit like a hollow promise. There is no plan and there is no timetable. I can tell the Secretary of State that the last Labour Government left office with defence spending of 2.5% intact. The reality is that too much of the Government’s effort is focused on undoing their mistakes: the Windsor framework to fix the protocol they negotiated; a Franco-British summit to repair relations damaged by his predecessor’s clumsy diplomacy; a £16.5 billion investment in defence swallowed up by a blackhole in the budget they mismanaged; removing the Chinese state’s role in our nuclear power industry, after the Government invited it in in the first place; and trying to strengthen our leadership in international development after the Government squandered it.
We welcome this refresh, but we will continue to provide robust scrutiny where necessary to ensure that our country’s foreign policy and defence systems are secure for the next generation.
James Cleverly
I am not a religious man, but I understand that there is a phrase in the Bible about how there is more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents, and it is really good to hear—[Interruption.] As I say, I am not a religious man, but I am joyful that those on the Labour Front Bench have finally, perhaps kicking and screaming, come to such a realisation.
Let us take official development assistance. At its lowest point, this Government are still spending a larger proportion of GDP on ODA than at the highest point under the Labour party when it was in government. I remember when the Russian state was instrumental in poisoning British citizens and the leader of the Labour party at the time was saying that we should share our intelligence with the very state that was poisoning British people. I am now glad, finally, to hear a commitment from the Labour Front Bench about maintaining the nuclear deterrent and about support for NATO. It is interesting that we are being criticised for getting defence spending to 2.25% of GDP with a commitment to 2.5% of GDP, because I hear no such commitment formally from the shadow Defence team.
The simple truth of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman made a number of points about what Labour would do differently, and then said that, broadly, he agrees with this strategy. I am glad that he agrees with the strategy, because we have been working on this, we have been implementing the 2021 integrated review and we have seen the positive impact it has had on our relations in the Indo-Pacific. The signing of the FCAS—future combat air systems—agreement between Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom is testament to that, as is the fact that the carrier strike group’s maiden voyage was to that region. The fact that we are seen absolutely at the forefront of the international support to Ukraine in its self-defence against Russia’s invasion is also testament to that.
This Government will always be an internationally focused Government. We will always make sure that we act in close concert with our international partners and we will build greater partnerships around the world. That is what this refresh is about. It builds on the work of the original integrated review, and I am very proud that we have put it in the public domain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
It is a joy to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome much of this pragmatic refresh, and it is good to see recommendations by the Foreign Affairs Committee embraced, such as making resilience a key pillar, the Mandarin capability, the criticality of critical minerals, deterrence diplomacy, and the importance of science and technology. However, the threat of China cannot be seen primarily as an economic one, because that is to fail to recognise that it is trying to undermine our security and sovereignty. The asks are: greater resolve when dealing with transnational repression. That means shutting down illegal Chinese police stations, and closing down the Iranian regime’s cut-outs that are operating in London and across our country.
I welcome the creation of the National Protective Security Authority to tackle techno-authoritarianism, but that is support for the private sector. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept my amendment on support for public sector procurement when the Procurement Bill comes forward in a couple of weeks. Finally, the Government rightly talk about the reconstruction of Ukraine in the refresh. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to using frozen central bank funds? The Government seem to claim that we do not have the law in place to do that, or that it is not legally tested. Tell us what law change is needed, we will make it, and let us test it in the courts.
James Cleverly
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee highlighted a number of important areas, and I commend her and the Committee for the work they have done in putting forward ideas. We always take those ideas seriously and, as she recognises, it is no accident that some of the conversations and thinking that her Committee has put forward are woven into this report. We always listen to constructive feedback from colleagues, whatever side of the House they come from.
We are conscious that the threat from Chinese activity is not just in the economic sphere, and I assure my hon. Friend that on our security—not just economic security —we are thinking across a full range of threats and risks. We must also recognise that there is the need and opportunity to engage with China in areas where we can work more successfully. I assure her that protecting ourselves against risks in that economic sphere will not be limited just to the private sector—we will of course look to give advice to the private sector, and more broadly, and I assure her that we will continue to think across the whole range of threats and risks.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, while the Deputy Speaker is still in the Chamber, may I too welcome her back to her place? It is nice to see you here, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. There are clear things to welcome in the review, and I think everyone can say that funding for the BBC World Service is a good move. Measures to tackle and counter hostile information and manipulation are things we should be doing, and it is good to see them in the report. It is sensible to develop more expertise on China, although there are gaps in the strategy. It is painfully obvious that we need a reassessed Russia strategy, and it is important to come forward with that in detail. Support for Ukraine must be ongoing, and I repeat the call for frozen assets to be used in the rebuilding process.
The Secretary of State also needs to reflect on where his golden thread has frayed. The Government were flatfooted in the crisis over Afghanistan, and there is still the issue of British Council workers. What lessons have been learned for the future from that debacle? What are his ambitions in rebuilding with the European Union, and where is the detail on dealing with the global climate crisis? It is barely mentioned in the documents. International aid should not be used as a trade lever, yet that is still part of the UK Government’s plans. Increased military spending needs more detail. When will that come to the House? Security expert Edward Lucas has warned:
“Britain’s military cannot sustain a global role”,
describing UK armed forces as a
“clapped-out army, serious problems with…our naval vessels, and an air force short of planes and pilots.”
The presence of nuclear weapons in NATO countries did not deter Putin from invading Ukraine. Why would spending more on new nuclear be a good idea now? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that spending in conventional areas would be better than wasting on new nuclear, or has the £5.5 billion shambles of the Ajax tanks procurement left the Government afraid of that kind of investment?
James Cleverly
On who will ultimately pay for the terrible damage across Ukraine, it is absolutely right that the aggressor pays. We will work closely with our international partners to make sure that those who cause the damage repair the damage. The exact vehicle for doing so will be discussed and decided internationally, because it demands an international response.
On the nuclear deterrent, the hon. Gentleman has very much drawn the wrong lessons. He says that NATO having nuclear weapons did not prevent Russia attacking Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons arsenal. It was Russia’s failure to abide by the commitments made in the Minsk agreement—[Interruption.] He says it did not stop it invading Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. I can draw him a map if it helps. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Our nuclear deterrent is absolutely the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence, and the UK will always abide by its commitments to its friends and neighbours in the region. We will ensure the standing we currently enjoy as one of the most significant contributors to the Euro-Atlantic defence relationship is maintained and enhanced, in terms of both our nuclear deterrent and conventional means.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Defence posture matters. If we want to play a role on the international stage, then our hard power counts. We have to be honest. The last integrated review saw a swathe of cuts to our land, sea and air assets, which I think many in the House hoped would be reversed today. Page 8 of the review summarises the threat:
“There is a growing prospect that the international security environment will further deteriorate in the coming years, with state threats increasing and diversifying in Europe and beyond. The risk of escalation is greater than at any time in decades”.
We are sliding towards a new cold war and threats are increasing, yet here we are staying on a peacetime budget. My right hon. Friend has two days before the Budget is announced. Please, can we move to 2.5% of GDP now?
James Cleverly
We committed to 2.5% of GDP as a sustainable baseline. We announced the additional £5 billion to address the immediate impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As I said, that is on top of the £20 billion uplift announced in 2020 and the over half a billion pounds of new investment announced last year. We will continue to work with our international allies to ensure our collective defence posture is one that genuinely deters aggression against NATO and its member states. We have been successful in doing that, but we will, as this document has done, assess the likely and possible threats and make sure that our defence posture aligns with them.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Having ambition and slogans such as “global Britain” are fine, but without resources behind them they are pretty meaningless. Between 2010 and 2021, the Government cut the defence budget by 16%. A £5 billion increase in the defence budget was announced today—the Prime Minister is trumpeting it all over social media—but the Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee, on which I sit, that he needed 11% just to stand still. It is interesting that he is not here to defend it. Can I ask about the £5 billion? Is the £3 billion for the nuclear deterrent new money or part of the existing £10 billion already put aside for the deterrent? If that leaves £2 billion additional expenditure, that is a long way from the Defence Secretary’s claim that we need 11% just to stand still.
James Cleverly
The Secretary of State for Defence was just at the Dispatch Box welcoming the money.
James Cleverly
He has gone to Japan, with which we have recently signed a defence agreement for the next generation of fighter aircraft. The slightly childish and raucous calls from the Opposition Benches would have more impact if it were not for the fact that on the Government Benches we are getting on with building those international defence relationships that will keep us, our neighbours and our friends right across the globe safe.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, and the recommitment with our American and Australian allies to AUKUS. Will the Secretary of State assure me that there will be absolute alignment of our defence and foreign policy positions, to ensure that global Britain delivers in the way that it must for our own freedom and that of our allies?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why we have moved to integrated reviews, recognising that defence, diplomacy, international development and trade policy are all interwoven. To have a truly effective international posture, all those functions of government need to go hand in hand, in close co-ordination with non-governmental organisations such as the BBC World Service. That is why we had the integrated review in ’21 and the integrated review refresh today. I assure him and the whole House that we will continue to work in close co-ordination across Government to deliver on it.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I welcome what I heard was the recognition that when it comes to China we need to do far more to defend our values, while recognising that there are global public goods that we need to work on together, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation in the Pacific and global development. Since the last integrated review, the so-called “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific has entailed £3 million extra in FCDO staff, three extra British high commissioners in the Pacific, two extra warships and less than 1% of the MOD headcount. That it not a tilt but a glance in the right direction. Could the Foreign Secretary tell us how big the package will be to finance the tilt needed to an area of £4.3 billion people?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman seems have embedded in his question the idea that our posture to the Indo-Pacific is a one-off event. It is not; it is a permanent recalibration of our foreign and defence policy. My first set of bilateral visits as Foreign Secretary was to Japan, South Korea and Singapore. The Defence Secretary is flying to Japan at the moment to build upon the agreement that we have made between the UK, Italian and Japanese Governments. We have made a long-term commitment that is being resourced. The carrier strike group’s main voyage to the region is building towards what is a permanent recalibration of our international focus, to recognise that the centre of gravity of world affairs is moving eastwards and southwards. We are responding to that.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s crystal-clear commitment that from 2025 we will spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence. I will be interested to know whether Labour will match that. Part of that spending, referred to in the document, is the AUKUS programme, which will be a world-class collaboration between the United States, Australia and us. Does he agree that that not only will help deter Chinese expansionism in the Pacific, but is a perfect example of global Britain?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. When I was running through the list of things that underpin our Indo-Pacific focus, I did not mention AUKUS, because I know that the Prime Minister will do so extensively later on today. My right hon. Friend asked whether I think the Labour party will match that commitment of 2.5% on defence spending. I say no, for two reasons: first, no shadow Defence Minister has made such a commitment; and secondly, the Labour party will not be office in 2025—we will.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
We have faced our most perilous moments since the second world war and the height of the cold war, and we have seen a clear strategy from Russia, China and Iran to undermine democracy and western values. What we have before us today is a strategy that does not give any sort of signal or sign to Russia, China or Iran that we are serious about taking them on. We need to do what it takes. The Government, and this Parliament, need to decide that and do what it takes. Instead, what we have today is a paltry £5 billion—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that he wanted £8 billion to £11 billion. Back in November, when he was asked about inflation by the Defence Committee, he argued for an increase of £8 billion over two years. Here we have got £5 billion, which does not even cover the inflationary part of the cost. It is an absolute nonsense and the Government should be ashamed of themselves. They are letting down this country.
James Cleverly
I struggle to find a question among that stream of consciousness, but the simple truth is that the Secretary of State for Defence was at this Dispatch Box only few minutes ago welcoming this announcement. The hon. Gentleman says £5 billion is a “paltry” sum. I was just reminded by the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), that that sum is larger than our budget for prisons. The hon. Gentleman’s attitude towards public money demonstrates the classic problem with the Opposition; suggesting that £5 billion is an insignificant sum demonstrates a blasé attitude towards public expenditure, which is sadly the hallmark of the Opposition.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the refresh, which makes the country stronger today. Many of my constituents are concerned about the rise of China. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that China is one of the greatest challenges we will face in the 21st century? Will he confirm that we must build on our relationships in the Indo-Pacific, not just with our existing friends, such as Australia, India and Japan, and that we must find new friends and allies to strengthen our hand?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right that it is important for us to build on our existing friendships and develop new ones in the Indo-Pacific region. Those friendships and partnerships are a good thing in and of themselves, not just in response to China’s activity. He is also right that China has demonstrated a range of behaviours that we oppose. I have raised those directly with representatives of the Chinese Government, so it is right that this review looks carefully at our relationship with China, those areas where we need to defend ourselves and our partners, and those areas where we need to work more closely with them.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is a fine, glossy brochure, but we have waited an awfully long time and there is not a lot in it. The harsh realities are that at a time when inflation is denuding the defence budget in the way that it is, and when the Euro-Atlantic posture of the United Kingdom needs to redouble more than ever, the United Kingdom has committed itself to the Indo-Pacific. We have a war in mainland Europe and the response is £5 billion. It is not serious, especially not when £2 billion of that is to replenish stocks, which is non-discretionary so not a policy position, and the other £3 billion is for nuclear. Why is there always money for nuclear?
James Cleverly
I will tell the hon. Gentleman why there is always money for the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence posture; it is because it is the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence posture. When he starts to talk about expenditure on the armed forces, my heart goes out to those brave men and women in our British armed forces stationed in Scotland, who pay more tax than any other members of the armed forces in the country.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I very much welcome the review that my right hon. Friend has announced today. He spoke about the relevance of the critical minerals strategy. May I highlight something for him to take back to other Departments that work alongside his? We all recognise the lessons to be learned from our reliance on Russian minerals, and how we have had to change that, but 95% of the elements used in renewable energy—solar panels or whatever—are processed in China. We cannot escape the science, but we can ask other Departments to diversify how we do renewables. Will my right hon. Friend take back to other Departments the message that we need to look at investing in and working on things like hydrogen combustion, so that we are not entirely reliant on minerals coming out of China?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Russia’s use of energy supplies is a tool of coercion—that is something that we have witnessed. We must ensure that we do two things. First, we must wean ourselves off our global addiction to hydrocarbon energy, for the reasons that we have seen. Secondly, we must ensure that, in doing so, we do not inadvertently create a dependency on any one other country, particularly China. Our critical minerals strategy will bear that in mind. It is clear from conversations I have had—for example with leaders of the countries in Africa from which these minerals are mined and shipped to China for processing—that it would be better for them, for us and for the world if more of that processing were done on the continent of extraction rather than on the other side of the world.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The integrated review refresh recognises the challenge from Iran, which has been behind 15 kidnap and assassination attempts in the UK since January last year. The Foreign Office is widely understood to be blocking attempts to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether that is true? Given the seriousness of the threat, can he explain why we have not yet proscribed the IRGC?
James Cleverly
We respond to the threats posed by Iran in the region, against people in the country and internationally. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the numerous attempts that have been made on the UK mainland; I pay tribute to our security services and our policing services for preventing a number of attempted attacks here. The decision whether to sanction or proscribe is always one that we discuss across Government. Any decisions on future designations or sanctions will be made across Government, and I am not going to speculate on what future actions this Government may take.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The velvet glove of diplomacy must cover the iron fist. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that even 2.5% of GDP on defence will simply not be enough to give the Foreign Office the support it needs to do its job?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the close working relationship between defence, diplomacy and international development. I can assure him that the Defence Secretary and I, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in close co-ordination to make sure that the money we spend defending our nation and defending our interests overseas is used most effectively. That will always underpin the decisions that we make. I recognise my hon. Friend’s desire for greater spending on defence, but ultimately we need to ensure that we protect the public purse in a way that protects our interests and values.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The 2015 strategic defence and security review estimated that the Dreadnought acquisition programme was
“likely to cost a total of £31 billion…including inflation”.
We have learned in the past week that the programme remains within budget. However, the SDSR set a contingency of £10 billion. How much of that £10 billion contingency is being used on Dreadnought? Is the £3 billion announced today for nuclear separate from that £10 billion?
James Cleverly
Future expenditure will be set out in more detail by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have said, and the ways in which the Defence Secretary will spend the money allocated to him will be set out by Defence Ministers. I have to say that I am still completely lost as to what the Lib Dems’ defence posture is. When I look back on our time in government together, I certainly cannot help thinking that if we had not had the sea anchor of the Lib Dems in coalition, we would have progressed much more quickly in securing the defence of this country.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The extra money for stockpiles and for AUKUS is indeed welcome. The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of a challenge to the entire international order, and when we look at just two areas of capability in isolation—the size of the Army and the capability of the Air Mobility Force—we have to face the unpalatable fact that neither people nor equipment can do two things at once. Will he be working with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that our investment matches, and provides, the capability to be set against the challenges of which he rightly spoke?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about this subject, and the points that he has made are points to which we listen carefully. I can only repeat that we will continue to work together closely, as we have done for a number of years, to align our foreign affairs and diplomacy posture—and, indeed, our international development posture—with our defence posture to ensure that we use most efficiently and effectively the public funds, the taxpayers’ money, given to us by the Chancellor to protect the British people and our friends and interests overseas.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary referred to a further £5 billion over the next two years, and to the commitment to spend 2.5% of UK GDP on defence. Let me ask him, very simply, when the 2.5% commitment will come into effect, and where that leaves the British Army. Will there be further cuts?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his question. The details of how the Secretary of State for Defence will spend his budget I will have to leave to the Secretary of State for Defence, but the Integrated Review Refresh sets out the broad parameters. The £5 billion brings us up to about 2.25% of GDP, which is well on track to that 2.5% commitment. As I have said, I will leave it to the Defence Secretary to give further details of the nature of that expenditure and the capabilities and equipment that it will cover.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome some of the report, but I want to return to the issue of China, in which, as someone who has been sanctioned, I take a particular interest.
I have to say that I am somewhat confused about what the Government’s position actually is. It was the Prime Minister who, when standing for election, said:
“China…poses a systemic threat”
—there was then a backdown to “systemic challenge”—
which we would meet with “robust pragmatism”. That “robust pragmatism” means that we have sanctioned no one in Hong Kong while America has sanctioned 10; that we have sanctioned three low-level officials in Xinjiang while America has sanctioned 11, including Chen Quanguo, the architect of that terrible atrocity; and that we did not kick out the Chinese officials who beat people up on the streets of the UK. Now, however, I understand that “systemic challenge” has moved on to “epoch-defining challenge”. The document that the Prime Minister has produced today does refer to that “epoch-defining challenge”, but then goes on to use the words
“in the face of that threat”.
Does that now mean that China is a threat, or an epoch-defining challenge, or a challenging Government epoch, or even none of that?
James Cleverly
I reassure my right hon. Friend that in every meeting I have had with representatives of the Chinese Government, I have raised specifically their sanctioning of him and others in this House as being completely unacceptable behaviour. I have challenged them on every single occasion that I have had conversations with the Chinese Government.
I understand the desire to have a simple, short phrase or a single word to describe our posture towards China, but with a country as big, influential and significant as China, it is impossible to distil it down to a simple set of words or a phrase. That is not something we do with any other country in the world. We recognise that international relations are more complicated, so in the IR refresh there is more of a narrative than a single-word description. We want to describe the areas where we can and should work more closely with China, the areas where we need to defend ourselves and our interests against China, and the areas where we want to steer China into a different course of action. So there will always be descriptors, plural. I understand my right hon. Friend’s desire for clarity on this, and he will see through our actions that we will respond robustly to China when it behaves in a way that we disagree with, but we will also attempt to steer China in a better direction.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Given the close way in which we have been working with our European allies to resist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is it not now time to seek a formal foreign policy and security partnership with the European Union alongside our leading role in NATO?
James Cleverly
I have just come back, at the tail and of last week, from the UK-France summit in Paris, and our closer defence co-operation was one of the main topics we discussed, as was our broader co-operation with the member states of the European Union on our collective self-defence, but ultimately NATO has shown itself to be the most effective mechanism for the defence of the Euro-Atlantic region. The UK has demonstrated its full commitment to NATO, and through the announcements we have made today and the previous announcements we have made, we will continue to be one of the leading contributory nations to NATO. That is the primary vehicle for our collective self-defence.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the presentation of this paper, which shows a far greater strategic awareness of the vulnerability that the whole of the west faces than we would have seen in any document just a few years ago. But is not the ghost at the feast still the money? I very much welcome his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence, but when are we going to see our armed forces restored to the critical mass that is capable of deterring the kind of aggression we are seeing in Ukraine and the kind of aggressive policies we are seeing from China? The £5 billion announced today will patch up what we should have been spending already, but it is not going to make a huge difference.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right to say that all defence postures need to be paid for, and that is why I am proud that we have the additional £5 billion that we have announced on top of the money previously announced in 2020. Obviously, when we are talking about expenditure as a percentage of GDP, one of the best things we can do is to grow the economy, which is why I full support the Prime Minister’s priority to grow the economy so that we can have a larger defence budget in absolute terms, because it will be a percentage of a growing economy. I highlight the fact that that is in stark contrast to the lack of commitment to a proportion of defence spending from those on the Opposition Front Bench, along with no credible plan to grow the economy. I take the point my hon. Friend makes to heart.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, following his Department’s devastating international aid cuts, the UK Government cannot claim to be fully safeguarding vulnerable communities around the world?
James Cleverly
In absolute terms and in percentage terms, the UK is still one of the largest—[Interruption.] In absolute terms and in percentage terms, the UK is still one of the largest official development assistance donating countries in the world. I can assure the hon. Lady that, from the conversations I have with partners around the world, they hugely value the UK’s contribution, our expertise and the co-operation we have with them.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Many aspects of this statement are welcome, including the increases in our hard power and soft power capabilities, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that one-off increases are ad hoc, sporadic and make long-term planning difficult? What is required is a fundamental, threat-based review backed by long-term funding. To properly defend ourselves requires long lead-in times across many aspects of our defence.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right. We have published the integrated review refresh to set the framework for the risks and opportunities in the international sphere. Of course, we need discrete responses to one-off events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but those are within a wider framework of international posture. The Prime Minister has made it clear that this is part of the journey towards our baseline of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, which is a commitment to which we will adhere.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Building on the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), does the Foreign Secretary agree that we need an in-depth strategic audit of every aspect of our country’s relationship with China, from defence to diplomacy, technology, education and cyber-security? Will he assure the House that there will be no return to the utterly failed “golden era” strategy?
James Cleverly
I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) that we are looking at how China interacts with the British state, both at a Government level and in other areas, including the commercial world, the public sector and education. That is not to say that we should never, or must never, have Chinese investment in the UK, which would be unrealistic and counterproductive, but it must mean that we go into whatever relationship we have with China with our eyes open. We have to properly assess the opportunities, risks and threats, and that needs to be done across Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that this is exactly how we will approach our relationship with China.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the document’s strength and robustness with regards to Russia’s threat elsewhere than Ukraine but, following my quick reading, I am a little disappointed by how little it says about the Arctic. More than half of Russia’s navy and all its nuclear defence is in the Arctic, on which it has a 25,000-mile coastline, and most of Russia’s economic wealth also comes from the Arctic, yet only one paragraph is devoted to it. Frankly, I think the threat is quite substantial, so I am disappointed by the oft-repeated hope
“for the Arctic to return to being a region of high cooperation and low tension.”
Am I right in thinking that is more of a hope than a belief that it will actually happen?
James Cleverly
I have had conversations with my Scandinavian, Baltic and Canadian counterparts on the risk to the Arctic and the high north. Obviously, in a document that we are trying to make modest in page number but wide in aspiration, we have to be disciplined in how much we put across. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are very conscious of that risk. The joint expeditionary force and my conversations with my Nordic, Baltic and Canadian counterparts are testament to that.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The extra funding being made available to the BBC World Service is particularly welcome. The World Service does an admirable job of supplying news in a world of disinformation, so why did the Government decide to cut its funding in the first place?
James Cleverly
When the impacts of covid were felt across the world, every Government of every political persuasion had to make difficult decisions, just as we did. I am pleased that we have been able to work with the BBC World Service to ensure it delivers its services in the most efficient manner and that we are able to support it with this increase in funding.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Given that the biggest killer of our people, the most frequent breaches of our border and, arguably, the most significant impact to the integrity of our economy result from the work of overseas organised criminal gangs, why is there hardly any mention of them in this document? Where is the resource to allow the National Crime Agency to deal with threats that are felt on the streets of the Secretary of State’s constituency and mine every day?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is right to say that organised criminal gangs have an international component. This document is predominantly but not exclusively focused on state-level threats. However, I assure him that the role of international organised crime gangs is very much part of our interactions with our interlocutors internationally. We did not have the opportunity to put every single element of what we do internationally into this review, and of course a large of part of what he refers to lies within the home affairs area of responsibility. However, we liaise closely to ensure that we discuss with international interlocutors the threat posed within the UK by international criminality.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary referred to today being Commonwealth Day, but a little disappointed that there was only a passing reference to the Commonwealth, in that he is meeting Foreign Ministers from member states in the coming week. He was right to highlight the growing influence of China across the globe, which includes economic, political and security interests among many of the 56 members of the Commonwealth. How does he envisage the integrated review refresh in terms of Britain developing a modern, dynamic, refreshed friendship with many of those Commonwealth countries?
James Cleverly
I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Although we have not made many references to the Commonwealth discretely in this review, the Commonwealth is interwoven through much of what we do. The geographical nature of the Commonwealth means, inevitably, that our Indo-Pacific tilt will be delivered in partnership with Commonwealth countries, as of course AUKUS will be with Australia. This morning, I spoke to the Singaporean and New Zealand Foreign Ministers, and I have had meetings with the Malaysian Foreign Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK wants to see the Commonwealth being a meaningful, active and useful vehicle for the member states, particularly the small island states that disproportionately create the membership of the Commonwealth. I reassure him that even if this is not written down explicitly, it is absolutely interwoven throughout this document.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that soft power can often be as effective as hard power, if not more so, and that it is usually a lot cheaper? I therefore strongly welcome the additional funding for the BBC World Service, but will he go on to look at strengthening the support for other soft power projections, such as the British Council and the Chevening scholarship and John Smith Trust fellowship programmes?
James Cleverly
I suspect that my right hon. Friend, my near neighbour in Essex, knows that he is pushing at the most open of open doors on that. I do not particularly like the phrase “soft power”, because it sometimes implies a subordinate relationship to hard power. He is right to say that the UK’s projection of soft power—I have to use the phrase as I have not thought of anything better yet—is incredibly powerful and cost-effective. He made the point about Chevening, Marshall and other scholarships. All those things, along with football, arts, theatre and so on, are incredibly powerful and absolutely at the heart of UK foreign policy.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
William Gladstone’s third Midlothian speech said that good foreign policy started with “good government at home”. We can see that in the US with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act, and even in the European Union being jolted into responding with similar initiatives. But the somewhat vague promises in the document published today of a protective security authority, an economic deterrence initiative, a critical minerals strategy and a UK semiconductor strategy leave me somewhat wanting more. Can the Foreign Secretary expand on those things? If he does not and there is no meat on the bone, we will fail to have met the moment that the White House and the Commission in Brussels have given us.
James Cleverly
There is a phrase, “Always leave them wanting more.” Is that not what they say? [Interruption.] Politics is show business for ugly people. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will remain, as I said in my statement, absolutely at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy to work in partnership and with partners. We need to make sure that we maintain our tradition as an open, free-trading nation, working closely with those countries that share our values and protect our interests, as we do theirs. He referred to further iterations which I have highlighted, including semiconductors and our critical minerals strategy. More details will be forthcoming, and he will see that those things are interwoven, not just through the UK foreign policy structure, but in close co-operation with our friends and allies internationally.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
A commitment to promoting freedom of religion or belief was included in the last integrated review, and it is good to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the approach to working on this refresh has been one of evolution. Does he agree that the UK continuing to take a leading role in promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief across the world, and working with like-minded countries to challenge abuses, are even more important today than they were in the 2021 review, bearing in mind the increased abuses that are happening across the world, not least Russia’s misuse of religion in its attacks against Ukraine and the growing use of increasingly sophisticated technology to control, coerce and oppress people, and restrict their freedom of religion or belief?
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area. She is right: freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test for good behaviours by Government. Where those freedoms are impinged, that is typically the canary in the mine for other human rights abuses. She is right that we highlighted that in 2021, and we have not lost our commitment to it. This is a refresh—we did not attempt to cover off everything that we covered in the ’21 integrated review, otherwise the document would have been too large.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is no longer Government policy to view the aid budget as a giant cash machine in the sky, and does he recognise that where cuts have been made, they have had a tangible and negative impact? Why will he not show the same ambition to return to 0.7% gross national income for aid spending as he is showing to get to 2.5% GNI for defence spending?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman should listen when we make statements at the Dispatch Box, because we have made the commitment to get back up to 0.7%. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), we remain, both in percentage and absolute terms, one of the largest aid donors in the world.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the integrated review refresh. On China’s capabilities, as, I think, the only Mandarin and Cantonese speaker in the House, I encourage the Foreign Secretary to increase the number of Great Britain-China Centre courses, both for civil servants and for parliamentarians. On the integrated review’s assessment of middle-ground powers of growing importance, which include the three south-east Asian nations and ASEAN, which I serve, as he knows, does he agree that although our national interests are not always the same, we all share a strong interest in an open, international order, so we should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) suggested, sharply increase FCDO Chevening scholarships, British Council scholarships, armed forces’ course scholarships, and Westminster Foundation for Democracy programmes in the Indo-Pacific region to make those closer partnerships for which the review calls?
James Cleverly
It is incumbent on us to make sure that we understand China better. I am not fatalistic about our future relationship with China. The job of foreign affairs and diplomacy is to try to influence and improve. We certainly seek to influence China’s decisions. It is clear that we need to increase the number of people who speak Chinese and intimately understand China, which is why we have made a commitment to do so. With regard to the schemes that my hon. Friend highlighted, he is absolutely right that the more people understand us well, the better.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Some analysts believe that a war over Taiwan’s sovereignty could occur in the second half of this decade. Although the Prime Minister has voiced his wish over the past 24 hours to continue to engage with China, does the Foreign Secretary agree that conflict in that region would have devastating impacts and that we must protect Taiwan’s rights as an independent nation?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady is right that a conflict across the Taiwan strait would be disastrous not just for the region but for the global economy, because of the interconnected supply chains that would be at stake. The UK’s position is long standing and well versed: we do not agree with any unilateral change of posture across the Taiwan strait and we will continue to work to de-escalate where there are tensions and to try to ensure peace in that region.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP will not only help to keep us safe, but create much more certainty for the 390,000 UK jobs, many of them high paying and high skilled, in places such as Filton and Bradley Stoke, which rely on our defence spending?
James Cleverly
We have fantastic defence industries here in the UK. I think the reason countries are keen to work with us on projects such as AUKUS, the future combat air system and others is that internationally they recognise the huge value added to defence systems by the engagement of the UK, whether at governmental level or in the commercial sector. We value the jobs based in the UK’s defence sector, and of course this is about preserving those jobs, which are more geographically dispersed than in other sectors of the UK economy. Good value, high-paid, high-skilled jobs across the whole of the UK is something we will continue to focus on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement and welcome the Government announcement regarding the increase in defence spending—something for which I, along with many others in this House, have been asking for years. I note that the increase is in response to Russia and other global concerns and that the Secretary of State in his statement referred to the increase in cyber and technology, but it is also important to have an increase of soldiers on the ground. Is it not possible to have both cyber and technology, and boots on the ground?
James Cleverly
The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an important point: just because new threats have emerged, as we have seen with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the old threats do not go away. We are seeing a full-spectrum attack by Russia, including cyber-attack, missile attack, tank attack and, sadly, first world war-style trench warfare around Bakhmut. We have to understand that it is not a case of either/or; it has to be both. This integrated review refresh recognises that, and I can assure him and the House that we will make sure we cover all the areas where we need to defend ourselves.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has already said, Britain’s soft power is a strategic asset. Does he agree that it is important for two reasons—first, it gives us a strategic advantage in the world, and secondly, it gives us a platform to build relationships with allies to contain and resist the trend towards anti-democratic and authoritarian regimes around the world?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right that the UK is proudly one of the most significant defence contributors to NATO and, as I have said, in absolute and percentage terms it is one of the largest aid spenders in the world. However, the one area where we are without risk of being contradicted is in our soft power. We recognise that, and we will continue to invest in that and to ensure that it is at the heart of our foreign policy.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The £5 billion investment in defence spending in the upcoming AUKUS announcement offers substantial opportunities for those engaged in the nuclear enterprise and submarine-building programme, but it also makes clear the challenges we are going to face in skilling up people for that multi-generation-long programme and getting our supply chains ready to deliver on it. Can my right hon. Friend outline what cross-Government discussions are taking place now to make sure we are fit for that challenge?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not just a cross-Government endeavour but a cross-society, multi-decade-long endeavour, meaning that we will need people who are perhaps currently in primary school to be developing the technical skills that will still be needed in 20 or 30 years’ time. I suggest to careers advisers around the country that advising boys and girls to gravitate towards that area of work is a very good investment, because the jobs are going to be there—they are going to be high-paid, high-skilled jobs scattered all around the UK that are going to be there for a very long time. My hon. Friend is right that this needs to be a whole-of-society approach, and that is exactly the attitude we are taking.
Silicon Valley Bank
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the steps His Majesty’s Government have taken to limit risks to our tech and life sciences sector.
Following the rapid deterioration of Silicon Valley Bank, and working in concert with the Bank of England, early this morning we facilitated the purchase of the UK subsidiary of Silicon Valley Bank by HSBC. Serving 39 million customers globally, and headquartered and listed here in the UK, HSBC is Europe’s largest bank. Those affected are now secure in the knowledge that their deposits are protected and that they can bank as normal. Customers should not notice any changes, while the wider UK banking system remains safe, sound and well capitalised.
Using stabilisation powers granted by the Banking Act 2009, which afforded us the ability to safely manage the failure of banks, we have forestalled disruption in the tech sector and supported confidence in the UK financial system. The resolution action was taken by the Bank of England in consultation with HM Treasury, using its powers to transfer the UK business of SVB to a private sector purchaser. As required by the Act, the Bank of England consulted the Treasury, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority on its assessment that all required conditions for that transaction had been met.
We have been able to achieve this outcome—the best possible outcome—in short order without any taxpayer money or Government guarantees. There has been no bail-out, and the actions taken are a win for customers, taxpayers and the banking system. The transfer of SVB UK to a buyer has allowed the Treasury to limit the risk to public funds by ensuring that shareholders and creditors, rather than depositors, bear losses. To help achieve that result, the Bank of England has made a related instrument bringing about a mandatory reduction of capital instruments in SVB UK, restoring it to viability. It is my view that in this situation, the system worked as we would hope.
In order to ensure that the sale could proceed, the Government are using their powers under the Banking Act to provide HSBC with an exception to certain ringfencing requirements. That was crucial to ensuring that a successful transaction could be executed, that the bank has the liquidity it needs, and that deposits and public funds are protected.
The outcome will provide security for some of the UK’s most innovative, fast-growing firms. The UK’s tech and life sciences sectors are world leading, hundreds of thousands of people are employed in them, and they make a very substantial contribution to the economy as a whole. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear throughout that we will look after our high-tech sectors, and that is what we have done. The Bank of England has confirmed that, as a result of the swift, decisive action we have taken, depositors will be able to access their accounts. It is worth reiterating that, as the Governor has said, the wider UK banking system remains safe, sound and well capitalised.
In concluding, I place on record my sincere thanks to my fellow Ministers across Whitehall, to officials at the Treasury and to regulators. They worked tirelessly through the weekend to grip the situation, to deliver this solution and to prevent real jeopardy to hundreds of the UK’s most innovative companies.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement today. Labour welcomes the announcement by HSBC that it will be buying the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB UK, in a rescue deal. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said over the weekend, the UK life sciences and tech sectors play an indispensable role in driving growth and innovation across the economy.
Now that those who bank with SVB UK have some certainty, the Government should examine how we got here in the first place. For example, when SVB UK was granted a separate banking licence last year, what assessment did the Treasury and Bank of England make of the significant liquidity risks arising from its deposit base being a small number of high-value corporate deposits?
The effects of the collapse of SVB are still being felt across the UK market and the Minister said in his statement that HSBC’s purchase of SVB has “supported confidence” in the UK financial system. What assessment has he made of the fact that London’s FTSE 100 was down today, while the UK bank index fell by almost 5% this morning and by more than 10% over the weekend? What will the disruptions in the banking sector mean for confidence, the wider economy and the ability of high-growth companies to access the credit that they need to thrive?
The Minister also said that disruption in the tech sector has been “forestalled”, but what reassurance can he provide today that, under HSBC’s ownership, the bank will continue to be able to support early-stage tech and life sciences businesses in the UK? He also said that HSBC has been given an exemption from certain ring-fencing requirements. Will that be a permanent exemption?
Perhaps the most important question, I am sure the Minister will agree, is this: how can we avoid this happening again? With inflation at record levels, the Bank of England has had to take steps to tackle rising prices, but Ministers must make an assessment of the risk that sharp changes to UK interest rates might pose to our financial system. It is time for the Government to launch a systemic review of the risks that sharply rising interest rates pose to the UK financial sector, and I hope the Chancellor will return to the House having made that assessment.
Finally, the events of this weekend further underline the importance of ensuring that UK start-ups have access to the patient capital that they need to grow, as proposed by the Labour party’s start-up review. I hope that the Minister will return to the House soon to update us with a broader assessment of the risks to the financial sector arising from sharply increasing rates, and with a plan to address the longer-term problems holding back growth and the provision of patient capital to our growing businesses.
Andrew Griffith
I think concealed within that was grudging support, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to add her voice to those of so many in the sector who have welcomed this announcement today, which provides the important confidence and stability that are needed. She raised the point that SVB UK has a separate banking licence, and it is precisely because of that mechanism that our regulators and the Treasury have been able to take the action we have taken over the weekend.
I think the hon. Lady understands the disruption and volatility in the sector, but she should be reassured that the Governor of the Bank of England has confirmed that this is not indicative of systemic risk. I can confirm that, in order that the Silicon Valley Bank, now within HSBC, can provide the broad range of services that our life sciences and tech sector value so much, the exemption from the ring-fencing requirements will be permanent.
The hon. Lady asked about a systemic review. Of course, these are always opportunities for us to learn and look again, but, as I said in my opening remarks, the system has worked as intended.
Finally, and with the greatest of respect, we on the Conservative side of the House need no lessons on patient capital. We are unlocking capital for our important tech and life sciences. Only last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), brought to this House regulations to remove the charge cap and to allow our pension funds to invest in some of the fastest-growing sectors of our economy.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I put on the record my gratitude to the Minister, his colleagues and officials, and to people at the Bank and in the City in general, who have obviously worked flat out all weekend to deliver what turns out to be the best possible outcome in these difficult circumstances?
On the importance of the sector to the UK economy, did the Minister and the Bank treat this situation any differently because of the sector in which SVB was operating, or would they have tried for the same sort of solution for a bank in any sector? Was the Minister as concerned as I was about reports that investors required the firms that they were funding to put money into the bank as a condition for investment? Finally, given that other banks have collapsed in the US—other small banks, including one that specialised in crypto—does he think that crypto is in any way contributing to financial instability?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend, one of my predecessors and the Chair of the Select Committee, for her support and comments. The degree of concentration in a particular sector is unusual—it was an unusual feature. The business model of Silicon Valley Bank in the UK was different from that in the US, partly because of the tight regulations that we have here. For that reason, I have not seen any evidence that the banking of crypto-asset companies was something that contributed. Rather, once the Fed had taken its action, we saw the impact on the bank here. That is why it was right for the Bank to act to give us the space to protect that bank and to achieve the outcome that we announced this morning.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
One of the key lessons of the 2008-09 financial crash was that the conduct of business and liquidity issues could very quickly morph into systemic risk with contagion across a variety of transmission channels, so I very much welcome the speedy way in which the SVB UK issue was resolved over the weekend. However, that bank’s business model—and it is not alone—involved it holding a large number of low-interest-bearing bonds at a time of rising bond yields. It was required to sell those at a loss, which exacerbated the liquidity problems that it had. Would it not be prudent now to ensure that our regulators have another look at UK banks to ensure that comparable low-interest-bearing assets are stringently priced and marked to market to ensure that tier 1 capital is just that, and of sufficient quantity and quality that any liquidity problem does not morph into an insolvency and system risk problem?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the speed and decisiveness with which the whole Government have come together, worked together and acted to deliver this outcome—that is kind of him and it is appreciated. If I may, we should not conflate some of what we read about the balance sheet in the US with the regulated balance sheet in the UK, which was a separately regulated balance sheet. Again, on the business model in the UK and the backing, and the bonds and collateral that were being held, I am not aware that their forced sale, and the losses on it, were a contributory factor. The reality is that we saw a withdrawal of deposits. The Bank had the ability, because of the relatively ringfenced balance sheet, to protect the bank and take the necessary action. Had the Bank not done so, we could have been in a very different situation, so we were right to act as we did.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I strongly welcome the decisive intervention that has been described, which has saved many UK tech businesses and jobs. Will my hon. Friend consider how the responsiveness of UK regulation, which was demonstrated overnight, combined with the strength of the City of London and our tech sector, provides an opportunity to attract more businesses to do their financing in the UK and means that they do not need to go overseas to get the financing that they require to start up and grow?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend, who does such good work for the science and technology community through his Committee, is absolutely right. The technology and life sciences sectors want our Government to be joined up and decisive, and to remove unnecessary regulations, while still operating in a high-quality regulated environment. We now have the opportunity to go a lot further—to deliver the Edinburgh reforms and to combine our aspirations to be a science superpower with the ferocious financing strength that we have here in the United Kingdom.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I commend the quick and effective action. However, although the collapse of SVB in America was partly due to liquidity issues, there is also the issue of the changes that were made to the threshold at which banks are considered systemically risky, which increased from $50 billion to $250 billion. That meant that SVB could continue in America without the very focused regulation that might have spotted this problem earlier. Does the Minister think that the Edinburgh reforms present any similar risks, and will he say a little about the exemption from ringfencing that he announced today for HSBC? Is he content that that does not present any risks either?
Andrew Griffith
I must be very careful not to comment on matters as they relate to the United States. SVB UK was a separate bank. It was regulated here, and it was as a result of that regulation, and the fact that we have taken back control of our financial regulatory rulebook, that we were able to act so decisively. The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not talk about matters in the United States.
In respect of ringfencing, it was the view of the Bank of England and the Treasury, in the circumstances and to protect public funds, that to provide a permanent exemption for what is a very small part of the much larger HSBC—I think less than 1% of its pro forma clients on an enlarged basis will be former Silicon Valley Bank clients—was appropriate. I do not think it puts inappropriate levels of risk in the system. By streamlining the rulebook, and by bringing back control and dispensing it to UK regulators, with accountability to Parliament—she will know about that through her membership of the Treasury Committee—I think we can have better regulation and deliver better outcomes for the sector.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and all who were involved in the rescue. It was vital that we acted urgently to prevent the fear and the risk of contagion that were apparent over the weekend. Does he feel that the fact that SVB UK was a separately ringfenced bank and that ringfencing is a UK-specific regulation brought to bear any protection for SVB UK? He will recall only too well, as I do, that Lehman sucked capital out of the UK when it was in dire straits, which to a large extent caused the ultimate contagion. Will ringfencing continue to protect the UK banking sector as we go forward, even through the Edinburgh reforms?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters, and I can give her that assurance. It was constituted as a subsidiary in the UK, it had its own separate balance sheet and it was regulated as such. Because of that fact, the Bank was able to make the decisive intervention it did. There were assets within the subsidiary to which we were ultimately able to restore viability by successfully finding, over the weekend, a very large bank—Europe’s largest bank—to step in and buy, and to put its balance sheet behind, this entity.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
While we are all full of admiration, particularly for all our officials who worked through the weekend to make this happen, I am afraid I find the statement a bit long on self-congratulation and a bit short on explanation. What questions has the Minister asked about why this happened? Why were all these companies banking with this particular bank and what cultural aspects were there to the case? What do we need to uncover that will be important for the sustainability of both banking and technological firms in the future?
Andrew Griffith
It is not uncommon for banks to have a particular specialism. Labour Members have worked to bring forward regulations that will help us have more credit unions, which tend to have a geographical concentration, and there are agricultural banks and other wholesale banks, so it is not of itself an unusual feature. In this case, we were able to take action precisely because of the UK regulatory structures and the interventions we can make. We will learn any lessons, but this is a Government who are on the side of technology companies and the life sciences, and we have been proud to deliver this outcome—this important certainty—and to remove the jeopardy they otherwise faced at the opening of business this morning.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What estimate had the Bank of England made of the health of SVB before the events of the weekend?
Andrew Griffith
It would not be right for me to answer on behalf of the Bank of England, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me. We have an independent regulator that looks at these matters. The Treasury Committee regularly takes evidence from the Bank of England, and I am sure it will do so in future.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure that many firms across the United Kingdom will welcome, and breathe a sigh of relief at, the decision that was made over the weekend. However, this was done in haste. I ask the Minister: what kind of due diligence was done by HSBC when arranging this takeover, and is he sure that we are not walking into a situation similar to what we had with Lloyds and HBOS in 2008, when a quick decision led to a domino effect in the banking system and resulted in bail-outs by the taxpayer?
Andrew Griffith
I cannot speak for the due diligence that was done for HSBC, but it has got itself comfortable with it. We should also understand the relative scale of HSBC, which is an extraordinarily well-regulated, global and diverse bank. My understanding is that if we add all of the important clients of Silicon Valley Bank UK, which we had in the front of our mind as we sought to act over the weekend—if I may say so, we make no apology for acting in haste, because haste was absolutely the required procedure in this particular case—they would in their entirety be less than 1% of the overall client base of HSBC. With respect, I do not think that was the case in the examples to which the right hon. Member referred.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The sighs of relief across South Cambridgeshire this morning were so loud that they were almost deafening. Dozens of my technology companies, which had been in contact with me over the weekend, thought they were going to be wiped out this morning, but they can now operate as normal because of the decisive action by the Government. I very much congratulate the Minister, the Bank of England and the Treasury on that action.
I have also had questions about whether this is a sign that all the reforms of the financial system in the wake of the global financial crisis have failed or are failing. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that this is not a sign of the reforms failing, but a sign that they are working, and that without the reforms we would not be able to do a rescue in this way? Can he also confirm that the reforms that are coming through—the Edinburgh reforms—will not make future collapses more likely, or future rescues more difficult?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the sector, and it is due to past reforms that we were able to take this decisive action. Parliament has given—in extremis, and with the agreement of the Bank of England, the PRA, the FCA and the Treasury—sweeping powers to enable this sort of transaction to happen at great pace. Let me be clear that it is the shareholders and creditors of the bank, not depositors or the taxpayer, who have lost. In the system that we have, that is the right outcome, and I am pleased we were able to achieve it.
The Edinburgh reforms are designed to give this country the ability to continue to grow and to be internationally competitive with other markets, while adhering to the highest quality regulatory standards, and with the UK at the absolute cornerstone of organisations such as the Financial Stability Board. They will not put any more jeopardy into the financial system. Indeed, having good healthy businesses that grow and are profitable is the best way to avoid jeopardy.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
First pension funds and liability driven investments, now the collapse of SVB UK. Is it not time for a systematic review of the risks that sharply rising interest rates pose to the UK financial sector?
Andrew Griffith
With the greatest of respect to the hon. Lady, the issue here was a subsidiary of a US bank, and I will not be commenting on US policy, interest rates or anything else from this Dispatch Box. The important fact is that we were able to restore the bank to viability and, over a small number of hours and days, to find a successful buyer. We did that because of the strength of the UK regulatory system, and because of the conviction of this Prime Minister and this Chancellor that this is a critical sector, and one of the ways that we will continue to grow the UK economy.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I pay tribute to the exemplary orchestration of all the different stakeholders and decision makers that the Minister led over the weekend. It is helpful to distinguish between decisions taken by the American Government and by ours in respect of this bank. The American taxpayer is guaranteeing the deposits of SVB account holders there; in our case, another bank has bought them and the taxpayer is safe. I pay tribute to the Government for that. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on American policy, but in the hypothetical instance of another bank in the UK failing, or another sector getting into trouble, will he give an indication of his thinking on whether the taxpayer would ever need to step in? Will he guarantee that that will not happen?
Andrew Griffith
I am not going to offer my hon. Friend that guarantee, as that would not be prudent or the right thing to do. I can guarantee that this Government will do everything possible to reconcile the needs of protecting customers, protecting financial stability and protecting the taxpayer. It is of great note that we were able to do that in this transaction, and if such an issue were ever unfortunately to reoccur, all our energy would be devoted to precisely the same ends.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I very much welcome the purchase of Silicon Valley Bank UK by HSBC this morning, not least because I am a former employee of a company that had exposure to the bank on both sides of the Atlantic and whose chief executive officer was one of the signatories to the letter sent to the Chancellor on Saturday. Statements were made by the UK bank on Thursday and Friday, and if depositors had relied on the assertions made in those statements, and if the purchase had not gone through this morning, those depositors would have incurred losses. Will the Minister confirm whether that constitutes a breach of the regulations? If it does, will there be any sanctions for people identified as having committed those breaches?
Andrew Griffith
I am delighted that the hon. Lady’s constituents benefit from the certainty. It was a terrible weekend for everybody who was a depositor or who was in some way dependent on SVB UK. That is why it was so important that we not just achieved this outcome and that the regulatory structure and laws laid down by Parliament allowed us to do so, but that we were able to act decisively. I welcome the fact that another great British bank, HSBC, has stepped in, and I wish it and all the employees well.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on particular things that were said. Fortunately, we are in the position that every depositor has been made whole, and therefore that issue does not arise.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I massively congratulate my hon. Friend and His Majesty’s Government on this news. I spent three years of my life pushing the post-crash banking recovery and resolution frameworks through Europe, so I can absolutely confirm that the fact that there are now powers in so many countries to rapidly resolve failing banks without the need for taxpayers’ money is in very large part due to the outstanding global leadership of the post-crash Conservative UK Government and the actions of the now Governor of the Bank of England. Can my hon. Friend confirm that going forward, the Government will ensure that our financial services regulators not only work to reduce systemic risk, but back our financial services sector in its efforts to invest in our country and help our economy grow?
Andrew Griffith
I can absolutely give my right hon. Friend that assurance. In doing so, let me also pay tribute to her work as a Member of the European Parliament between 2009 and 2017, when she led on banking reform.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Minister said that SVB UK was a subsidiary of the American bank, but in this country a separate banking licence was given to SVB UK. May I therefore push him on the risk assessment around liquidity? When the banking licence was given, what risk assessment was conducted, particularly given the concentration of a small number of corporates in the deposits to SVB UK?
Andrew Griffith
That is, with respect, the whole point: it was a separate subsidiary. It did have a separate banking licence here and it did participate in the regulators’ stress tests here. There is risk in any financial system. What this House and our diligent regulators are focused on is achieving the right balance of risk. From time to time there will—as there was with the failure of the bank in the US—be factors that lead to challenges in any risk-based system, notwithstanding the good work by the regulators and the stress tests having been applied.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my historical entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an adviser to a technology venture fund and as a board member of a number of portfolio companies, many of which will have had financing arrangements with Silicon Valley Bank, HSBC and other financial institutions.
On behalf of the technology businesses in Bedfordshire, I add my thanks to the Minister and his team for their swift response over the weekend. He will be aware, however, of general concerns about global liquidity for the technology sector. What is his assessment of how the SVB experience at home and abroad may exacerbate those and test the resilience of the UK tech sector? Although HSBC is a great bank—indeed, I am a customer of HSBC—Silicon Valley Bank succeeded over many years precisely because it was so closely attenuated to the needs of early stage and growth stage businesses. Will my hon. Friend consider what steps he can take to encourage the emergence of new challenger banks to repeat the successes and avoid the failures of SVB in the UK?
Andrew Griffith
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are seeking to support challenger banks to make sure we have a vibrant and competitive sector. That includes looking at issues such as the level of MREL—minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—and making sure that we have proportionate banking regulation that is relevant to the risk involved. He makes important points about the culture and capabilities of SVB UK, which is why it was so important that we had to very swiftly find it a home. I have spoken today to the chief executive of HSBC, as well as to the former chief executive of SVB UK. They are both enormously excited about the future. They see this as a platform for mutual growth, taking our brilliant life sciences and technology businesses international and to a new scale. The Government will not rest until we have mobilised capital to turn us into that science superpower.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister said, “The system worked.” Certainly, it was a huge relief that the estimated 50% of the UK tech sector that banked with SVB UK could today pay their suppliers and staff. However, surely that highlights the lack of diversity of capital available to the UK tech sector, and our dependence on the US. In the last two years, Silicon Valley Bank’s deposits tripled, but its exposure to Treasuries, and therefore to interest rate rises, went up ninefold. Is the Minister seriously saying that no one on this side of the Atlantic should have noticed that, and that it had no impact on what happened?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member talks about dependence on the US, but if that is her concern she should welcome this deal wholeheartedly, because we have taken a former subsidiary of a US business and made it part of a thriving and successful UK business.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Bravo to the Minister and, in particular, the resolutions team at the Bank of England, who have been honing their skills for many years and finally got the chance to put them to use. Further to the question from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), does the Minister understand the relief felt by many that the taxpayer, once again, has not been asked to step in and, in effect, nationalise private sector losses? Does he agree that for a capitalist economy to function, even in the most painful of circumstances, it has to be allowed to do what it does best—recycle distressed assets?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is quite right to talk about risk and capital systems’ proficiency at recycling capital to productive uses. That is also an enormous focus of this Government and is why our No. 1 priority was to seek to make a private sector transfer of the bank if we could, to protect the taxpayer while also protecting customers and the solvency of the financial system. I am glad that we were able to achieve this outcome. We will continue to do so by having fit-for-purpose regulations in this space.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Does the Minister agree that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank highlights the dangers associated with deregulation in the banking sector—something that the UK Government have continually touted as one of the benefits of Brexit?
Andrew Griffith
I do not accept that for one minute. We are only just bringing forward the deregulation. The Financial Services and Markets Bill is not even on the statute book. The regulations that affected this situation are precisely the same regulations that we have inherited from Brussels.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is when we act in haste that we need to think about the long-term consequences of the regulatory actions taken. I join others in the House in commending the Treasury, wider Government and the Bank of England. The Minister said that HSBC has been given a waiver on certain ringfencing rules. I ask this as someone who, before arriving at the House, worked at HSBC on ringfencing in detail and many other things: will the Minister explain that waiver in more detail? More importantly, will that waiver on ringfencing apply more widely to other banks caught by ringfencing regulations?
Andrew Griffith
As my hon. Friend well knows, the Government are undertaking a review of ringfencing. There is a call for evidence on how we could reform that, following the work of Sir Keith Skeoch into how we mesh the ringfencing arrangements put in place back in 2008 with the more modern resolution arrangements. We will learn the lessons that we can from this but, as I said at the beginning, in this case we have been able to achieve an outcome that has protected customers, the taxpayers and the financial system.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I, too, had many representations over the weekend from early stage tech companies in and around Cambridge, and they will be much relieved by the news today. To echo the point made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the reason they banked with SVB was its close understanding of their particular needs. What guarantee can we have that HSBC will be able to replicate that?
Andrew Griffith
How this bank is run going forward is a matter for HSBC. However, HSBC is a prodigiously successful global institution that has bought SVB on the back of a desire to grow and support that sector, and it sees that this Government are firmly on the side of that sector. We see the aspiration and the opportunity now that we have taken back control from Brussels, and we are going to make an enormous success out of our tech and life sciences sectors; we are on their side.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I congratulate him and all those who have worked to resolve this matter so quickly. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank will have left its customers worried about managing their cashflows; obviously, cashflow problems cause the majority of businesses to fail. In his statement, he mentioned that customers would continue to have access to their deposits. Will that be seamless and continue right away, so that business continuity is safeguarded?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend and I again pay tribute to the hardworking officials from the Treasury and the regulators, and to my colleagues across Government, who pulled together rapidly to deliver this solution. There may be teething issues as the integration takes place, but having spoken to HSBC and the management of SVB UK, they are open for business today and serving their clients. That is the outcome that the Prime Minister and Chancellor were absolutely right to seek in time for this morning’s opening of business.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I would like to press the Minister on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). At least two tech companies in my constituency were almost affected; I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for acknowledging my urgent letters over the weekend. One of those companies, based in St Albans, moved £200,000 from its US account to its UK account based, in part, on the statements made about SVB being an independent entity, regulated in the UK—statements that bank made to try to give the reassurance that it would not be affected. However, it then did become affected. Will the Minister clarify whether SVB would or should have known that those statements were either incorrect or misleading? If he is not prepared to comment on that particular example, will he commit to a process to look into that issue? Does he believe that there should be consequences in future for banks that make incorrect and misleading statements that put companies at risk?
Andrew Griffith
As I said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I do not think it is appropriate that I make comments from the Dispatch Box about the veracity or otherwise of statements made by an individual; I hope the hon. Lady respects that. It is, of course, right that anyone in a position of leadership in business takes responsibility and acts in good faith. Although there may well be lessons to be learned in time, the important point is that her constituents and their companies are able to operate, have access to their deposits and continue to do their work of growing important sectors of the economy. I hope the whole House will welcome that.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Congratulations to the Chancellor, the Minister and all those involved in resolving this problem, which tech companies in Gloucester and Gloucestershire will greatly appreciate. Does the Minister agree that this shows the importance of having Europe’s largest bank, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, regulated and headquartered here in London, and that this also shows that this Government will always support business? Lastly, since the Chancellor extended start-up loans in September, will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government have effectively helped create and sustain 33,000 new businesses?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our actions demonstrate that we are on the side of business. We mean it when we say that we want to make the UK the best place to start, grow and run a business, and, I will add, to list a business, because he is quite right that HSBC is an enormously successful global business that is headquartered in the UK and proudly listed on the UK stock exchange.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
In the light of recent events and the risk of contagion, can the Minister spell out exactly what action he is taking to ensure that we do not see a contraction in the availability of credit to these specialist, fast-growing companies? What more will he do to facilitate access to appropriate credit to help our groundbreaking tech industries to develop?
Andrew Griffith
It is a core focus for the Government to ensure that our scaling-up businesses get access not just to credit, but to capital at every level through their life: the Prime Minister has made that a core priority. That is why we are bringing forward many reforms that will open up capital markets to growing businesses, and it is why we will continue to look at reforming packets of trapped capital, whether that be in respect of insurers, through the reform of solvency II, or through looking again at pension arrangements to make sure that savers and potential future pensioners can benefit from the wonderful opportunities from emerging businesses in the tech and life sciences sector.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
If SVB UK had not been bought, there would have been a huge impact on the most high-tech jobs in our economy, and indeed on the jobs of the future. I pay tribute to the Minister, the whole Government and the Bank of England for their work over the weekend. I also thank the Minister for engaging with me. Does he agree that because of the outsize impact that the failure of SVB might have had, it is all the more important that the Government look at what made SVB so appealing to these vital jobs and at how we do more of it where it is right and less if it is dangerous?
Andrew Griffith
I completely agree. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the subject, which reflects his background; he is absolutely right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The Government are to be commended for the speed with which they have acted; it is indeed good news. I very much welcome the purchase of SVB by HSBC, which looks set to protect UK investors and start-ups alike, but what further assurances can the Minister give this House about what the 3,500 British customers will receive in terms of the long-term plan? How long is the Government’s commitment to steadying the ship?
Andrew Griffith
The Government are always committed to steadying the ship. That is why we take a prudent approach to running the economy and why the Prime Minister’s priorities are to reduce inflation, to pay down debt and to grow. To grow requires capital. That is why we have a long-term commitment to good regulation, which will minimise the prospect of events like this happening again. It is also why, with the expertise on the Government Benches, we are so focused on ensuring that we have the right ecosystem to allow our brilliant entrepreneurs, our scientists and our innovators the fertile capital with which to grow to their potential.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
For transparency, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my former career in the City, as per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the swift and decisive action by His Majesty’s Government in solving this issue and in reducing the risk of potential contagion to the wider economy. Will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient regulatory work is taking place to stress-test the liquidity of UK banks and the Government bond markets, given the clear risk highlighted by this case and by the leverage in recent liability-driven investment cases?
Andrew Griffith
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend and the House that commitment. We will learn lessons if there are lessons that need to be learned, but we should not look past the fact that today we have protected customers, protected the taxpayer and protected the security of the financial system. That is so important to our businesses. Many, many people will go home from work today much more confident, with the jeopardy of the weekend having been removed as a result of the decisive action that this Government have taken.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for more than three quarters of an hour.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 250 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 248 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
As Members can see, there is a great deal of interest in this debate. The first few speeches will come in at six minutes, but if everyone else could start to think in terms of four or three minutes, that would be very helpful. I now call the Secretary of State to move the motion for Second Reading.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the first page of the Bill, the Home Secretary has made the phenomenal statement that it may not be compatible with the European convention on human rights. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 confers on the Government a duty to ensure that
“the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention”.
Ensuring that compatibility is not only a basic moral requirement of the Government, but a practical necessity. The Government have said that this is critical legislation, and they are therefore presenting to the House clauses that they know will probably be ruled unlawful by a court of law. Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Government want to have a fight with the courts, they should have a fight with the courts, and not waste the House’s time with this nefarious legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for the point of order. This is not something on which the Chair can adjudicate, but I am sure that it will be part of the debate, which I think we should start now.
Suella Braverman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The British public know that border security is national security, and that illegal migration makes us all less safe. They know that the financial and social costs of uncontrolled and illegal migration are unsustainable. They know that if our borders are to mean anything, we must control who comes into this country and the terms on which they remain here. That is why stopping the boats is my top priority, it is why the Prime Minister made stopping the boats one of his five promises to the British people, and it is why, according to the opinion polls, the British people back the Government’s Bill: they back it by more than two to one.
This does not mean that, as some assert, the British people are xenophobic. Since 2015, the British people have provided refuge for nearly half a million people through global, safe and legal routes. The British people are fair, compassionate and generous. Millions of legal migrants, including my parents, have experienced this warmth at first hand. But the British people are also realistic. They know that our capacity to help people is not unlimited.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Does the Home Secretary think that the British public want to see children and pregnant women detained in immigration detention centres? I do not believe for a minute that they do, but that is what is in the Bill.
Suella Braverman
This is what the British people want to see: they want to stop people dying in the channel. That is what this is about. It is naive to suggest that it is lawful and appropriate to make this journey. People are dying, and we need to stop it. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the United Kingdom in small boats, 45,000 of them last year alone. They have overwhelmed our asylum system. Local authorities simply do not have the housing or the public service capacity to support everyone.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way so early in her speech. Is she personally satisfied that there is enough provision for vulnerable children in the proposals that she is presenting tonight?
Suella Braverman
I will go into this in detail, but yes, vulnerable people will be receiving appropriate safeguarding and welfare support.
The British taxpayer cannot continue to fork out £6 million a day on hotels to house illegal arrivals. Let us be honest, the vast majority of arrivals—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of 40. The vast majority were not pregnant women or young children. All travelled through safe countries such as France in which they could and should have first claimed asylum. Many came directly from safe countries such as Albania. When we try to remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to thwart removal.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that when 70 Labour MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition, signed a letter campaigning for the release of dangerous foreign criminals who we want to remove from the UK, they exposed themselves as pro-open borders and unlimited immigration and put themselves on the side of the criminal rather than on the side of the public?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend puts it very well. What we have here is naive do-gooders who would rather campaign to prevent the removal of foreign national offenders, one of whom tragically went on to kill another, than vote in favour of our measures that would have toughened up the sanctions on foreign national offenders.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I am going to make some progress.
The reality is that the system is simply unfair. It is unfair on the most vulnerable, it is unfair on those who play by the rules and it is unfair on the British people, so we must change the law and we must stop the boats. For too long, those of us voicing concerns about the effects of uncontrolled, unprecedented and illegal migration have been accused of inflammatory rhetoric, but nothing is more likely to inflame tensions than ignoring the public’s reasonable concerns about the current situation. The public are neither stupid nor bigoted. They can see at first hand the impact on their communities and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
Speaking of acting responsibly, I want to put something on the record. It is perfectly respectable for a child of immigrants like me to say that I am deeply grateful to live here and that immigration has been overwhelmingly good for the United Kingdom, but also to say that we have had too much of it in recent years and that uncontrolled and illegal migration is simply bad.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the last couple of years, when we have seen exponential growth in this human trafficking across the channel, the money that people can ill afford to spend on these criminals has been used to make their trade even more effective, putting yet more lives in danger?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend puts it very well. We now have a sophisticated, well resourced, multibillion-pound trade of illegal people smuggling and human trafficking. It is pan-national and it needs to stop.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I am going to make progress.
Despite the reasonable concerns that we have raised on several occasions, I am, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) before me, subject to the most grotesque slurs for saying such simple truths about the impact of unlimited and illegal migration. The worst among them, poisoned by the extreme ideology of identity politics, suggests that a person’s skin colour should dictate their political views. I will not be hectored by out-of-touch lefties, or anyone for that matter. I will not be patronised on what are the appropriate views for someone of my background to hold. And I will not back down when faced with spurious accusations of bigotry, when such smears seep into the discourse of this Chamber as they did last week. Accusations that this Government’s policies, which are backed by the majority of the British people, are bigoted, xenophobic or a dog whistle to racists are irresponsible and frankly beneath the dignity of this place. Politicians of all stripes should know better, and they should choose their words carefully.
Those who cast their criticism of the Bill in moral terms ignore certain truths. First, they ignore that we have a moral duty to stop the boats. People are dying in the channel. They are taking journeys that are unsafe, unnecessary and unlawful.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree with the Home Secretary that we should all choose our words carefully in this debate, so what part of “carefully” does her statement about an “invasion” constitute, or the exaggeration by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) in her use of the word “exponential”?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think in this particular case it is a matter for the individual person making the speech. I will say at the outset, though, that we are clearly dealing with a very emotive subject and I ask everybody to use temperate language rather than inflaming the situation. [Interruption.] We will leave it there.
Suella Braverman
I appreciate your instruction to all our colleagues, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The way to stop these deaths is to stop the boats. Secondly, the critics ignore the fact that our policy does in fact guarantee humanitarian protection for those who genuinely need it. Our policy is profoundly and at its heart a humane attempt to break the incentive that sustains the business model of the smuggling gangs. People pay thousands of pounds to make these journeys to the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the Secretary of State probably knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. Many people across the world are persecuted, discriminated against or abused physically, and have to leave their countries. Some of those, as she will know, are living in other countries, and it is taking so long to process their applications so that they can get here. She probably shares my opinion that is important that true asylum seekers get the opportunity to come here. Can she assure me and the House that those who are persecuted or discriminated against will have the opportunity to come here for asylum?
Suella Braverman
We have a proud and extensive tradition of offering refuge to hundreds of thousands of people who apply according to our system and our criteria. I am proud of the refuge and security that we have provided to people fleeing the very circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
By ensuring that people do not remain here, we are removing their incentive to make the journey in the first place. But crucially, if people are truly in need of protection, they will receive protection in Rwanda. Critics overwhelmingly fail to acknowledge that fact. Let us be clear: Rwanda is a dynamic country with a thriving economy. I have enjoyed visiting it myself, twice, and I look forward to visiting it again.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary also worried that the criminal gangs that are exploiting people in this dreadful way for great profit may also be linked to other types of serious crime and helping to finance other destabilisation?
Suella Braverman
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend raises a very worrying fact about what we are seeing. When I have spoken to police chiefs around the country, they tell me that criminality—particularly drug supply and usage—is now connected to people who came here illegally on small boats in the first place.
Thirdly, Rwanda is a fundamentally safe country, as affirmed by the High Court. It has a proud track record of helping the world’s most vulnerable, including refugees, for the United Nations.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
People who are same-sex attracted and trans people are not covered by anti-discrimination laws in Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary think that makes it a safe country for gay people and trans people?
Suella Braverman
I am sure the hon. and learned Lady has read the High Court judgment, which is an exhaustive and authoritative analysis by senior, learned judges of how our world-leading Rwanda partnership complies with international obligations, including the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. It has been deemed to be a proper, lawful partnership. I refer her to the judgment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I have to make some progress. I have taken quite a lot of interventions, I am afraid.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Richard Graham
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. I find it odd that so many Opposition Members are trying their best to trip her up on a policy that is incredibly important to every community in this country. [Interruption.] Although they try to shout me down, let me say that my Gloucester constituency is a happy, cohesive, multiracial and multi-ethnic society with a primary school that has more than 50 different nationalities. I know, because I speak to them, that most ethnic minority communities are very sensitive to getting the balance right. If we get it wrong, they will feel the backlash more than anyone else. It will not be felt by SNP MPs who do not have asylum seekers in their constituencies. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I want not just temperate language but temperate behaviour.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise on how we might correct the record? The perplexing and misleading statement made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is profoundly unhelpful in the context of this debate.
Richard Graham
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. No one in this House wishes to cause any offence. If I have done so, of course I apologise. We have two hotels full of asylum seekers in my constituency, and I would be very interested to know how many hotels full of asylum seekers there are in the constituencies of SNP Members. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I have a couple of points before we resume. Interventions are now eating into the time allotted to Back Benchers, so some simply will not get in. Points of order are doing the exact same, so I caution Members, if they are to raise points of order, to make sure they are for the Chair. [Interruption.] The answer to this point of order, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) knows, is that Members are responsible for their own contributions. If anything untoward is said, they should correct the record at the earliest opportunity, which I believe Mr Graham has done.
Suella Braverman
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). He is absolutely right about Scotland where, until recently, only Glasgow was taking asylum seekers. Compared with the other nations of the United Kingdom, Scotland has taken a disproportionately low number. He is also right to talk about the risks we face as a country that is harmonious, happy with itself and cohesive. If we do not deal with this problem, we will face serious problems of community tension and challenges to community cohesion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I am going to make some progress. A lot of Members want to contribute to this debate.
The United Nations has confirmed that, globally, there are 100 million displaced people. Our critics simultaneously pretend that the United Kingdom does not have any safe and legal routes and that these routes should also be unlimited. The small boats crisis demonstrates that countless economic migrants are willing to take a chance to come here in search of a better life. How many of them do the Opposition think we have to take to stop the boats?
The Opposition have not been able to answer that question. Those arguing for open borders via unlimited safe and legal routes are, of course, entitled to do so, but they should do so honestly. They should not try to deceive the public by dressing up what is an extreme political argument in the fake garb of humanitarianism, nor should they pretend that the UK does not have safe and legal global routes. In recent years, our country-specific routes have provided refuge for 150,000 people leaving autocracy in Hong Kong, 160,000 Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s horrific war and 25,000 Afghans escaping the Taliban. Another 50,000 people have come to the UK via routes open to people from any country, including the UK resettlement scheme, which includes community sponsorship, the mandate resettlement scheme, and, crucially, the family reunion route for those with a qualifying family member in the UK.
We are proud of those safe and legal routes. When we stop the boats, we will look to expand those routes. The Bill introduces an annual cap, determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees that the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system that considers local authority capacity for housing, public services and support.
The Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention. We can maintain detention thereafter under current laws, so long as we have a reasonable prospect of removal. This reflects the existing common law position, consistent with article 5 of the ECHR. The Bill places a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and, significantly, narrows the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said:
“Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe third country.”
As a result, 18,000 people were considered inadmissible to the UK asylum system and just 21 people were returned. That is just 0.1%. What has changed with this Bill, and what percentage of those deemed inadmissible does the Home Secretary expect to be returned?
Suella Braverman
I have to correct the right hon. Lady on the fallacy under which she is operating. We are returning people who do not have a legal basis to be in this country. There are many ways to look at the numbers. Since the Prime Minister’s announcement, for example, we have returned 600 people to Albania. Last year alone, we returned 14,000 people. It is a fallacy to suggest that there are no returns and that we are somehow not removing people who do not have a right to be here.
Only those who are under 18, who are medically unfit to fly or who are at real risk of serious and irreversible harm will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely after removal. When we passed our world-leading Modern Slavery Act 2015, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I wonder if my right hon. and learned Friend would make a point of clarification. She has implied that people will be unable to claim asylum in the UK and will be removed immediately, or potentially after 28 days’ detention. Paragraph 5.1 of our memorandum of understanding with Rwanda requires the United Kingdom to be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers. Will she explain what that screening will be, if not the screening of claims?
Suella Braverman
We have an extensive system of screening for everyone who arrives in the UK via a small boat. That is effectively what our Manston centre is designed for. People undergo security checks, biometric checks and any other identity checks, so we undertake an extensive screening process here.
Suella Braverman
I am sorry, but I am going to have to make some progress. When our world-leading Modern Slavery Act 2015 was passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. That Act of Parliament was an important step forward in protecting vulnerable people from the abuses of human trafficking and modern slavery, and I am incredibly proud of it. But last year there were 17,000 referrals, which took on average 543 days to consider. The most referred nationality in 2022 were citizens of Albania, a safe European country, a NATO ally and a signatory of the European convention against trafficking. In 2021, 73% of people detained for removal put forward a modern slavery claim, which compares with a figure of just 3% for those not in detention. We have also seen a number of foreign national offenders who, after serving their sentences for some of the most despicable crimes, such as murder and rape, have, on the point of removal, put in a last-minute claim of modern slavery to thwart their deportation. The fact is that our modern slavery laws are being abused.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell this House how many of that 17,000 increase was made up of British people, including British children? Until this year, they made up the largest group of people who have increased in the numbers—we are talking about British children. Will she also point out to the House exactly who makes the referrals into the human trafficking system in our country? Is it, in fact, done under her auspices, as Home Secretary, and those of the Home Office? Can people claim it, or is it actually her office that has to say whether they can do so?
Suella Braverman
What we have seen is that a large and growing proportion of modern slavery claims have been made by people who have arrived here illegally. And, as I just mentioned, there are foreign national offenders, people who have served their criminal sentences, who have upon the point of removal put in a last-minute modern slavery claim precisely to thwart their deportation. We work very closely with local authorities and other bodies to ensure that referrals are made into the mechanism. This is why the Bill will disqualify illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules in this way.
Given the mischaracterisation of the Bill by Opposition Members, I would like to make a few things clear. The Home Secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, will we remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK. Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18.
With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40. Removing them will be our primary focus, but we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal. It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
Those critics who say that this Bill will be found to be unlawful said the same thing about our partnership with Rwanda—the High Court disagreed. Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been and continue to be involved in the Bill’s development. The UK will always seek to uphold international law and we are confident that this Bill will deliver what is necessary, within those parameters. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act requires Ministers to give a view on the level of legal certainty on a Bill’s compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is a unique UK requirement, not part of the ECHR itself. A section 19(1)(b) statement simply means that we are unable to say decisively that this Bill is compatible with the ECHR. It is clear that there are good arguments for compatibility but that some of the Bill’s measures are novel and legally untested. Those on the Opposition Benches seem to forget that section 19(1)(b) statements were made by the Labour Government on the Communications Act 2003 and by the Lib Dems on the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012. That did not mean that those Bills were unlawful and this statement does not mean that this one is either.
Claims that the Bill will breach our refugee convention obligations are simply fatuous. The convention obliges parties to provide protection to those seeking refuge. It does not require that this protection be in the UK. Illegal arrivals requiring protection will receive it in a safe third country such as Rwanda. Moreover, article 31 of the convention is clear that individuals may be removed if they do not come “directly” from the territory where their freedom is threatened. Denying those arriving illegally from France, or any other safe country in which they could have claimed asylum, access to the UK’s asylum system is, therefore, entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the convention.
The Opposition say that this Bill cannot work because we lack the capacity to detain all small boat arrivals. We are expanding detention capacity, with two new immigration removal centres, but clearly we are not building capacity to detain 40,000 people, nor do we need to. The aim of the Bill is not to detain people but to swiftly remove them. Australia achieved success against a similar problem of illegal maritime migration. It reduced annual crossings from 20,000 to hundreds in a matter of months, in large part by operationalising swift third country removals. It did not need tens of thousands of detention places either. If we can demonstrate to people willing to pay thousands of pounds to illegally enter the UK that there is a reasonable prospect that they will be detained and removed, we are confident that crossings will reduce significantly.
In addition, arguments that our approach cannot work because Rwanda lacks capacity are wrong. Let me be clear: our partnership with Rwanda is uncapped. We stand ready to operationalise it at scale as soon as is legally practicable. It is understandable that Rwanda has not procured thousands of beds to accommodate arrivals while legal challenges are ongoing.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary has just admitted that Rwanda does not have thousands of places. She will know that the Rwandan Government have talked about taking a few hundred people and that the Rwanda High Court agreement says that cases need to be individualised, yet she is expecting to find locations for tens of thousands of people expected to arrive this year. She has no returns agreement with France or any other European country, so where is she expecting to send the tens of thousands of people expected to arrive in the UK this year?
Suella Braverman
The right hon. Member should read our agreement with Rwanda before she makes a comment such as that. If she did read it, and if she read the judgment from the High Court, she would see both that our agreement with Rwanda is lawful, proper and compliant with our international obligations, and that it is uncapped and potentially Rwanda could accommodate high numbers of people that we seek to relocate there. Rwanda has the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people if necessary.
Critics of this Government’s plan to stop the boats would have more credibility if they offered up a plan of their own. Let us look at what the Opposition plan is. They would increase the funding to the National Crime Agency to disrupt trafficking upstream; never mind that the Government have already doubled the funding for the NCA precisely for that purpose. The Opposition say that they would go harder on the people smugglers; never mind that Labour voted against our Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which introduced life sentences for people smugglers. The Opposition speak about establishing a cross-channel taskforce; never mind that we have already set up a small boats operational command, with more than 700 new staff working hand in hand with the French.
The Opposition say that they would get a new agreement with the French; never mind that only last week our Prime Minister struck a historic multi-year deal with the French to increase the number of gendarmes patrolling the French beaches. The Opposition say that we should do more with partners around the world; never mind that the Government have returns agreements with Albania, Georgia, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Serbia. As for our world-leading agreement with Rwanda, we all know what the Opposition would do about that—they would scrap it.
The Opposition say that the Government cannot be trusted with our borders, but the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition and some 70-odd Labour MPs—a third of the parliamentary party—signed letters to stop dangerous foreign criminals being kicked out of Britain. Tragically, one of those criminals went on to kill another person in the UK—a shameful day for the Labour party. How easy it is for the Opposition to say, “Never mind the British public”, believing that they know better, arrogantly, dismissively. The truth is that they do not have a plan. What is even worse, they do not care that they do not have a plan. If they listened, they would hear a clear, reasonable and resounding message from the British people: we like controlled immigration, we welcome genuine refugees, but we do not want uncontrolled or illegal migration—enough is enough, stop the boats. That is the call from the British people—that is their cry for action to all of us who serve them in this place. This is a Government who listen—they listen to the people and, aided by this Bill, we will stop the boats.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while affirming support for securing the UK’s borders, reforming the broken asylum system and ending dangerous small boat crossings, declines to give a Second Reading to the Illegal Migration Bill because the Bill fails to meet its core objectives, lacks any effective measures to tackle the criminal activity of people smuggler gangs, fails to eliminate the backlog of outstanding asylum cases, will increase the number of people in indefinite accommodation in the absence of return agreements, leaves victims of modern day slavery without any protections while frustrating efforts to prosecute traffickers, fails to reform resettlement schemes to prevent dangerous journeys and undermines international co-operation to provide support for those fleeing persecution and conflict.”
Most people want to see strong border security and a properly managed and controlled, fair and firm asylum and refugee system, so that we have proper grip along our borders and so that we do our bit, alongside other countries, to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. That is what Labour believes in but, right now, after 13 years of Conservative Government, we have none of those things. Our border security has been undermined because they let the criminal, smuggler and trafficking gangs rip, and the asylum system is in chaos, letting everyone down. All that they can offer is this Bill, which makes all those problems worse.
Last year, 45,000 people travelled on dangerous small boats, up from just 280 four years ago. That is criminal gangs, making £180 million a year from putting lives at risk, yet over the same period convictions of people smugglers have halved. There has been a massive increase in the gangs who are operating along the channel, and a massive drop in the number of criminals caught. The Government are still refusing to go after the gangs, and the deputy chair of the Conservative party thinks that we should not even bother.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Member if he will now support our proposals for a cross-border police unit to go after the criminal gangs.
Yvette Cooper
Immigration law is important, but the problem is that, at the moment, a huge amount of immigration law is not even enforced. There has been an 80% drop in the number of people who have been unsuccessful in the asylum system and been returned—an 80% drop since the Conservatives came to office. At the same time, our asylum system, under the Tories, is in total chaos. Only 1% of last year’s cases have had even an initial decision. Home Office decision making has been cut by 40%, the backlog has trebled in the space of just a few years, and thousands of people are in costly and inappropriate hotels.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I am also grateful for the kind comments that she made about me in an interview at the weekend regarding modern slavery work. She has just referred to the backlog in asylum cases. If she thinks that the current figure means that the system is in chaos, what is her description of the system under the Labour Government of which she was a member, which had a backlog in asylum cases of between 400,000 and 450,000?
Yvette Cooper
The former Prime Minister and former Home Secretary is experienced enough to know that that is not an accurate characterisation of what happened. By the time the Labour Government left office, the backlog of initial decisions was just a few thousand. Now it is 160,000, and in fact it has trebled in the past few years as a result of the complete failure of the Conservatives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the former Prime Minister; she and I have asked each other questions for so many years that I have to let her do so again.
Yvette Cooper
The important point that the former Prime Minister addresses is that in the late ’90s there was an issue about what had happened with the Bosnian refugee crisis and many others. In fact, it was the action that the last Labour Government took that got a grip of the system and addressed some of the challenges. We took action to make sure that we could have both border security and a system that provided for refugees and those in need of asylum. The former Home Secretary will also know, because she was responsible for introducing the modern slavery law, which I support, that the Bill rips up many of the provisions at the heart of that legislation. I hope that she and I would agree that it should be possible for our country to have strong border security, and to have strong, fast, and effective measures, which, at the moment, the Government do not have, to deal with asylum cases swiftly and speedily, but also to make provision for those who have fled persecution and conflict, and provide support for those who have been trafficked and those who are the victims of modern slavery. I hope that she agrees with me that the Bill does the total opposite.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend, like me, get really annoyed when she hears Government Members talk about a Labour Government 13 years ago? Does she, like me, wonder why the Government, having been in charge continuously for 13 years, like to look all the way back, rather than address their own failures?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that the Conservatives have to take responsibility for 13 years in government—13 years in which we have seen refugees left in limbo, even though they have fled persecution and conflict. Those who are not refugees and have no right to be here are never returned; there has been an 80% drop in returns of unsuccessful asylum seekers. At the same time, there has been a 40% drop in refugee family reunion visas, the Afghan resettlement scheme has been shamefully frozen and children are left with no way to rejoin family. Time and again, Ministers just want to blame someone else. All the Conservative Members just want to blame someone else, but they have been in charge for the last 13 years. They keep telling us the asylum system is broken—well, seriously, who broke it?
We need urgent action to stop the dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. This Bill is a con that makes the chaos worse. It will not do the things the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have promised. It will not stop the criminal gangs or dangerous crossings; in fact, it makes it easier for those gangs. It will not return everyone; in fact, it makes it harder to get return agreements. It will not clear the asylum backlog; in fact, it will mean tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels. It will not deliver controlled and managed safe alternatives; instead, it will cut them back.
The Bill will also rip up our long-standing commitment to international law. It will lock up children, remove support and safe refuges from women who have been trafficked, and deny citizenship to people like Mo Farah. The last law the Government passed on this subject, just nine months ago, made everything worse—dangerous crossings went up, delays went up—and now they seriously expect us to do all the same things again.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK was one of the instigators of the 1951 refugee convention, because before the war the UK Government failed to allow Jews fleeing the persecution of the Nazis into this country. The Board of Deputies of British Jews this week said:
“Today’s British Jewish community is descended from refugees… We have significant concerns at the potential for newly proposed migration legislation to breach…the Refugee Convention.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could be in breach of the convention if we pass the Bill today—in breach of international law and our own legacy in this area?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. Those are damning words that we have heard from the Board of Deputies and many other organisations on the impact this legislation will have.
At the heart of the Bill, there is a con. The Prime Minister has pledged that anyone who arrives in the UK without the right papers will be detained and swiftly removed, “no ifs, no buts”. But where to? Not to France, because the Prime Minister failed to get a returns agreement, and he has failed with other countries as well. The Bill makes it harder to get returns agreements, because it undermines compliance with the international laws and standards that those other countries are committed to upholding—standards that we used to be committed to upholding.
People will not be removed to Rwanda either; the Home Secretary has admitted already that that scheme is failing. The taxpayer has already written a £140 million cheque. The Home Office says it is unenforceable, with a high risk of fraud and no evidence of a deterrent effect. The Israel-Rwanda deal increased trafficking, rather than reducing it. At most, the Rwandan authorities say that they may take a couple of hundred people, but 45,000 people arrived last year.
Yvette Cooper
The Immigration Minister shakes his head, but he said in a statement in December in this House that the initial promise was to receive 200 people and the further preparations had not been made.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am pleased with the moderate way in which my right hon. Friend is putting forward a very sound argument, in absolute contrast to the rhetoric that we got from the Home Secretary, and she hits an important nail on the head: on the front page of the Bill, we have the statement of the Home Secretary that she cannot certify that the provisions of the Bill
“are compatible with the Convention rights”,
yet in the schedule to the Bill, countries or territories to which a person may be removed include fellow signatories to the European convention on human rights. What legal advice has my right hon. Friend seen that we would be able to do that or that they will accept returns from the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In order to have co-operation on return agreements, on alternative arrangements for processing or on any of those things, there must be proper standards in place, and other countries must respect those standards if they are to make agreements with us. Therefore, pulling away from the European convention on human rights makes those agreements more difficult, despite the fact that having those international agreements in place is one of the most important steps to dealing with the challenges we face.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes).
Caroline Lucas
Does the right hon. Lady share my deep concern about the placeholder clause 49, which seeks to legislate to ignore ECHR interim orders lodged against this Government’s inhumane, morally abhorrent plans, to get around the fact that what the Government are doing is not compatible with our convention obligations? Does she agree that that will undermine our global standing and make it harder to make returns agreements or anything else that she describes?
Yvette Cooper
I think it adds to the chaos within this piece of legislation that the Government have not worked out what they want to do. As a consequence, they are undermining our reputation as the kind of country that stands up for the rule of law and leads the way in expecting other countries to follow the law and to do their bit as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I give way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who has been patient. I will then make some progress before I take further interventions, because I am conscious of the time.
Paul Holmes
As is her right, the shadow Home Secretary is outlining her objection to this piece of legislation. She asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) whether he would back her proposals, so could she do the House a favour and outline her proposals—or is this another example of her consistently opposing and not coming up with any fresh ideas herself?
Yvette Cooper
Indeed, I am very happy to. I hope the hon. Member will support our proposal for a cross-border police unit to go after the criminal gangs and bring up those convictions, which have totally collapsed on the Conservatives’ watch. I hope too that he will support our proposals for a fast track for Albania and other safe countries, which Ministers are not doing. [Interruption.] This is interesting, because the Immigration Minister says, “Oh, we are already doing it,” except that they are not. Only 1% of the cases from Albania have been decided. The Home Office is not taking fast-track decisions on safe countries such as Albania, for all the promises the Government made. Even where they have the powers to take action, they are not doing it. I hope the hon. Member will also support our proposals to work on not just return agreements with France and other countries, but family reunion arrangements and reforms to resettlement schemes to make those work.
Instead, we have a Bill that is a con and that will make things worse. We have been clear that the Home Secretary has nowhere that she can say she is going to return people to. Last year, the Government made exactly the same promises when they said that 18,000 people would be inadmissible because they had travelled through safe countries, yet just 21 people were returned. Of those the Home Secretary said were inadmissible, just 21 were returned. Now she wants to say that everyone is inadmissible, but if she still manages to return just 0.1% of them, the reality is that she will have tens of thousands of people left. She is simply creating misinformation and conning those on her Back Benches, who have been cheering for the things she says but will see them unravel in practice.
The Home Secretary says this legislation means that she can return people to designated safe countries such as Albania, but she can do that already. She does not need this law to do that. She already has the power to fast-track Albanian and other cases. We have been calling for it for months, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees proposed it two years ago and the Prime Minister even promised it before Christmas, but it is not happening and 99% of those cases are still in limbo.
Just 15 people who had arrived in small boats were returned last month. That is the equivalent of 180 a year, when over 10,000 people came from the designated safe country of Albania. The real problem is that Conservative Home Office Ministers just do not have any grip on the system that they are supposed to be in charge of.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My focus goes back to clause 49, which looks specifically at interim measures of the Strasbourg court. We know that those measures have no actual effect in UK law, but UK courts may take them into account when passing their own judgments. Do the shadow Home Secretary and the Labour party support me in wanting to see that clause beefed up to make sure that the Home Secretary is under a statutory duty to remove unlawful migrants?
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have put that question to the Home Secretary, because he appears to disagree with his own Conservative Government’s policy and to be off on another bit of freelancing for himself, further undermining any possibility of getting international agreements, whether on returns or on anything else. He is planning to make it even harder to get the kinds of returns agreements we need and to get the kind of international co-operation we need as well.
Ministers say that they plan to lock everyone up before they are returned, and the Bill says that everyone is included. Children, unaccompanied teenagers, pregnant women, torture victims, trafficking victims, and people such as the Afghan interpreters and young Hongkongers we promised to help—all locked up because they arrive without the right papers. The Home Secretary has not said where, or how long for. It might possibly be at RAF Scampton, but the Tory right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) does not want that. It might possibly be at MDP Wethersfield, but the Tory right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly)—the Home Secretary’s Cabinet colleague, the Foreign Secretary —does not want that either. In other circumstances, there might be pressure on the Home Secretary to put the site in her own constituency, except for the fact that she does not actually have one right now.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A responsible Opposition must have a plan. We all agree that we have to stop these boats, but the Opposition’s plan appears to be to process asylum applications even more quickly, so that more people will come; to process them in France, where an unlimited number will want to come; or to have this ridiculous idea of a cross-border police force. Everybody knows that on average, people get caught once on the beaches by the French police, they are not detained and they come back the very next night—they all get there. The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that the only way that we are going to stop these boats is the Government plan: to detain them and deport them to Rwanda.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member is just kidding himself if he thinks that any of the Government’s plan is actually going to happen, or if he thinks it is actually going to work.
Clause 9 deals with what happens to all of the people who cannot be returned—the tens of thousands of people who, according to the Government, are expected to arrive after 7 March. It says that the Home Office will provide those people with accommodation and support: in other words, they will go back into asylum accommodation and hotels, but they will never get an asylum decision. Tens of thousands of people will be added to the Home Office backlog every year, only it is going to be a permanent backlog that the Home Office is never even going to try to clear. Those who would have been returned after their asylum claim was refused now will not be, and those who would have been granted sanctuary will be stuck in limbo instead. That is tens of thousands of people just added to the asylum backlog, costing billions of pounds more—up to £25 billion over the next five years.
As for the backlog the Prime Minister promised to clear, it is going to get worse, not better. Effectively, the Government have concluded that the Tory Home Office is so rubbish at taking any asylum decisions on time that they have decided to just stop doing them altogether, and they are hoping that no one will notice. Last week, I said that the Government might have decided not to call this an asylum system any more, but everyone is still going to be in the system nevertheless. Well, I got that wrong, because I have read the Bill’s explanatory notes again, and they say that:
“Subsection (2) amends section 94 of the 1999 Act…so that the term ‘asylum-seeker’ covers those whose asylum claims are inadmissible by virtue of Clause 4 of the Bill.”
In other words, the Government are amending the law so that all the people who they are going to exclude from the asylum system are still going to be called asylum seekers after all, and are still going to be in the asylum system.
You could not make it up: more chaos, more people in the asylum system, even fewer decisions taken, more people detained with nowhere to detain them and more people stuck in limbo, with no one credibly believing that anything in the Bill is going to act as any kind of deterrent to any of the criminal gangs. The Government are chasing headlines, but it is all a huge con.
What is the price of that con? What is the price of those empty headlines—of cancelling asylum decisions, rather than getting a grip? The Government are damaging our international standing, our chance of getting new co-operation agreements to tackle the problems, and our commitments to the rule of law. They are saying that Britain, uniquely, will not take asylum decisions, yet are expecting other countries to keep doing so. They are saying that Britain, uniquely, will not follow the refugee convention, the trafficking convention or the European convention on human rights, yet are urging other countries to follow those conventions. Think, too, of the price for the people we promised to help—for the Afghan interpreters who worked for our armed forces but who missed the last flight out of Kabul, and who the Government told to find an alternative route. If those people arrive in the UK now, the Conservatives plan to lock them up, keep them in limbo, and treat them as forever illegal in the country they made huge sacrifices to help.
Think of the Ukrainian family who travelled here via Ireland, as I know some people did in the early days of the conflict, without the right papers. They could have been the family staying with me, or the family staying with the Immigration Minister. I have listened to teenagers talking about how they had 20 minutes to pack before they fled their homes, not knowing whether they would ever return or see friends and family again. Under this law, those teenagers who arrived with the wrong papers would be locked up, denied any chance to ever live or work here lawfully in the future. That is the Tories’ position: in the interests of a plan that is actually a con and will not even work. It will not work to deter the criminal gangs; it will not work to remove people, because the Government do not have the returns agreements in place, and it will make it harder to get those returns agreements. In exchange for that con that makes nothing any better, they believe that no one who arrives in Britain without the right papers in their hands should ever be able to seek protection here or live here, no matter their personal circumstances.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Which parts of France are such that people need to flee from there to seek refuge in this country?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Member knows, the majority of people who are seeking asylum and arrive in France stay in France, rather than seeking to travel to the UK. However, we believe that we should be seeking to get a returns agreement with France, alongside new arrangements on issues such as family reunion, but at the moment, the Government have so undermined their relationship with France and other European countries that they have totally failed to get any of those agreements in place, and they are making it harder to do so with this Bill. If the hon. Member believes that returns agreements are needed, or if he believes that new, alternative arrangements around family reunion or other issues are needed, he should oppose the Bill, because it will make it harder to get any of those agreements in place. The Bill is undermining the international co-operation and international law that all of those other countries depend on.
Consider what the Bill means for the young Vietnamese woman who has been trafficked into sexual exploitation, repeatedly raped and beaten by the criminal gangs who brought her here and who control and dictate her life. Under the Bill, if the police find her when they bust the brothel, she will not be able to get modern slavery support any more: she will not be able to go to a safe house or get help from the Salvation Army. Instead, she will just be locked up in one of the Home Office detention centres. If she co-operates with the police for a bit, she might get some temporary support, but if that police investigation is closed, her world comes crashing down again. Here is what the Prime Minister tweeted about all of that:
“If you come to the UK illegally…You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections…you will be…DENIED access to the UK’s modern slavery system”.
Think on that. Bringing people into the UK illegally in order to control and exploit them is exactly what trafficking is. Cross-border trafficking is, by definition, a major form of modern slavery, yet this Government are proposing to just wish it away—to exclude it entirely from the modern slavery system, as if the very fact of crossing borders somehow stops it from being slavery at all. The message from the UK Government to the criminal trafficking and slavery gangs is this: “Don’t worry, so long as you bring people into the country illegally, we won’t help them. In fact, we will help you: we will threaten those people with immediate detention and deportation, so that you can increase your control over those trafficking victims.” This Bill is a traffickers’ charter.
The previous Prime Minister but three, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) promised to end modern slavery, and I respect the work that she did, but this one—the current one—wants to enable it. How low has the Tory party fallen? It is even worse for children. This Bill allows the Home Secretary to lock them up indefinitely, with all safeguards removed. It allows her to remove unaccompanied children without even considering the details of their case and whether they have fled from persecution. Once they hit 18, the Bill requires her to remove them, even if the only family or support they have in the entire world is here in the UK, and even if they have been exploited and abused by criminal gangs. The Bill denies them any protection from modern slavery and makes them forever illegal in the UK.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does the shadow Home Secretary share my concern that there was not pre-legislative consultation with the Children’s Commissioner? Why does she think that was the case?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, and the Children’s Commissioner is appalled by some of the measures in the Bill and the lack of consultation, too. Remember those hundreds of children missing from asylum hotels, who have almost certainly been picked up by the smuggler and trafficking gangs? This Bill makes it even harder to get those kids back, and it makes it even easier for those gangs to increase their control. It means no sanctuary, or just temporary support at most for Eritrean girls, who will most likely have been raped or exploited, or for the 12 and 13-year-olds I met a few years ago, brought here by gangs from Afghanistan, or for children who endure what happened to Mo Farah. They would be denied refuge; they would be denied citizenship; they would be locked up and threatened with return. The Home Secretary may not want to admit it, but that is what this Bill does. It denies citizenship forever for people like Mo Farah.
The Tory party once voted to introduce safeguards on the detention of children, and it was right to do so. The Tory party once voted to introduce the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and it was right to do so, but what has happened to the Tories now? How low have they fallen and how far down are they trying to drag our proud country? That is what this Bill is: an attempt to drag our whole country down. They know that the Bill will not work to stop boat crossings or the gangs. They know it will not clear the backlog and that it will make the chaos worse. They know it will stop children and trafficked people getting help and will play into the hands of criminal gangs, and they know it will undermine our reputation in the eyes of the world as a country that believes in the rule of law, but they do not care, because this is about political games. This is about a lame Prime Minister making promises that he has no intention of keeping. All he wants is a dividing line, all he wants is to pick a fight, and all he wants is someone else to blame. He does not care if our international reputation or some very vulnerable people pay the price.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady accept that many on the Government side of the House—me included—will vote for this Bill this evening, but with the clear understanding that we wish to see amendments to it as it progresses through Parliament, particularly in relation to women who are trafficked and to children? Our votes are being given in good faith tonight, in the expectation that the Bill can be amended. Does she accept that?
Yvette Cooper
I do recognise that there are Members on the Government Benches who are deeply troubled by many of the measures in this Bill. I recognise that, and I think that reflects quite how far the Conservative party has fallen, and I am sorry that that has happened. This is an area where we should be able to build consensus, not division. In past eras, there has been consensus, for example on support for Syrian refugees. If we go back generations, there was consensus on support for the Kindertransport. There has been that support in place. We have also had past consensus about practical, sensible measures around border security, too.
It should be possible to build that consensus, and we would work with the Government to do that, but that is not what we are getting from the Conservative party, the Conservative Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Instead, we have a Home Secretary who is happy to ramp up the rhetoric, rather than ever to build a calm consensus around a practical plan that sorts things out. How desperate have things become if what they are doing is ramping up hostility and hatred towards the victims of trafficking and slavery? That is not leadership. Britain is better than this.
Labour will vote for action to stop the gangs and to prevent these dangerous boat crossings. We will vote for a new cross-border police unit, for fast-track decisions and returns to clear the backlog and end hotel use, and for new agreements with France and other countries on returns, on family reunions and on reforming resettlement. We will vote for action that rebuilds border security and restores a properly functioning, credible asylum and refugee system that is properly controlled. We will not vote, however, for more chaos. We will not vote for a traffickers’ charter that lets criminal gangs off the hook, that fails to tackle dangerous boat crossings and that locks up children and leaves some of the most vulnerable people undermined. We will not vote for this Bill tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Theresa May will get six minutes, then we are on to the Scottish National party spokesperson, and then there will be two others with six minutes. The speaking limit will then drop immediately to three minutes in order that we can get as many people in as possible.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Having been Home Secretary for six years I understand the pressures to deal with illegal migration. In my day, people were getting into the backs of lorries and the backs of cars of British tourists returning across the border at Calais. I did a deal with the French, and the numbers went down. I have to say that I suspect it is partly because of the success of that policy that we now see people coming in small boats. I welcome the new deal that has been done with France, because it will have an impact, but what should be clear from this situation is that whenever we close a route, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way. Anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with illegal migration once and for all is wrong, not least because a significant number, if not the majority of people who are here illegally do not come on small boats; they come legally and overstay their visas.
As well as working to reduce illegal migration, I introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as has been mentioned. That world-leading legislation dealt with traffickers and people who were being enslaved here in the United Kingdom, including British citizens, but it was never just a Bill about slavery in the UK, as we saw with the prosecution under that Act of a British woman for trafficking women from Nigeria to Germany.
I must say there has been some loose talk about people smuggling and human trafficking, and using the two terms in the same breath as if they are the same—they are not; they are two separate crimes. Someone paying their own money to be smuggled across the border is not a victim of human trafficking, which includes coercion and exploitation. Nobody wants to see our world-leading legislation being abused, but the Government have to set out the clear evidence if they are saying that there is a link between that Act and the small boats, and so far I have not seen that evidence. Remember, nearly 90% of modern slavery claims are found to be valid. That does not include recent applications, but that figure should give cause for concern.
I am concerned that the Government have acted on Albania and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when neither has been in place long enough to be able to assess their impact. I do not expect Government to introduce legislation to supersede legislation recently made, the impact of which is not yet known.
Beyond those issues, I have three main concerns with the Bill. The first is the blanket dismissal of anyone who is facing persecution and finds their way to the UK, but illegally. Examples have been given, but a young woman fleeing persecution in Iran, for example, would have the door to the UK shut in her face. The UK has always welcomed those who are fleeing persecution, regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route. By definition, someone fleeing for their life will, more often than not, be unable to access a legal route. I do not think that it is enough to say that we will meet our requirements by sending people to claim asylum in Rwanda. That matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage, and because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation—not because we are British, but because of what we stand for and what we do.
My second concern relates to the implications for modern slavery. I am grateful for the fact that No. 10 has offered to discuss that with me, and I hope that we can find some resolution, but as it stands, we are shutting the door on victims who are being trafficked into slavery here in the UK. If they had come here illegally, they would not be supported to escape their slavery.
The Home Office itself recognises the damage that the Bill would do, stating in the explanatory notes to clauses 21 to 28, on public order disqualification:
“These provisions are subject to a sunsetting mechanism so that they can be suspended should the current exceptional illegal migration situation no longer apply”—
in other words: “We know this isn’t ideal, but we’ve got lots of people coming illegally; we’ve got to do something, so the victims of modern slavery will be collateral damage.” I welcome the acknowledgment that this part of the Bill could be reversed, but it could also then be reinstated. The Home Office knows that the Bill means that genuine victims of modern slavery will be denied support.
My third concern is one that has been echoed by other former Home Secretaries of both major parties—namely, whether the policy will work. For it to work, a number of things have to fall into place. There has to be no possibility of successful legal challenge. It requires the provision of extra detention capabilities and the assurance that no one will be able to abscond. It requires the individual legal cases relating to deportation to Rwanda to be resolved in the Government’s favour. It requires Rwanda to process more than the fewer than 250 asylum claims that it currently processes every year, and to provide accommodation for and accept the many thousands of extra people. It requires returns agreements on returns with countries around the world, and the ability to ensure those returns.
Dealing with immigration is never easy. There is never a simple answer to any problem, and it is never possible to take one’s eye off the ball. It requires constant vigilance and also international co-operation.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning human trafficking. I conducted a Court of Appeal case on an unduly lenient sentence, and we got the sentence increased. It is vital that everybody understands the difference between human trafficking and people smuggling. If we do not get such basic terms right, how on earth will we get the policy right?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his work and his recognition of the difference between people smuggling and human trafficking. It is imperative that we use careful language in relation to these issues, and that we recognise that the Bill removes support from the victims of trafficking and modern slavery.
I know that the Government are working hard to find a solution to the problem of the small boats, but I think that a number of point shed doubt on the approach that is being taken. I look forward to working with them on this issue to ensure that we can deal with the problem of dangerous sea crossings and save people’s lives while maintaining our reputation as a country that welcomes people fleeing persecution and, crucially, our reputation as a world leader in dealing with modern slavery.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This refugee ban Bill is nothing but an abhorrent dog whistle, and my colleagues and I on the SNP Benches do not support it. We do support, however, the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and a functioning and fair immigration system, which is a million miles away from what we have just now.
A mosaic based on a Norman Rockwell painting hangs at the United Nations. It features the faces of people of all backgrounds and is inscribed with the caption:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
It is called “the golden rule”. Britain fails completely and utterly in the application of that golden rule.
I ask hon. Members and everyone listening to close their eyes. Place yourself in the shoes of a person so terrified that they must flee for their lives—a person of faith who finds themself in the wrong country, perhaps; or a woman activist facing repression in Iran; a mother desperate to protect her daughter from female genital mutilation; a boy hiding after seeing his family murdered, and facing forcible recruitment or death. You leave the world you know, travelling across mountain and desert, in trucks and cars, or on feet bleeding and sore. You face setbacks, abuse and exploitation, and use every resource you have.
Finally, you step into a flimsy dinghy, because it is the only way to cross the English channel to get to the uncle who you know lives in the UK. He is your only family member who is still alive. There is no other route. When you arrive—so close to him—what happens? You are seized, imprisoned, not permitted access to a lawyer or given the chance to plead your case. You are whisked away from sanctuary so close that you can almost touch it. This Tory Government are prepared to ignore the plight of that persecuted person of faith, those women, that child, and so many others in circumstances such as theirs. Those people will have no chance of ever finding sanctuary in the UK. The door will be closed permanently. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The Bill is being rushed through with no proper impact assessment, on the back of legislation that is barely even in place—barely even cold—brought in last year. The Home Secretary clearly declares on the front page of this Bill:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
This is the illegal Illegal Migration Bill. It is not legal, not just, and not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to the European convention on human rights.
As much as the Government would have us believe it, the ECHR is not a Eurocratic creation but a system championed by Winston Churchill. One of its key drafters was David Maxwell Fyfe, a former Conservative Home Secretary and one of the prosecutors at Nuremburg. The Bill is bang on form for a UK Government who have previously sought to break international law in “specific and limited ways”, but it is even more dangerous than that. The Bill undermines the fundamental international obligations that the Government’s predecessors established under the 1951 refugee convention following the horrors of world war two. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has condemned the Bill, stating:
“The legislation, if passed, would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances.”
I am sure that we have all been inundated with briefings and contacts from constituents and organisations on this despicable piece of legislation. I will try my best to reflect the many concerns that have been raised with me. Overwhelmingly, I thank the constituents of Glasgow Central, who—as one would expect from the city that gave us the Glasgow Girls, the Glasgow Grannies and the neighbourhood solidarity of Kenmure Street—are resolutely opposed to this cruel Bill.
The Bill is unfair in many respects, but particularly in having retrospective effect. Parliament has only just begun the process of debating this hideous legislation, yet it will impact on people who arrived from 7 March, when the Bill was introduced. People cannot yet know for certain what the Bill will look like, yet they are already severely impacted by it.
The provisions affecting children are among the more disturbing parts of a very bad piece of legislation. Clause 3(2) states:
“The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.”
An unaccompanied child. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Children and Young People’s Commissioner Bruce Adamson has stated his clear opposition to this Bill. He said:
“The UK is required to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance, under Article 22 of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UNCRC also requires the UK to ensure that children are protected from exploitation and abuse, and afforded support for recovery. This Bill violates those obligations and many others. Its enactment would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of human rights treaties.”
The Bill reaches into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clauses 15 to 18 seize powers and undermine the clear protections that Scotland’s devolved institutions have established to protect all our weans.
Barnardo’s has rightly queried why the Bill gives the Home Office the power to accommodate children when hundreds of children are currently missing from Home Office accommodation and unaccounted for. It also wants to know whether an unaccompanied child who has arrived in the UK irregularly will be routinely placed into specialist foster care as a matter of policy or whether they will be eligible for adoption. If two siblings are trafficked into the UK when one is 12 and the other is 18, will both be detained and removed from the UK and denied any protection? If an unaccompanied child is trafficked into the UK and granted protection through the national referral mechanism, and a family member who they may not even have met arrives in the UK irregularly at a later point, will that disqualify the child from modern slavery protection? This whole area is deeply problematic, and even more so as the Bill allows for removal as soon as an unaccompanied child turns 18.
It is clear that the inadmissibility rules in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 do not work. Expanding inadmissibility creates a situation where there is no right of appeal: “Do not pass Go. Do not collect a meagre £8 a week in an overcrowded hotel. Go directly to immigration jail and await removal.” There are some very tight grounds for a technical appeal, but the potential for people to be removed to places where they will be at risk of persecution is real. I would love to know how the Home Secretary will know the details of a person’s claim if it is not going to be fully assessed.
The Bill talks in clause 6 about the potential for a person to be at risk of persecution due to their sex, their language, their race, their religion, their nationality, their membership of a social or other group, their political opinion or
“any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
Yet if there is no application, declaration or assessment, no ability to seek legal advice, and a presumption of inadmissibility, how will she know?
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who I often disagreed with when she was Home Secretary and Prime Minister, is correct to be concerned about many of the mechanisms in the Bill. It is beyond all logic and reason that the Home Secretary should rip up these important protections. The Bill will also override the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, against our will.
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association says that clauses 21 to 28, concerning modern slavery and trafficking, clearly breach the UK’s obligations to victims of trafficking under article 4 of the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking. The provisions will deprive victims of their right to recovery, expose them to re-exploitation and facilitate the work of trafficking gangs. I have met people who have been supported through TARA—the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance—in Glasgow, and I have seen how damaged some of them have been. It breaks my heart to think that this Government would lock them up and give them no support whatsoever.
Amnesty International has stated that the Bill creates a “charter for human exploitation”, placing many of the most marginalised people firmly in the hands of human traffickers, modern-day slavers and other abusers. The Bill widens the power imbalance between those being abused and their abusers, and it makes it far more difficult for people ever to break free. In so doing, they would risk being removed from the UK permanently, and you can bet that their abusers will use that threat over them. Why on earth would the Home Secretary consider this a sensible idea?
The clauses on entry into and settlement in the United Kingdom are brutal. There is no entry and no chance of settlement, permanently—forever. A person can never enter the UK if they once met the four conditions the Home Secretary is setting for illegal entry, or if they are a family member of that person. Talk about holding the child accountable for the sins of the father. I understand that that applies even if the child was born here. That will surely have the wider impact of hitting people well into the future who may wish to come as tourists, to work or to study. They may have no knowledge of the previous banning order. Why would the Home Secretary wish to deny them that opportunity? What message does she thinks this pulling up of the drawbridge sends out to the world?
Clause 51 outlines the capping of safe and legal routes. These proposed routes are to be brought forward in regulations. The Home Secretary is dangling a carrot that that may happen at some point in the future—maybe, perhaps, in the fullness of time, when parliamentary time allows. Aye, right. We need those safe and legal routes now. They are part of the solution to the small boats crisis. People who come by that route do so because there is no other option. People cannot claim asylum from abroad; they literally need to place their feet on this island. It is not by some coincidence that there are no Ukrainians paying people to come by dinghy; they can get on a plane from Poland and fly to the UK without the risk of being returned there. It is cheaper. It is safer. It is humane.
The Glasgow solicitors firm McGlashan MacKay mentioned that it was dealing with some people from El Salvador, for which there was a visa waiver scheme, so those people could get here safely. The Home Office shut it down.
Afghans do not have the privilege of getting on a plane and coming here. Just 22 people, including eight children, have been resettled in the UK under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, via referral from the UNHCR. Pathway 2 is the only route open for resettlement for Afghans who are not already in the UK.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions safe and legal routes. I am very keen that we need greater definition in the Bill, and I am also keen that we need greater safeguards for vulnerable children. Like the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hon. Lady has focused exclusively on extreme cases of people who may fall foul of the Bill, and that is why we need those additional criteria. However—again, just like the shadow Home Secretary—the hon. Lady has made no mention of people who come across the channel who are not genuine asylum seekers and have no genuine, credible claim to come to the United Kingdom. She seems to assume that everybody coming across the channel is one of those vulnerable people. They are not, so what would she do about those people genuinely abusing our hospitality?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman knows that the vast majority of people who come over are accepted as asylum seekers and get their refugee status. He also knows that without those safe and legal routes, the question that he asked the Home Secretary at the Home Affairs Committee remains unanswered. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will not even ask to find out whether these people are genuine; everybody is deemed to be some kind of fake.
Returning to the Afghan scheme, which does not work, I spoke on Friday to my constituent Zakia, who has been trying to reunite with her sister since the fall of Afghanistan. Her sister has had the Taliban enter her home and beat her. She has played by the rules—as the Home Secretary set out and says that people should—and she has made an expression of interest, yet still nothing. If the Home Secretary was in that woman’s shoes, would she really sit tight in Afghanistan and wait for the Taliban to murder her? Because that is what happens to women in Afghanistan. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Capping safe and legal routes—routes that do not even exist right now—would suggest that if you are person x+1, well that is just too bad for you. It is not based on need. A few years ago, I was made aware that the visitor visa scheme for Iranians was essentially being run as a lottery, with the names being drawn of lucky winners. This Government could not run a raffle, and I do not trust them to establish this scheme in a timely or fair manner.
Alison Thewliss
If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me some experience from his constituents of how difficult it is to come from Afghanistan, I would be glad to hear it.
Scott Benton
The hon. Lady is speaking of safe and legal routes. Given that there are more than 100 million displaced people globally, I wonder whether she will be kind enough to confirm how many of those people an independent Scotland would take, what tax rises she would make to fund their public services, and how many additional people she is willing to accept in central Glasgow.
Alison Thewliss
If the hon. Gentleman knew anything at all, he would know that my Glasgow Central constituency has the highest immigration case load of any constituency in Scotland, and we are proud that that is so. I would like to know how many are being housed in his constituency. I will say, too, that Scotland has taken the highest proportion of Ukrainian refugees and the highest proportion of Syrian refugees. We have a proud history in Scotland, and we would do much, much better than this pathetic excuse for a Government.
Let me turn to the practicalities of the Bill. There is no proof that it will work any more than the Nationality and Borders Act or the hostile environment worked. We were told at the time that those things were the solution to the problems that we had, but they have evidently failed, because the Government are back here legislating again.
There is no return agreement with the EU or anywhere else. Ironically for the Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches, leaving the EU has made this much more difficult. The Bill lists European economic area countries and Albania, but a deal does not exist. There are already countries around the world where the UK Government will not return people, and others where there are no flights and no means of return. The Bill will create an underclass of people stuck in immigration limbo indefinitely.
The Bill will detain everybody arriving in a small boat for 28 days. The UK’s current detention capacity is 2,286 beds. The number of people crossing in small boats last year was 45,755. For context, the prison population in England and Wales in 2022 was just over 81,000 people.
Where on earth does the Home Secretary suggest that the number of people she wishes to detain are kept, as well as those who are deemed inadmissible but unreturnable? Will they be in facilities such as Manston, with children sleeping on the floor; in dilapidated and crumbling facilities such as Napier barracks, where covid and scabies were rife; or in hotels, which is lining the pockets of companies such as Serco and Mears but costing the Government a fortune and putting vulnerable asylum seekers at risk, such as those being housed in Erskine in Scotland, where they are being targeted by far-right groups?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is indeed right. The Erskine Bridge hotel is potentially the largest such hotel in the UK, and we have another hotel in Renfrewshire, unlike the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). This Government and Conservative Members assert that Scotland does not play its part, but that is clearly not the case. Meanwhile, Patriotic Alternative, the neo-fascist group, is blaming the SNP for these hotels being used in the first place, leading to security threats against my staff. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that any Conservative Members who support anything Patriotic Alternative has said should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. We should all be very worried about the rise of these groups and how they are being fed by the rhetoric of leaders and MPs across the way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing over there at the suggestion. It is terrifying, and it is scary. People will get hurt, and they should know much better.
Perhaps if the Home Secretary cannot fit people into more asylum hotels or shabby barracks, she will place those who have survived war and persecution on the streets and just let them wander the streets, because they will not be allowed to do anything else. The Home Secretary seems to envisage this as some kind of deterrent, but she fails completely to recognise the reasons why people flee, and the ties of family and English language that people have. Afghan interpreters have said to me, “We’re here, because you were there.” As Enver Solomon, chief executive officer of the Refugee Council has said:
“The plans won’t stop the crossings but will simply leave traumatised people locked up in a state of misery being treated as criminals and suspected terrorists without a fair hearing on our soil.”
All of this comes at a financial cost, as well as a humanitarian one, and we would have imagined that the Conservatives at least cared about that. This includes about £6 million per day on hotels—including for one of my constituents who contacted me today, who has been in a B&B for 20 months waiting on a decision from the Home Office—which is exacerbated all the way by the Home Office incompetence that I see, week in and week out, at my surgeries. It includes £12.7 million to compensate the 572 people the Home Office detained unlawfully last year, at least £120 million on the failed Rwanda deal, and £480 million to France over the next three years on top of the £250 million already given since 2014. The Refugee Council estimates that it will cost in the region of £980 million to detain people under the scheme proposed in the Bill. It is chucking good money after bad policy, and it is sickening that it costs so much to treat our fellow human beings so badly.
My constituent Patricia put it to me so clearly on Saturday. She said:
“I am not ‘asylum’, I have a name, I’m a human being and every human being has a right”.
People do not need to be an exceptional athlete like Mo Farah, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council like Sabir Zazai, a councillor like Roza Salih or Abdul Bostani, or even an Oscar-winning actor like Ke Huy Quan. Refugees are entitled to the right to lead an unremarkable life in peace and safety, to get an education and to provide for their family. It is not asking too much; it is the least anyone could expect. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The SNP wholeheartedly and unequivocally condemns this cruel, shoddy, tawdry Bill. We urge the Government to scrap it, to focus instead on tackling the asylum backlog that leaves so many of our constituents in a costly and damaging limbo, and to lift the ban and let refugees work and contribute, as they so wish to do. It has been telling that the Labour party has been so weak in its opposition to this Bill as to be played off the park by football pundits, commentators and actresses such as Cate Blanchett. My credit to the principled stance taken by Gary Lineker and his colleagues in thoroughly Kenmuring the BBC, and I bet if he had tweeted in favour of the Bill, he would not have faced the red-card worthy simulation of outrage from the Tory Benches. It seems that if you are a Tory donor, you can run the BBC, but if you oppose this pathetic excuse for a Government, they do not want you to work there.
Scotland stands against this Bill. We would not have such cruel provisions in an independent Scotland. We wish to be known for our kindness, our hospitality and our compassion, not our hard-heartedness and our cruelty. We would do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Say it loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here!
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There is a six-minute limit on the next two speakers, and then the limit will be three minutes.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
As I listen to this debate I, frankly, get more and more depressed. What we hear is an artificial juxtaposition between an open-door policy of letting everybody into this country and a suggestion that we on this side of the House are cruel and callous and do not care about people. Can I deal with that second point? It is utterly, utterly wrong. As Justice Secretary, I worked very hard to make sure that the Nationality and Borders Act could make its way through this House, and I yield to nobody in my determination to make sure that those who seek to exploit others and to profit on the back of people who are vulnerable, and who are clearly not asylum seekers but economic migrants, must be dealt with. I think this party should make no apology for wanting to make sure that that issue is addressed fair and square. That is what the people who put us here expect us to do, and that is what our constituents want us to do.
What our constituents are fed up about is the seeming inability of the system to enforce the laws we pass in this place, to get on with the job of lawful deportation and to make sure that people who overstay their visas do not stay here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, the main cause of unlawful migration is the overstaying of visas. That is not to minimise the small boats issue, but it is to put it into context. The small boats crisis, as we describe it, is actually the product of the successful approach we took to the control of lorries and the appalling incidents we saw in which many people lost their lives as a result of suffocation and other horrors. As a result, we plugged that loophole, and I am pretty sure that if we succeed in plugging this loophole, another one will emerge.
From all the evidence I know from asylum seekers I speak to in my constituency, and I do so regularly, this is a price-driven market. It is simply cheaper to come in on small boats than it is to come here by other means at the moment, and herein lies the source of the problem. The Government are seeking once again to use law where I believe it is primarily operations that matter more than anything, particularly the ability of this country to strike sensible agreements—not just with France, but with other members of the European Union—to have a managed system of return. Frankly, a quota system would make eminent sense in dealing with what is an international problem. We came together on Ukraine. Why on earth can we not come together on this?
That would make sense of clause 51, and the Government’s wish to have a debate in this House on a cap or a quota. I think that is a sensible measure, but it will only work if we extend safe routes of passage in a controlled and measured way. We have to do more on safe and legal routes. In fact, doing that would strengthen the Government’s case against those people who are choosing small boats. It is as plain as a pikestaff to me. However, that must happen in tandem with this legislation. It is no good passing this legislation unless we do those other operational things.
To deal with a particular clause, perhaps not in Second Reading tradition, I have great concern about clause 3 on the detention of children. I note that this is a power, not a duty. When powers are put into Bills, it is usually because policy makers have not actually decided what to do and whether to use them. It is a holding mechanism in order for the Government to make a decision. My strong suggestion to them, when we come to amend the Bill, is to ditch that clause and look carefully at the way we deal with unaccompanied children, families and women. There is nothing worse than ineffective authoritarianism and that is the danger of such provisions.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Government were to look at proposed new section 8AA(4)(b) in clause 29, and particularly the phrase “compelling” evidence, and to bring forward criteria that defined compelling evidence, that might reassure a number of us on the Conservative Benches that the Bill would not prevent illegal sex trafficked young women from seeking provision and protection under the Modern Slavery Act 2015?
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right. It is going to be vital that there is clear guidance. We have been here before. When it comes to modern day slavery, there has been a question about the interpretation of guidance. I know it is a vexed question for the Government, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is assiduous in these matters and that he will want to get it right, but we will have an opportunity in Committee and on Report to do so. The Bill as presented is not yet in the state that it needs to be in if it is to have the effect that I think the Government want it to have.
On the interaction between the Bill and the European convention on human rights, I hope that the Bill is not being used as some sort of battering ram to make a wider political point about the validity of the European convention. The European convention is not the problem in this case and those who think it is are setting up a massive Aunt Sally when it comes to the actual issues. Whether we are in the convention or not, domestic law, our rule of law tradition and the procedures we have under various immigration Acts—some of which I was involved in passing through this House—will inevitably impose principles of natural justice on any process. The idea that, through a blanket approach, we will engineer a battle with the courts and a battle with the European convention is misconceived and a journey on which I urge the Government not to embark.
There is no need to talk about withdrawal from the convention that British Conservatives wrote. What we need to focus on relentlessly, in dealing in a grown-up and mature way with a serious situation such as this, is ensuring that, internationally, our reputation as reasonable actors and people with whom other countries can do business, and as a place where people will want to invest, is enhanced by our approach to these issues. That is why the tone of this debate is so important. I am concerned that, in some of the utterances I hear from my party, that tone is not appropriate. We have to do better. We have to rise to the level of events. We have to get it right.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
To follow up on that point about the issue of tone, despite the strong views held about this Bill both in this House and outside by actors, football commentators and archbishops, I believe there is consensus that we all want to stop people crossing the channel in unsafe, small boats, and risking their lives in some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. The Government’s flagship immigration Bill underpins one of the Prime Minister’s five priorities to the British people. It is so important. That is why I asked the Leader of the House whether the Home Affairs Committees could carry out pre-legislative scrutiny to test the robustness and evidence supporting the Bill. Sadly, that has not been possible. It is also disappointing that we have not had an impact assessment —an equality impact assessment, or a child rights impact assessment—accompanying the publication of the Bill.
I also hope there is consensus across the House that the UK should do its bit to support those fleeing persecution and torture, sharing that responsibility with our international partners. We need to put this into context. Not every displaced person in the world wants to come to the United Kingdom and we are not facing an invasion. We know that countries such as Turkey take the lion’s share of refugees and nearly 70% of refugees end up staying in the region they come from.
So what exactly should the Government be doing about small boats? Last summer, the Home Affairs Committee published our report into channel crossings. We made the important point in the report that no one magic bullet will solve the problem. As I made clear last week, the Home Secretary is right that our asylum system is broken, but it is not the migrants crossing the channel who broke it. Poor resourcing, antiquated IT systems, high staff turnover, or too few staff have resulted in this backlog of 160,000 cases. Tackling the backlog has to be the most important priority for the Home Office.
Another key message from our report was the need for detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy to tackle this problem, rather than simple headline-grabbing announcements on Rwanda, for which there is still no body of evidence regarding the potential deterrent effect. Other recommendations included the importance of establishing a returns agreement with the European Union, extending family reunion, and creating safe and legal routes. We all know that people may travel without papers using irregular methods, but have a solid case for seeking asylum that needs to be considered under our international obligations. The Bill currently would deny that opportunity.
Positively, at the end of last week, we saw further agreement with the French on tackling small boats, albeit we still need that returns agreement with the EU. Although it is encouraging that the Government are improving their relationship with the EU, we now find them stress testing our international obligations and potentially breaking international law.
On the Bill’s specifics, its proposals present a huge logistical challenge for a Department that is not known for good project management or for being on the front foot. It has three essential pillars: detention, deportation and deterrence. Each raises serious and fundamental practical issues to which we need clear answers in order to understand how the Bill will work.
The Institute for Government has helpfully summarised the key questions. First, does the Bill adhere to the UK’s international obligations? Secondly, how does it change existing policy on inadmissible claims? Thirdly, where can the Government send asylum seekers who are deemed inadmissible? Fourthly, what does the Home Secretary consider to be a “reasonable prospect of removal”? Fifthly, what will happen to people who the Government cannot remove to another country? Sixthly, how will the Government accommodate people they have detained and how will they pay to do so? Seventhly, will the Bill deter people from crossing the channel in small boats?
I have many concerns, particularly on the provisions relating to unaccompanied children, children and families being detained, and victims of trafficking and modern slavery. The Salvation Army stated in its briefing on the Bill that modern slavery is not an immigration issue; it is a safeguarding issue. The men, women and children trafficked against their will to the UK and enslaved should not be punished for being victims, but that is what the Bill will do.
On deterrence, during the Select Committee’s visit to France earlier this year, we heard evidence that people who have arrived in northern France, having travelled thousands of miles in some cases, will not be put off when they can see the British coastline from the French beach, and have little or no knowledge of Home Office policy or British laws. Therefore, we need fully to understand how the plan for detention, deportation and deterrence will work in practical terms. I am concerned that the Bill potentially leaves the Home Office in a legal quagmire, with up to tens of thousands of people detained for a period and then bailed into a permanent state of limbo, unable to be removed, unable to have their asylum claims processed and unable to reunite with families. There is nothing specifically in the Bill about tackling criminal gangs, people smugglers and traffickers. To conclude, we all want action on small boats, but we want effective action that will deal with the problem.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Countries mean more than their borders. National character, shared heritage and the institutions that give that history life matter. But borders matter too, for they are what mark the territory that defines citizenship, with its implicit entitlements, responsibilities, opportunities and duties, and the plain fact is that our kingdom’s borders are being breached day after day with impunity. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have entered Britain illegally, 45,000 of them in 2022 alone. Seventy-four per cent. are men under 40 and 100% have travelled through safe countries, where they failed to claim asylum, to get here. Accommodating them is costing the British taxpayer every single day £6 million. It cannot go on.
Of course, Britain should provide a safe haven for people in fear—in genuine need—but it is a deceit to pretend that the asylum system has not been gamed and the British people taken for a ride by economic migrants with no legal right to be here, enabled by fat cat law firms that have grown rich on the proceeds, aided and abetted by militant interest groups that are determined to subvert the will of the people and cheered on by vacuous self-indulgent celebrities leading millionaire lifestyles. It may be uncomfortable for the bourgeois liberal establishment, but polls show that the British people want tough action on illegal immigration. Indeed, polling last week showed that people support the principles of the Bill.
Benjamin Disraeli said that justice is truth in action. Today, the Government are giving voice to the true wish of the British people to restore justice to our immigration and asylum system. It is not extreme to want to cap all kinds of immigration; it is not immoderate to deport illegal immigrants; and it is not unreasonable to give the Government the tools they need to do just that. It is time to take back control of our borders. It is time to stop the boats.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I have to say that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) makes a very unlikely class warrior. I would also like to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) gave her usual forensic analysis of the situation and I am very grateful to her for doing that. I agree with the Home Secretary on one thing: her comment that we should choose our words carefully. It is just a pity she did not do so herself.
The reason I wanted to speak in this debate is that, as you are aware, Mr Speaker, there is a hotel in Knowsley with 180-plus asylum seekers. I will not talk about that in detail because I had an urgent question on it a few weeks ago, but I will say that, since then, the situation has deteriorated to the extent that some of the refugees have been verbally abused in the street and others have been assaulted. They fled because the countries they come from were unsafe, only to find themselves in an unsafe position in this country. I think we should all be ashamed about that. It is not just happening in Knowsley; it is happening all over the country.
I want to conclude by saying something about why the Bill is before us in the House. The shadow Home Secretary convincingly pointed out the failures in the system that have led to this, but why are the Government bringing forward a Bill that anybody who knows anything about it knows is not going to work? The answer is that, with some notable exceptions—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), to name but two—broadly speaking, those on the Conservative Benches split into two groups. The first group are deluded and actually believe this is going to work. The second group are cynical, do not believe it is going to work, but are going along with it anyway. That is a shameful set of circumstances. At least those who are deluded will wake up tomorrow morning and think, “We are still right.” Those who are cynical will wake up tomorrow morning and have to look at themselves in the mirror—and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Many in this House want to say that the Government are inciting people’s worst instincts on immigration. I want to say optimistically that, ultimately, it is not the Bill, the Home Secretary or the Government who are causing that feeling. In fact, they are in touch with the widespread symptoms of it from people—decent people—in constituencies like mine up and down the country, and we have to heed those views. In my judgment, enough of the fine people of Skegness say, accurately, that they are already doing a huge amount. They say that asking them to do even more has untold consequences. They say, in short, that endless numbers cannot be made to feel welcome if they worry that the town they are staying in will never be the same again, in part because of it.
When enough people feel that way, we mainstream moderates in this House have to act, because if we do not, we should know that it is the racists and the extremists of the far left and the far right who will take our place. We have already seen Patriotic Alternative march in Skegness. If, however, we act now, there is a chance to stop decent British people withdrawing their consent. That is why the aims of the Bill are not just compassionate; they are the only compassionate option. They are the most compassionate way: breaking the business model of both the people smugglers and those who buy hotels to sell back to the Home Office at profiteers’ rates. All that has to end.
I want to end by saying that we do need to have safe routes from dangerous countries and we do need to have provisions for men and women who are trafficked, and for children who are taken by irresponsible adults to these shores, but we must not use those hard cases to pretend that we cannot do better than where we are today. If we do not, compassion will cede the ground to ignorance and hatred. We have to act, or we will stretch the licence that voters give us to act on their behalf beyond breaking point. In Skegness, I am not exaggerating when I say that for some, this is an issue about democracy and the effectiveness of government itself. The Bill is not just about stopping the boats; it is about stopping that democratic tragedy. That is just one reason why I will be proud to support the Bill this evening.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The words of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) must have some meaning for him. They do not for anybody else in this debate, because they do not make any sense or bring any delivery for the people we represent.
This country is based on the rule of law. We are in the UN Security Council. We wrote the European convention on human rights. We were the main principals behind the Geneva convention. We penned the war crimes legislation that is now in existence. People here are being accused of being lefty lawyers for doing the right thing and standing up for people and for our rights which are enshrined in law. We have always worked to the letter of the law, and so we should.
The Home Secretary takes no advice from the Bar Council and no advice from the Law Society, which both say that the Bill will create contradictions and will have problems in the courts, just like those the Government have already had. The Government do not want to do anything about that, and that is a problem. There are no safe routes for anybody to come through. Afghanistan has been closed. Hong Kong has been closed.
Mr Mahmood
The Minister shakes his head. If he tried getting out of Afghanistan, he would see what the issues are.
Women who have been trafficked will have no support under the Bill. Young children in jeopardy will have no support under the Bill. The Bill is against the people, and against the human rights and civil liberties of people. The Labour party does not say there is an open and a free door. That is what the Tories say about the Labour party. The Labour party is here to look at open and positive immigration. That is what we want to do.
The Home Secretary said that she cannot be xenophobic or racist just because of her colour and origins. I say to her, being of the same colour and origin, that that is exactly what her politics are about—dividing our society and our community based on that. That is what she continues to do. The best thing that she can do is to look at what is right for the people, rather than making political decisions that she thinks will win her the next election. That is not the case. The people of the United Kingdom are not so naive as to allow this huge nonsense of xenophobia and racism from her party. She needs the knock of humanity to move forward with these issues.
We are all here representing all of our constituents—the Home Secretary does not understand that. For her sake and for the sake of all the people who come here, I hope that we are responsible for human beings and show humanity moving forward.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I echo the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) in saying that we need some calm and seriousness in this debate. Tone is important, even if it has sometimes been lacking. In that spirit, we should observe that it is not unlawful or illegitimate, when faced with novel developments in the means of unlawful entry into the United Kingdom, to test the legal position. That is what the Bill does, and no more at this stage. It is legitimate to do that.
I support the international convention on refugees, but we have to recognise that it was conceived in 1951, at a time when people were smuggled across borders, and there was perhaps a little bribery of local officials or some altruistic assistance for people to get over borders. That was before the time of organised criminality exploiting vulnerable people. We have to reflect the reality of that change in circumstance. The Government are entitled to look at how that might best be done. That is a case for judicial dialogue in Strasbourg, and for renegotiating some of the international treaties.
That said, some of us are able to support the Bill only because of the safeguards written into it, such as habeas corpus.
Stephen Hammond
Does my hon. Friend accept that a number of Conservative Members support the Bill tonight on the basis that when it gets to Committee and Report stage, the Government will confirm in more detail the legal basis of the statement that it complies with our international obligations?
Sir Robert Neill
I have great faith in the legal input of the Attorney General and the advice of senior Treasury counsel on the Bill. My hon. Friend is right about that. Some of us will look to improve the protections for children and families and some of the tests, such as the suspensive serious harm test and the compelling circumstances under new subsection (4)(b) in clause 29. Were it not for things such as that, it would be very difficult to support the Bill, but they are in there and we need to build on them.
I want to make it clear that legislation itself is not a solution. Left on its own, the Bill will not achieve anything, and nor will any other Bill. The real need is to operationalise the situation and to improve the lamentable performance of our asylum and immigration systems over a number of years. It is ludicrous that immigration tribunals sit empty and that fee-paid, part-time immigration judges who are used to surge capacity sit unused because the Home Office is unable to get the files in order to present before the tribunal. If it cannot get the cases through the system efficiently and accurately, the Bill will fail.
A kind of isolationist unilateralism will not solve an international problem. Many of us think that the Prime Minister’s work on Friday will be every bit as important as any piece of legislation in finding a way forward to what I hope will be a new agreement with France on security and a movement to a proper returns policy. We need a returns policy with friendly and safe countries to make the Bill work. The Prime Minister has the seriousness and the tone to achieve that.
Finally, we must ensure that we swiftly undertake a sensible approach to the international position to ensure that our reputation continues to be upheld. The rule of law matters domestically and internationally. That does not mean that we turn a blind eye to organised criminality abusing our hospitality—that is a real concern to my constituents. That is why it is important that we move forward, but the idea that any piece of legislation alone will do that, without serious operational changes and the resource to go behind them, is misleading.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Just when I think that I cannot be shocked any further by this Government’s inhumanity, they try to rush this abhorrent and unlawful Bill through Parliament. Human rights and legal organisations are calling this one of the most damaging Bills introduced by a British Government in living memory. That is because the Illegal Migration Bill amounts to a refugee ban. It breaches fundamental and internationally recognised human rights, and attacks our way of life and our communities all over the UK.
Let us be clear: persecuting refugees and anti-migrant scaremongering do not benefit the majority of people. The cynical and dangerous use of scapegoating to divide people by an unpopular Government who have overseen a horrifying death toll during the pandemic and continue to inflict hardship and suffering across the UK, damages our communities. We have already seen an alarming rise in violence and intimidation organised by the far right against refugees and refugee accommodation. But beyond the rhetoric, spin and fake news, the fundamental point is that most people in small boats are men, women and children escaping terror and bloodshed. Chillingly, it is a truth that the Government are obviously aware of, because the majority of people arriving in the UK via boats are granted asylum. They are creating a cruel mechanism to deny sanctuary to people who they know are legitimate refugees and in need.
Why are migrants being forced into risking their lives in the first place? It is simple: for many, there are no safe routes to the UK. In 2022, half the men, women and children who crossed the channel in small boats were from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan or Syria. We know the reasons that people from such countries are displaced, yet only 22 refugees came to the UK on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. How can that be true? Just recently, the Government confirmed that they do not intend to introduce any special visa routes for people in Turkey and Syria who have been affected by the earthquakes.
As the daughter of migrants who faced violence and persecution from the far right in east London, I am all too conscious of the consequences of pandering to racists. Whether it is the Bangladeshi community standing up and leading the anti-fascist fightback on Brick Lane following the murder of Altab Ali in 1978, or the Jewish community who came together in the battle of Cable Street in 1936 to stand up to Oswald Mosley, in east London we will never let our communities be divided or targeted. The Government should be saving lives, not salvaging their failing political record. We need an approach that prioritises people’s lives and dignity. We need safe and legal routes to the UK. We need the Bill thrown out of Parliament.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
We are a rich country—the world’s fifth largest economy. We have international obligations, and it is right that we meet them. In 2020, we were the third highest donor to overseas development in the OECD in absolute terms, and the sixth highest as a proportion of gross national income. We have welcomed thousands of people to this country from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong. Whether through the Government and the taxpayer or through people opening their homes, we have seen the great generosity of British people. Indeed, Gary Lineker was correct today to write, as he did on Twitter, that we are
“a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people.”
Where I think that he, and others who make the opposing argument, is wrong is that he ignores the fact that that tolerance can be tested and that generosity, while deep, is not limitless.
I take a rather hawkish view on immigration. It should be in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands, but I have been surprised by the depth of feeling of Gedling residents on this issue. If I hold a supermarket surgery or knock on people’s doors, what is raised with me unprompted—if not potholes—is the issue of boats and migrants. I think the depth of that feeling is understandable, given the context.
Albania is the top country for small boat arrivals, with 25%. However, compared to other countries, Albania does not face the major international issues for which people request asylum. While there are pull-factors, including language and shared history, the passage of asylum seekers through multiple safe countries undermines the idea that the system we have is one based on fairness.
The asylum case load has doubled since 2014; that increasing burden is unfair to those who are already in the system, awaiting a decision. As we have seen in numerous television pictures, the people arriving across the channel are mainly male, whereas it would be commonly understood that it is mainly women and children who are the most vulnerable. It is also wrong that asylum claims should be granted after a cross-channel migration that has the role of the smuggler as a de facto part of the asylum process. Therefore, it is right that we tackle the issue robustly.
I can put it no better than the person who put an anonymous note through my door at the weekend, which said:
“Dear Mr Randall, I implore you to vote to stop this vile trade. It has to stop now, and you and your fellow MPs can make it happen.”
Today, we can make that happen; we must stop this vile trade.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Listening to the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that somehow or other we have gone back in time. In much the same way as people in the 19th century spoke about the deserving and the undeserving poor, today we have landed in a place where we have the deserving and the undeserving desperate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of men who crossed the channel, but he may not be aware that 7,177 of those who crossed the channel last year were children. The characterisation that he and others have made today is not borne out by the statistics provided by the Home Secretary and the Home Office itself.
There are many different reasons why hon. Members should vote against the Bill this evening. We may choose to vote against it because of concerns about legality, both in respect of our domestic legislation and our international obligations under treaties. It is difficult for those on the Treasury Bench to deliver lectures to those in Beijing in relation to adherence to international law if we do not live up to the same standards ourselves. As the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, we can choose to reject the Bill on the basis of the impact it will have on our world-leading modern-day slavery legislation. We can even reject it because it lacks a basic sense of British compassion. I was a Minister in the Government that abandoned detention for children for immigration purposes, and I am horrified to see the Conservative party seeking to restore it today.
If compassion and concern for the rule of law are not enough to speak to the values of hon. Members, I can offer them one further reason, which is simply that it will not work. It will not achieve the deterrent effect that it seeks to claim. We have been told this before. We were told that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was going to be the Act that would solve the problem, but what has happened since that came into force? The numbers have gone up and up.
The truth is that many people who deserve and are entitled to asylum at present will not get it if the Bill passes. And what will be the consequence of that? They will be sent away and many of them will die. That is why this House should reject the Bill tonight.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise to make a simple point, because in the time available that is all we can do. I will draw a little bit of light rather than heat into the issue. I want the Government to succeed in restricting the boats coming across, and in getting rid of them eventually, because of the danger for all those who try to take that route. It is incredibly dangerous and people have died, particularly children.
I want to make a point about one specific area. The Centre for Social Justice brought through the original paper on modern-day slavery. I was enormously proud of it and I was enormously proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—the Home Secretary, as she was then—was able to bring that into legislation. We were the first country to adopt that. It is not perfect but there are things that can be changed.
I say gently to the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and others on the Front Bench, that I do not understand why the Bill makes such a big deal of modern-day slavery when that represents a tiny proportion of people who come over using that route. Let me give a few figures: 6% of small boat arrivals in 2022 claimed modern-day slavery. It reality, the total number is even smaller. When the Government say 73% of people
“detained for return after arriving on a small boat…then referred to the NRM”,
that amounts to 294 people. We are talking about small numbers.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we genuinely need to recognise that we have to be careful when treading on this. We are dealing with those who are trafficked, not people smuggling; there is a big difference between the two things. Some 60% of the claims on modern-day slavery are domestic claims, here within the UK, by people who have been trafficked into brothels or who are working in chain gangs. Those are the sort of people we really do want to stand up for, and I recognise that there is a big difference.
The people who my Government—my right hon. Friends, with their legislation—want to seek to stop are those who are coming across illegally, using smugglers. By the way, the single group that gives us the greatest credibility and likelihood of prosecuting those people smugglers, are those who have been trafficked and who then give evidence.
I simply want to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we need to look carefully at what we are saying in the Bill. How will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be able to make a judgment about whether somebody has come illegally or has come illegally and is trafficked, if the national referral mechanism is not to be used for that purpose? If we can get that down to 30 days, most people could be processed without having to take an arbitrary decision. I want my Government to succeed in this matter, but I beg them to be very careful about the modern-day slavery legislation and to protect it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We need to tone down the debate. Let us be clear: no one on the Opposition Benches wants the small boat crossings to continue or to see people forced into those boats. We want to see legal routes for those people and for them to find alternatives rather than having to go to those traffickers. Nor does anyone on the Opposition Benches want anyone to stay in the UK who has committed a crime and has no right to remain. It is time that Conservatives MPs stopped standing up and making claims such as that.
The overriding problem with the Bill, as has already been said, is that many Government Members know it is not going to work. The danger is that, beyond that, they think that the solution to the problem is for us to leave the European convention on human rights. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, they are not respecting what the European convention on human rights means to this country. For instance, if we want to arrange for the safe return of failed refugee claimants from this country, we will need to have an agreement with countries in Europe that are signatories to the European convention on human rights. If we are not seen to be inside that convention, they will not be able to enter into those agreements, so they will be defeating the very object that they seek to achieve in the legislation.
Moreover, if we are to fall foul of the European convention on human rights, we will not be able to reach legal agreements on issues such as extradition, fingerprints, DNA on biometric data or the essential exchange of that data when dealing with serious crime. Beyond that, a serious criminal, harbouring in Europe, could claim legitimately that their human rights are at risk if they are extradited to the UK. Imagine that argument in a case made by a serious criminal who we want to extradite back here to face justice. They might say that their human rights are at risk and that would be a legitimate claim for them not to face justice in this country.
The Bill is not the solution to the problem we have. We need to create safer routes for people who are legitimate asylum seekers to come to this country. We need to deal with the backlog and we need to create an organisation that will deal with the criminals who are trafficking people across in small boats. That is the way forward, not this piece of legislation that is just dog-whistle politics.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
We are very lucky to live in a country people want to escape to, not a country people want to escape from, and we should all be mindful of the words we use. I support the Bill’s Second Reading, but I want to make a few points.
Four hundred years ago, John Donne wrote:
“No man is an island, entire of itself”.
In today’s interconnected world, no country, even if it is an island, can be entire of itself. The war in Ukraine has reminded us that when there is instability or insecurity in another part of the world, it can result in instability and insecurity here in the UK. It is very important that the UK can use its official development assistance funding to help poorer countries to build their stability, but we are having to divert billions of pounds of our ODA funding to care for the tens of thousands of people who have come to the UK by small boats. That is money that could instead have helped tens of millions of people to tackle the causes of instability in their own country.
John Donne also said that
“any man’s death diminishes me”.
The UK has a long history of giving asylum to those who have suffered war or persecution. We should continue to offer asylum, but the small boats route has resulted in many lives lost, not just on the channel but on the way to the channel. Action needs to be taken to close that extremely dangerous route.
We also need to recognise that no country’s capacity to offer asylum is unlimited. We must focus our support and prioritise helping the most vulnerable. The vast majority who arrive by small boats are men under the age of 40, not the disabled or the frail. By giving priority to those who arrive by illegal routes, we reduce the amount of support that we can give to safe and legal routes and we divert resources away from the vulnerable. That is not fair and it is not compassionate.
I am pleased that the Government have announced that they will introduce more safe and legal routes, but they need to go hand in hand with other measures, not come as an afterthought. Furthermore, it should not be left to local authorities alone to decide how many people our country can support. I recall that when I was children’s Minister there was a time when all Scottish local authorities bar one refused to take any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children at all. I am concerned that if local authorities are left to their own decision making, many will say that they have no capacity to support asylum seekers.
Finally, as a former children’s Minister, I note the comments that the Children’s Commissioner made today. I hope that these important points can be addressed as the Bill moves through its stages in this House. I hope that the Government will be able to find a way to ensure a fair, balanced and compassionate approach to migration, and that this will be the one that prevails.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I will focus on aspects of the Bill that potentially breach the European convention on human rights.
The Committee will be scrutinising the Bill very carefully and reporting on it in early course. So far as I can see, however, the Bill is designed to set the UK on a deliberate collision course with the European Court of Human Rights. In their human rights memorandum, the Government accept that the Bill engages articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the ECHR. By her statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act, the Home Secretary clearly accepts that some or all of those rights might be breached by the Bill. For once, she is correct.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights published in January our report on the Bill of Rights Bill. We said that that Bill should be scrapped. Now we see some of its most reprehensible aspects cropping up in this Bill. Time permits me to identify only two. First, clause 1(5) undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights by creating a class of people in respect of whom the courts in the United Kingdom will not be required to interpret the Bill in a way that is compatible with the convention.
Secondly, clause 49(1) sets conditions on the UK’s compliance with interim measures issued by the Court in Strasbourg. The Home Secretary tries to pretend that there is something unusual about such orders, but any undergraduate law student knows that for a legal system to be effective, courts must be able to issue interim orders requiring parties to take, or not to take, certain steps while the full arguments in a case are litigated. In Scotland, they are called interim interdicts, while in England they are interim injunctions; I am sure the Home Secretary must have heard of them. Such orders are issued by the Strasbourg Court to prevent irreparable damage to human rights while a case is being considered. It was interim orders from the Strasbourg Court that stopped Russia executing British soldiers Shaun Pinner and Aiden Aslin.
Talking of Russia, many of the Bill’s provisions echo legislation passed by Russia in 2015 that limits the availability and applicability of ECHR rights—and we all know what happened to Russia’s membership of the convention. Is that really the sort of bedfellow that the UK wants?
In Scotland we want no part of this. The convention is written into the Scotland Act, embodying the devolved settlement, which is the settled will of the Scottish people. If the UK takes us out of the ECHR, it will be without the consent of Scottish voters and without the consent of our Parliament. When I led a delegation of the Joint Committee to Strasbourg last year, I was told by interlocutors there that if the UK leaves the ECHR it will strengthen the case for Scottish independence. While the Tories try to give Labour a headache, they are creating yet another reason for Scots to favour independence over the status quo
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I fundamentally disagree with almost everything that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, as many people may understand.
I believe in the rule of law, I believe in Parliament, I believe in democracy and I believe in the sovereignty of this Parliament. I therefore want this Bill to work, but I do believe that it will require amendment in Committee or on Report. There needs to be a “notwithstanding” formula in the Bill to enable us to ensure that the courts cannot simply apply the arrangements currently in operation. As Lord Sumption said at the weekend, of course the courts will obey an Act of Parliament where it is necessary to do so.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) about clause 49, which addresses interim measures of the European Court; I have made the same point myself, as indeed has Professor Ekins, a professor of constitutional law at Oxford. The bottom line is that we will have to make certain that only final judgments will apply, not interim measures. I could spend much more time on that point, but I will not. I am quite sure that a “notwithstanding” provision will be required, because otherwise I am afraid that the clause may not work effectively.
On international law, I simply say to hon. Friends that article 31 of the refugee convention, which deals with unlawful refugees in respect of, for example, the United Kingdom, does not apply at all unless such refugees have come
“directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”.
It therefore does not apply if they have come from France or Albania, for example. For the same reasons, article 33 does not apply. We are compliant with international law in these respects, which is of great benefit to us and to everybody concerned.
We have prevaricated for far too long. The Labour party will never sort this out. The unelected Lords will oppose this Bill. The Bill, as amended by this elected House, must therefore be made subject to the Parliament Acts and must receive Royal Assent before the general election. The Prime Minister is right to say, “Stop the boats,” but it has to be done lawfully. Under the Bill, with some amendment, we will be able to achieve that. Promises will not do. I am sure that we will find that the promises that have been made can be fulfilled.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is an unexpected pleasure.
I will be voting against the Bill today. I am proud to support the reasoned amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) to stop the Bill in its tracks. This pernicious Bill fails to protect children and other victims from trafficking, fails to ensure safe routes for refugees and fails to treat people with humanity. It disgracefully expands the Government’s hostile environment. If enacted, it will mean that anyone who has been put in the desperate situation of having to arrive in the UK on a small boat because of this Government’s failure to facilitate safe routes will have their asylum claim deemed inadmissible. The Home Office will not even consider their claim, no matter how strong their application may be.
Clause 2 will enable the Government to seek to remove anyone who does not arrive via a specific route or with specific documentation. Those are requirements that the Government know it is next to impossible for somebody fleeing violence and persecution to meet. The 1951 United Nations refugee convention, to which the UK is a signatory, states explicitly that refugees shall not be penalised solely by reason of unlawful entry or because, being in need of refuge and protection, they remain illegally in a country. As the United Nations points out:
“Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and ‘legal’ routes available to them. Denying them access to asylum on this basis undermines the very purpose for which the Refugee Convention was established.”
Trade unions and human rights campaigners have rightly condemned the Bill, under which everyone who is subject to the new removal duty can also potentially be detained. The House should be doing everything in its power to ensure that people fleeing persecution and violence are given the safety, care and support that they need, not inflicting further trauma and harm on them. Is this really what we have become? It shames those who have gone before us in the House.
This anti-refugee Bill must be voted down. It is inhumane and immoral, and if I were a betting man I would also say it is illegal. The TUC has said that the
“Government’s proposal and the language used to describe it are divisive and will stoke tension.”
We saw evidence of that on the border of my constituency in Knowsley last month. The language used is so dangerous and damaging to our communities.
Let me end by making an observation. It is not the people in boats we should fear coming to our shores, but the elite in the private jets who, along with this Government, are responsible for the unequal, broken society in which we live, where millions shiver and starve in their own homes, seeing no future for themselves and their families. I urge the House to reject the politics of division, and reject a Bill that shames this place and everything that it is supposed to stand for.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made it clear that tackling illegal immigration is an absolute priority for this Government, and I wholeheartedly welcome the firm measures outlined in the Bill. The sad fact is that this country has been a soft touch for far too long. Our asylum policy has been chaotic, granting approvals to questionable claims and leaving people waiting years for decisions, and all at a cost of billions of pounds per year to the taxpayer. It is any wonder that the people of this country are sick and tired of the situation?
My constituency is the most deprived in England. Many residents cannot access housing, struggle to obtain a GP appointment, and have little chance of finding an NHS dentist. They have paid into the system all their lives. Is it any wonder that when they see people entering the country illegally, receiving free accommodation, free food and access to local services, they are incredibly frustrated and angry?
Let us dispel some of the myths surrounding this issue that we hear from the Opposition, from lefty lawyers and from celebrity do-gooders. Many of the people entering this country in small boats are not genuine asylum seekers. If their lives were truly in danger, they would have claimed sanctuary in the first safe country where they had arrived. Instead, these people have travelled through many safe European nations to try to come to the UK. They are invariably single young men, and increasingly from nations such as Albania. They are coming here not for sanctuary, but as illegal economic migrants. Our public services are already creaking under enormous pressure, and we simply cannot accept hundreds of millions of people who would no doubt seek to come here for a better life. I am afraid that this country is nearly full.
The measures in this Bill are ones for which the residents of Blackpool have been crying out for an awfully long time, but they can work only if we fully enact our Rwanda plan. It has been immensely frustrating that this policy has been tied up in the courts, both domestic and foreign. It is outrageous that the policy of the elected Government of the day should be restricted in this manner, and it is clear that the Bill is likely to encounter similar judicial frustrations. However, I urge the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to stop at nothing to tackle this issue. If the Bill requires reform of, or a departure from, elements of the ECHR framework —as seems likely—that is exactly what we must do. We simply have to sort this situation out, and the Government have my full support in doing so.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Let me remind the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) that the reason our public services are crumbling and people cannot see a dentist, and the reason NHS workers are queuing up at food banks and parents are living on their children’s leftovers, is nothing to do with migrants, asylum seekers or refugees; it is the fact that his party has been in power for the last 13 years.
Last night, Ke Huy Quan won best supporting actor at the Oscars. In the 1970s, he fled Vietnam in a refugee crisis that saw countries closing their borders to desperate people arriving by boat. Had he arrived on our shores under this Bill, he might well have been locked up and deported. Last year, the Olympian Sir Mo Farah revealed that he had arrived in the UK under a false passport, trafficked from a war zone into domestic servitude. Had he arrived under this Bill, he might not have been eligible for access to modern slavery protections.
I raise those examples not because I think that refugees should need to win awards and medals before they are respected, but to remind the House that the refugees whom the Government seeks to ban are people, with their own hopes and dreams—people who want to rebuild their lives and be reunited with their families; people who, like any one of us, may go on to do exceptional things or lead very ordinary existences, as should be their right. I say that because it seems that some Members need reminding of refugees’ humanity. When they say “invasion” they present desperate people seeking sanctuary as a threat, when they say “stop the boats” they mean that we should turn our back on refugees, and when their policy is welcomed by far-right groups, we should all be alarmed about the direction in which the Government are taking us.
What the Home Secretary is proposing is a de facto ban on seeking asylum in the UK, because for the vast majority of refugees there is no so-called legal way of reaching the UK. If you face religious persecution in Iran, there is no scheme to which you can apply. If you are a victim of torture in Eritrea, there is no visa that you can obtain. Even if you are from Afghanistan, a country that is supposed to have a resettlement scheme, the chances of your being accepted are vanishingly tiny: only 22 people have arrived under pathway 2. It is our asylum policies that are forcing people into the arms of smugglers and pushing people into fragile dinghies in the world’s busiest shipping lane, and it is this Government who are to blame for the misery that they cause. The only one way in which to resolve this situation is to open safe and legal routes—now.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
This country, including the people in my constituency of Hyndburn and Haslingden, is amazingly kind, as we have seen with the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I think that people in this country are genuinely supportive of immigration and refugees when they perceive the legislative system to be fair. Stopping channel crossings is not just vital for the UK; it is the humanitarian policy option as well.
Every moment we flounder and stagger around this debate, people smugglers are preying on people in Calais and Dunkirk, persuading them to make an unsafe journey, and that must be stopped. To do that, we need to address the pull factor: the feeling people have that if they can just get to the UK, they will be settled for life. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s new agreement with France, we cannot rely on that policy alone to reduce numbers. The Opposition have claimed repeatedly that new agreements with France are their priority, but the Prime Minister has already achieved that, delivering the largest ever small boats deal with France.
In my inbox, and when I am out and about on the doorstep in Hyndburn and Haslingden, this is one of the most frequently raised issues. I often think, when I hear SW1-centric commentators debate the subject, that the voice of people in northern communities such as mine is completely ignored. The fact of the matter is that in my part of the world, Hyndburn is supporting the second highest number of people receiving asylum support in Lancashire. The north-west as a region has more people in receipt of asylum support than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
The Home Office acknowledges that these numbers fluctuate quite regularly, and that leads me on to my second point. The current system prioritises moving asylum seekers out of the south-east. We need to ensure not only that we have a fair immigration system but that places such as mine in one of the most deprived areas in the country do not bear the brunt of it where we are already struggling. We need a fair system, and that is why the people of Hyndburn and Haslingden support this legislation put forward by the Home Secretary.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is frankly frightening that we are at the second stage of a Bill that begins with an effective admission by the Home Secretary that the proposed legislation is not compatible with international law and human rights obligations. Yet despite this, the Home Secretary says that they want this House to go along with it anyway. The European convention on human rights is often misrepresented by the Conservatives and their media friends, but the facts are that it was drafted by the UK and it protects the rights of my constituents in Leicester East and of every one of us.
The Bill is frightening, not just for refugees but because it sets a precedent that the Government can simply choose to derogate our human rights with almost no route to legal challenge. Not even children are safe under this Bill. While it does not instruct the deportation of unaccompanied children, it does give permission for their deportation if the Government or the Home Secretary so wishes. This is monstrous legislation, and no assurances from Conservative Members can make it less so. Will the Home Secretary commit today to protecting the rights of unaccompanied children and to ensuring that they will not be deported under any circumstances?
Let us be clear: while the Government disguise the Bill under their “stop the boats” slogan, this legislation is designed to give them the power to pick and choose which people from which countries and regions can apply for asylum, whether they come by boat or not. Many would argue that this is racist legislation, allowing safe and legal routes for a select group but not for others in classic colonial divide-and-rule style. According to the Government, a person escaping torture, persecution or war—even those wars involving British-made bombs and weapons—who applies for asylum on arrival is already disqualified and automatically made ineligible with no right of appeal, and under this Bill, they will be deported.
Furthermore, the Bill gives the Government the power to detain for 28 days human beings who have committed no crime, with no right of appeal or right to apply for immigration bail. This is a state-sanctioned fascism. It is inhumane and cruel. It is beyond dispute that the Bill is an attack on internationally protected legal rights, but it goes even further to explicitly state that its purpose is to exclude certain human rights entitlements from the asylum process. The Bill states that certain human rights claims are made inadmissible. It is also a move by the Government to put themselves and their agents above the law. The late, great Tony Benn famously said we should watch how a Government treat their refugees because that is how they will treat UK citizens—
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, I want to get everybody in, so please help each other and help me.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Sovereign states have a duty to protect their borders from the illegal movement of drugs, contraband and people, but sovereignty is not just about protection from outside interference; it is also about having responsibility for our own citizens’ welfare. We hear so much about rights but not enough about responsibilities. The UK Government, as with any Government, have a responsibility to protect democracy, the rule of law and the rights of their citizens.
The UK’s illegal immigration issue is complex and multifaceted. It is about rights and responsibilities, and it needs addressing. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have put together a plan that will significantly address illegal migration. Illegal migration is wrong. Organised immigration crime, which is what we are talking about here, makes it easy for criminal gangs to make money and funds other forms of organised crime. Illegal immigration is not just a moral question; it is about fairness, too. It is not fair on hard-working British taxpayers who are spending billions a year funding the support for illegal immigrants when there is already pressure on our public services.
Illegal immigration is not fair on those who come here legally and abide by the rules, and the abuse of our system undermines trust in the system. Paying people smugglers is a choice, and entering the UK illegally prevents law enforcement from conducting criminal record or security checks. We have a legal visa route for those people who wish to come here to work, and we do not have a Government that are against immigration. The number of non-EU visas was at an all-time high last year. Criminal gangs who make money out of people trafficking and smuggling must be stopped and their business model dismantled.
I have listened to the narrative about illegal immigration over the past three years or so. Opposition Members are quick to criticise and challenge any measures taken by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, but they have no plan and no solutions of their own. None has any desire at all to stop this trade and to secure our borders. None has any desire to exercise the primary responsibility of a UK Government, which is to serve, safeguard and protect the British public. Why do they think it is wrong to deport people with no right to be here, including foreign criminals?
We have to stop the boats, and the Conservatives are the only party with the plan and the desire to do so. Opposition parties are pro-open borders; they just will not admit it. They are dishonest to this House and to the British public to claim otherwise.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I despair at the tone of this debate and the dog whistle, the false argument—we have just heard it—that the Labour party wants open borders. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. We have heard manufactured political rows in recent days and in this debate, but I say to Conservative Members who are willing to listen with an open mind that this is a serious issue.
To be clear, I want secure and safe borders for my constituents. I want a robust and fair asylum system. I want compassion for those in desperate need of help, as the UK has always provided, including this Government to people from Syria, Ukraine and Hong Kong. But I want the system to work, and it is not working at present. The Government say it is not working because of migrants, but I say it is not working because the Home Office, on this Government’s watch, is not fit for purpose.
If rhetoric alone worked, the issues we are debating today would have been fixed by the last three immigration Bills, which we opposed because we said they were unworkable rhetoric. I am afraid the same is true of many of the measures before us tonight. When we hear talk of hundreds of millions wanting to come to these shores, it is sensationalist. To say we are going to be “swamped” is just wrong. To say that we are going to be “overrun” is not correct. We hear that “lefty lawyers” and “saboteurs” in the courts are to blame—it is always somebody else.
I believe there is actually a lot of common ground, as we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We can get around the table, and together we can plan an asylum and immigration system that works in the interests of our country and our constituents. This Government championed the fight against modern slavery, but this Bill does a disservice to that issue.
Finally, it does not matter what we think about the European convention on human rights. Many of the countries listed in the schedule to this Bill are also signatories, and they will not accept returns if we are against the convention. The Government need to rethink.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I rise to support this policy because I believe it is fair, sensible and in keeping with the UK remaining a compassionate country. An asylum system should not be based on people’s ability to make the journey to a foreign country—that is what is not fair.
Those who oppose this policy say that people would not need to make the journey if there were more safe and legal routes. Let us follow through that line of thought and say we set up application centres in France. Although the journey would be less strenuous, a grandmother in a wheelchair or a double amputee would still be less able than a fit adult to make the journey, so it would remain unfair. So let us say we set up application centres in a more accessible country such as Turkey. What would happen next?
Even if there is disagreement on the exact figure, no one can deny that many millions of people around the world would be eligible for asylum in the UK. If tens of thousands of people are willing to make such a long and arduous journey to the UK to seek asylum, it is obvious to me that many, many more would make an easier journey to somewhere like Turkey. I cannot imagine the number being less than double, and there is no reason to think it would not be even higher. For anyone who understands British public opinion, it would be completely untenable to continue with that position. We would then need to introduce a cap, and then what? Of course, we would have to turn some people away. A humane policy would prioritise granting the elderly, the disabled and ill people asylum, which would leave fit, younger people as the ones we turned away. There is no reason why they would not make the crossing by boat in any case and we would be right back where we started.
That is why more safe and legal routes will not solve this problem—because at the heart of the issue is the fact that many more people could legitimately claim asylum than the British public would or should reasonably take in. If someone’s test of an asylum policy’s humaneness is whether a particular deserving individual—we have heard many such examples this evening—can obtain asylum, no policy will ever pass it, because unless we agree to take in everyone, there will always be people who would like and deserve to come here who will not be able to do so.
What the British public expect is that we take our fair share. Even if someone personally wants the UK to take many more refugees than we do, we have to remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money. Compassion paid for by someone else is compassion that must be offered carefully, because if we do not do that, we find that we grow the resentment and hostility that we seek to avoid in the first place. The British people are fair and compassionate, and they ask me and they ask each other, “If people are coming from France and they are young men, are they really the people we have in mind when we want to say that we give a safe haven to the most vulnerable? Does a preference to come to an English-speaking country give someone a right to be here?” Those are fair questions and if we do not answer them, someone else will.
That might seem harsh, but I am a Conservative because I believe we should act with our heads as well as our hearts, and that we should care less about how something looks on social media and in the Chamber, and more about what it actually does. There is no problem-free panacea to this issue; it is about doing what helps best overall, which is why I am supportive of this policy and I am confident that the British public will be too.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
This dehumanising Bill will not stop boats, but it is no exaggeration to say that it will destroy our asylum system, it does rip up international law, it leaves modern slavery legislation in tatters and it tramples all over human rights. But the implications of this Bill for people—for the human beings caught up in it—are the most important consideration. The reality is that every man, woman, pregnant woman and child, no matter their individual circumstances and history, is to be treated in the same brutal way. Whether to a young man who fled the Taliban because of his sexuality, a woman tortured and raped because she converted to Christianity, or a child trafficked here by a gang for exploitation, this Bill says, “We don’t care. They applied for the wrong visa or they arrived here by the wrong route.” That is all that counts under this Bill, not the horrors that these people have had to endure. It is as though to this Government these are not human beings; all they are is a political problem.
How this Bill treats these people is nothing short of sickening. The provisions on detention, if anyone bothered to read them, are outrageous. Protections for vulnerable people, pregnant women and children are tossed aside. Judicial oversight of liberty is made almost worthless. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), talked about habeas corpus, but that is a prehistoric relic and we should not be left to rely on it to secure somebody’s freedom. The Home Secretary basically helps herself here to a power to detain whoever she wants, for as long as she wants. It is, to put it mildly, extreme stuff.
The permanent inadmissibility rules are as stupid as they are heartless, leaving genuine refugees—the Afghan, the Christian convert—either waiting to be removed to Rwanda for years on end or in permanent limbo. Bizarrely, and I do not think this penny has dropped for Conservative Members at all, it actually makes it harder to remove people who do not qualify for asylum, because if we do not consider their asylum application, we cannot remove them to their home country. That is explicit in the Bill, so this is making it harder to remove people who have no genuine claim for asylum.
Trafficking victims are also disgracefully abandoned in this Bill. For the overwhelming majority, there will be no recovery period. There will no leave to remain. They are being forced straight back into the arms of their people traffickers. The treatment of children in this Bill is equally shocking, with more detention; more unsafe accommodation, from where they can be exploited; less child protection; their being kicked out of this country at 18; and no prospect ever of citizenship.
So this is an utterly disgraceful Bill that needs to be kicked out today, Frankly, the timetabling of the Bill is also a complete disgrace, as is the lack of an impact assessment. It is pathetic that Parliament is allowing itself to be treated in this manner.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
All western countries have immigration controls. They have rules and a system that people have to go through. Thousands of people fill out the forms, get the sponsors, pay the cheques and go through the official Home Office systems, for a range of purposes. We all deal with constituency casework, and sometimes it takes a long time to get a legitimate wife in or to get somebody approved for a job. But no Government in the western world can allow the legitimate rules-based system to be undermined by people arriving illegitimately in boats as they do in Kent, because it undermines the whole system. It undermines all those people who decide to follow the system. The majority of people who arrive in Kent are white men under 40 who want jobs because they are economic migrants. We ought to ensure that we stop the trade so that, ultimately, people do not come here. If they want to come here, they should follow legitimate routes. The reality is that people who arrive illegally cause the state to spend resources on them, which is a massive irritation to our constituents. That money could be spent on education or the NHS. It could be spent on speeding up processing by the Home Office system so that those who are waiting to come in legitimately could enter more speedily. Many people think we are being taken for suckers because we are not dealing with this system. The Home Office is trying to set up rules that ensure that we deal with the situation which our constituents elected many of us to deal with, to control illegal immigration.
There is clearly work to do on the Bill. Bills are not perfect and this will go through the full parliamentary process. I think that the Home Office is trying to do its best to ensure that we safeguard our borders for a range of reasons. I agree with comments made by some of my hon. Friends, including the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). It is not just laws that we need to pass—we need to administer the system far better. I have confidence that the team in the Home Office will get on top of this and begin to deal with the issues that our constituents feel passionately about. It is only fair and reasonable and it is what people expect.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Government and their immediate predecessor have not tried to formulate workable policy on this issue, which was evident from the Home Secretary’s bizarre and unconvincing opening speech. They are trying to keep the European Research Group and other agitators onside—grubby politicking by using the most vulnerable people, often fleeing the effects of our wars, or persecution or reprisals, as collateral damage. The reality is that most asylum applications are fully justified. In the end, after long and unnecessary delays, three quarters of applications are granted, yet these are the people the Government want to deny entry, not because of their circumstances but because of how they arrived.
We now have the abject sight of Ministers putting out propaganda that boasts that anyone arriving by small boat will not be offered the protections of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Ministers are actually saying that they will refuse protections to people being trafficked and used as modern slaves, making the policy a charter for people trafficking. They cannot say that they are combating people smuggling if all they are doing is putting policies in place that encourage it.
One of the arguments that is often used, especially in relation to France, is that it is a safe space. I was in Calais earlier this year, and I can tell Members that it is anything but safe for refugees, particularly children. In fact, our Government are paying more and more money to make it more hostile and unsafe for the vulnerable people who go there. [Interruption.] They absolutely are.
The Bill does not address any of the issues when it comes to the need for humanity, but there is an alternative, and it is a policy that is supported by all the experts in the field. We could establish safe and legal routes—not the mythical routes that the Home Secretary does not seem able to name; she does not seem able to give a single indication as to what they are. There could be a number of processing centres close to the French coast. Residence visas could be issued to all those entitled to be here. They could be transported here safely, with no excuse for maintaining appalling immigration detention centres. If the argument of humanity does not appeal to Government Members, they could think about the millions of pounds that would be saved. Companies such as Serco, Mears, G4S and Clearsprings—the big winners in the immigration detention estate—would lose some money, and the tabloids would have to find someone else to attack. Government Ministers would have to find a new enemy to distract people from their spectacular economic failures. We would not be breaking international law, demonising vulnerable people or falling out again with our closest neighbours.
This legislation should not have seen the light of day. There is nothing worth retaining, which is why I was pleased to table a cross-party amendment. I am pleased to support the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. If Government Members are as disturbed as they say they are, they should do the right thing, walk through the Lobby with us and vote against the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have been trying for two years to get a young girl, Maira Shahbaz, into this country. Aged 14, she was raped and abducted and she is now hiding in a room after being forced into marriage. I am told that I cannot get her in because the whole system is under such pressure, so I am all in favour of safe and legal routes.
However, the fact is that such is the misery in the world that there is no limit to the number of fit, able young men who want to come over here from Iraq, Eritrea and Syria. I do not blame them; I would do the same. We speak English, President Macron has a point that we have no identity cards—maybe we should have identity cards—and they can get jobs here. We could open a safe and legal processing centre in Lille and it would be overwhelmed: 1,000 would apply today and 10,000 tomorrow. There is no limit to how many people want to come. We could process asylum applications even more quickly, and that would produce even more applications. We could have more gendarmes based on the beach in France and, as I said earlier, people will try the first night, and the second night they will make it.
We have to do something, otherwise they are coming to every hotel. Every single hotel in the country is rapidly being filled up. For two years, I and my local council of West Lindsey have been producing a fantastic plan to try to get redevelopment of former RAF Scampton. We will get £300 million-worth of investment. It is the home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows; we will have a heritage centre. But the Home Office is so desperate, because every single hotel is filled up, that it has now marched into my constituency and said that it wants to put 1,500 asylum seekers there.
Of course we oppose that. Nobody else in this Chamber cares a damn about what happens in Gainsborough, but I am the local champion; I care about my people and I care about £300 million-worth of investment. I am asking for an assurance from the Home Office that, if the asylum seekers do come in, they will not put at risk that wonderful development. However, in an interview with BBC Radio Lincolnshire, Peter Hewitt of Scampton Holdings said that his development would be “totally scuppered”, that the move would be
“rather inconsistent with running an airfield and airside operations”,
and that, if the housing plans went ahead, 40 acres out of the 130 acres earmarked for redevelopment would be taken up.
That is just one example of what is happening in our country. The system is broken. We have to do something about it, and international experience proves, whether in Greece or Australia, that the only two policies that work are offshoring or pushback. Nothing else works. Unless we pass this Bill, unless we have the courage to try to create an asylum system that brings into this country the real asylum seekers such as Maira Shahbaz, the people who have been raped or forced into marriages, we will have a never-ending stream of young men paying criminal gangs to get into our country.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Back in 2019, the company that provides accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland housed around 1,000 people. Last Thursday, the figure was 3,271. One third of them are in traditional housing stock and two thirds populated within 20 hotels in Northern Ireland, predominantly on the eastern side of our Province. I know the pressure that that places on some local communities and some local services.
Earlier in this debate there was a challenge to Members that they should be temperate in their language and courteous to one another, so let me say this, as the Democratic Unionists’ spokesperson on home affairs and immigration in this Chamber: I am not an out-of-touch lefty. I am not on the side of people smugglers, I am not a naive do-gooder and I am not against the British people, but I will be supporting the official Opposition’s amendment this evening.
I say that as somebody who supported the Nationality and Borders Bill when it was before this House. I say it as somebody who, when the Prime Minister came to this Chamber a number of weeks ago and highlighted the problems with our immigration system, was incredibly encouraged that he recognised that there was a problem when so many applications are being approved in the United Kingdom, yet similar ones elsewhere in the European Union are not. I thought there was a clear sign that our Government were actually going to grasp these issues in a way that would work, not present us with a Bill that, on the face of it, is incompatible with the ECHR. I am interested in dealing with the problems of unmanaged or illegal migration in this country, but I am not interested in getting involved in what amounts to a culture war—a political culture war that is more about the forthcoming general election than anything else. It is a shame all around.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) were probably too polite when they addressed this shibboleth as to what is really behind this Bill. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead was right when she said that the Nationality and Borders Bill has not had enough time to bed in. I thought the Prime Minister was right when he highlighted the deficiencies in the system. How much better would it be to sort out asylum applications and the process of assessing them than to do away with the process of accepting asylum applicants altogether? I have stood in this Chamber against indefinite detention: it is cruel, and it is immoral. This Bill will probably proceed this evening, but it will not proceed with my support at this stage, and I will certainly be working to change it.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I entered politics in 1999 and, since then, having become a Member of this place in 2019, I have always put representation at the heart of everything. We are a representative democracy before we are anything else. When I represent the people of Dudley here, I speak from the heart, saying that an overwhelming majority would want me to support the Bill put forward tonight.
The Bill would deter people from undertaking very perilous journeys, and not only across the channel. It is those people who perish in the channel who we get to hear about; the ones we do not get to hear about are the ones who might be coming across from the other side of Africa, or from another God-forsaken country, all the way to Calais. We do not hear about the harm that comes to them, but while the message out there is “Set foot in this United Kingdom and you shall not be removed ever again”, we remain a magnet, and people will continue to make those very dangerous trips.
I hear what Opposition Members say. I hear what Scottish Members say. I must mention the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). She was right when she said that Glasgow Central takes more asylum seekers than the rest of Scotland, but that is a very relative comment to make when speaking to everyone in this Chamber. The debate in Scotland in November 2022 —only a few months ago—was to argue against the Home Office, which was saying, “You should be taking 4,000 asylum seekers under the dispersal scheme.” The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which represents a significant number of councils in Scotland, was saying, “No, we can’t do that. It should only be 2,000.” It was a member of the Scottish Government who said that it should be a voluntary system for councils in Scotland.
I hear from Labour Members, who like to virtue signal and show that they are representing their own views, rather than those of their constituents, when they talk about people who should be coming to this country because they are raped or because they are children. What is actually happening, if we look at the Albanians who have come over here—just to give an example—is that 14,000 of them have come from a safe country, Albania, to another safe country, France, and over here. Why do we never hear about them from Labour Members? We only hear about those tiny numbers who they like to talk about.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I served on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, where we were told time and again that that Bill’s provisions to criminalise refugees would break the business model of people smugglers, despite the Department’s own impact assessment saying that the sorts of measures being proposed risked failing and driving people to more desperate routes. That Bill was designed not to work, but to create the appearance of doing something: for the headlines, to provoke a fight with the UNHCR, to attack immigration lawyers, and to provide a platform for the lie—repeated again today—that Labour believes in open borders. Less than a year after it became law, here we are again. The Home Office impact assessment was proved right, the position in the channel is worse, numbers making desperate journeys are higher, the appalling Rwanda scheme is stalled, and what is the Government’s response? To double down on failure. We have a new Home Secretary, but the same approach.
This Bill is even more cruel, and we should look in particular at the Children’s Commissioner’s concerns over child refugees, but the central proposition remains the same: to defeat people smugglers by criminalising their victims. Again, it is not designed to work, but to create the illusion of action—talking up a problem, but offering no solution. It is cynical, irresponsible and damaging to our politics. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, the PM was right to say that there is a global migration challenge, but the Government like to give the impression that those entering Europe do so with the sole intention of getting to the UK, ignoring every safe country along the way. Of course, that is not true. Nineteen other European countries take more refugees by head of population, and the biggest numbers are hosted by countries such Turkey, Colombia, Pakistan and Uganda.
We need an honest debate. We need to stop the “good refugee, bad refugee” narrative of Ministers. The Government have closed doors to all seeking refuge, except from Ukraine, from Hong Kong and the desperately difficult route remaining from Afghanistan. Ministers should stop demonising economic migrants. Clearly, we cannot accommodate everyone who wants to come here, but it is not a crime for them to seek a better life for themselves and their families—it is what people have done since the beginning of time. There is an irony that as Ministers demonise those coming for work, they are actually opening up new routes, as the Financial Times reported last week.
We need a joined-up discussion on migration and asylum, and we need to take care with the language. When Ministers talk up problems around refugees and raise false expectations about the legislation, it damages democratic politics and opens opportunities for the far right, as we have seen in recent weeks. Let us tone down the rhetoric and look at real solutions. We can start by voting down this Bill.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Our immigration and asylum system must be fair and able to support people fleeing violence and persecution and those who are most vulnerable, but it must not be undermined by criminal gangs who profit from illegal immigration and put at risk the very people we want to help. Do people believe that the criminal gangs are supporting asylum seekers? Does anyone in this House believe that we should thank them for their humanitarian endeavours? Of course not.
Support for vulnerable asylum seekers should be based on assessment of need, not on ability to pay or connections to criminal gangs to bypass the system. Support for vulnerable asylum seekers should never mean that lives are put at risk in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in a small boat. Safe and legal routes must be the means through which the most vulnerable receive support, not by giving in to criminal gangs.
Schemes such as the Syrian resettlement scheme, the Afghan scheme and Homes for Ukraine have seen many thousands of refugees successfully relocated to the UK. We need more such schemes so that refugees, wherever they come from, can access safe and legal processes for claiming asylum. Our communities have opened their hearts and homes to those seeking refuge, and they will continue to welcome those genuinely fleeing violence and persecution. That is their choice, but our communities do not choose an ever-increasing burden of illegal immigration being foisted on the country by criminal gangs.
In the past year, 45,000 people illegally entered the UK by small boats. It costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Imagine if the money spent housing people who came here illegally was used to create more safe routes for asylum claims—imagine the difference that would make for the thousands of genuine claimants without the means to access legal routes. Imagine the difference we could make if, instead of political point scoring, the parties on the Opposition Benches joined with us to end the exploitation and illegality that is rife in the current system and worked with us to prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This immoral, deeply cruel and divisive Bill breaks international law, rides roughshod over human rights and shames us all. I would argue that it shames especially the Ministers who are deliberately and dangerously stirring up hatred with their vile and dehumanising language. I am pleased to associate myself with the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
Let us have clarity on some of the facts. The UK offers safety to far fewer refugees per capita than the average European country, including France and Germany, and to far fewer than the countries neighbouring those from which 70% of the refugees from the global south flee. Behind the numbers and statistics are real people with lives, hopes, families and dreams. In the words of the British-Somali poet Warsan Shire,
“no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”
and unless
“home is the mouth of a shark”
or
“the barrel of the gun”.
The bottom line is that, far too often, there are no other routes available to those fleeing violence and persecution, many of whom have family here with whom they want to be reunited. Locking them up is beyond cruel.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that the Bill
“would amount to an asylum ban”,
but Ministers simply do not care. They are even coming up with new ways to circumvent international law. The Bill explicitly gives them the authority to ignore future interim ECHR rulings, so even if a case were lodged in Strasbourg, they could still press on with detaining and criminalising asylum seekers while the courts are deciding—a process that can take up to three years.
The Government do not care whether the policy works—that is not what it is about. It is about dividing and ruling; it is about stoking cultural wars; it is about picking a fight with the European Court of Human Rights for cynical electoral gain. The Government certainly do not care about the human beings caught in the crossfire. If the Government seriously wanted to protect the lives at risk from small boat crossings, they would back more generous family reunification rights and support safe, functioning routes.
I have a constituent whose wife and daughters are stranded in Turkey, having fled Afghanistan in August 2021. They do not have the documents to apply for a family visa, and they are not eligible for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. They have played by the rules for the past 18 months and are desperate enough to consider crossing the channel to be reunited. Government Ministers have not lifted one single finger to help. Even those who are eligible for the ACRS cannot make it work. Not one Afghan has come to the UK via pathway 3 of the ACRS since it opened in June last year.
On the front page of the Bill, the Home Secretary invites Parliament to rip up international law. The only act of a Parliament that has any kind of moral integrity would be to rip up her illegal and immoral Bill, which has no place in statute.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I will support the Bill this evening. The whole point of the Bill—its overriding objective—is to decisively break the current model of the criminal smuggling gangs. In short, it seeks to remove any incentive to pay thousands of pounds to criminal gangs and to attempt to cross the English channel by boat to gain illegal entry to our country.
To put the debate into context, since 2015 we have given safe harbour to just under half a million displaced and vulnerable people from Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and, of course, Ukraine. By contrast, most of the 85,000 who have entered the UK illegally since 2018 have come from safe countries, and almost all have travelled through safe countries. Of all those illegal entrants, the majority are adult males, not vulnerable families. There is no war in Albania, for example, but a quarter of recent illegal immigrants to the UK originate from there.
What has Labour’s answer been? Well, no one seems to know. At last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, all the Leader of the Opposition could do was criticise the Government’s proposals without saying anything about what his party would do differently. The shadow Home Secretary put in a similar performance the previous day, when she said that we need “slogans and not solutions” but offered nothing but empty slogans.
After three years without a policy position, Labour has hurriedly cobbled together five bullet points, none of which is original and all of which have no detail to them. Setting out aims with no measures to achieve them is not a plan; it is empty rhetoric. The Labour party has no plan to tackle illegal immigration, and, more to the point, it shows no sign of wanting one.
The Government have said that our approach is two-pronged: first, to stop the small boats, which the Bill is designed to achieve, and secondly, to expand safe and legal routes, as has been done in the case of Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine, alongside an annual cap set by Parliament. I would like to hear more about that from the Government, because I believe it is important that such proposals be brought forward quickly as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has been vocal about the idea of creating an offshore asylum visa processing system, which I think could be helpful.
The Bill cannot be the end of the story in dealing with illegal immigration, but it is a solid foundation. At a stroke, it could destroy the business model of the criminal gangs and remove the incentive for people to risk their lives on hazardous channel crossings. The principle of the Bill is therefore clearly right, and I will be supporting it this evening.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
My constituency is the most diverse in the entire country; 80% of our community has heritage from a different part of the world. Many of my constituents, including the multiple hotels that we have holding asylum seekers and refugees, welcome those people into our community. In Ilford we embrace humanity and the differences in our community. We recognise the struggles that we all face, and that blaming each other for the ills that our country faces is not the right way forward. Our local churches helped Afghan and Iraqi refugees find Korans so that they could practise their prayer. It is wrong for Conservative Members to say that this is not about our constituents.
Let me be absolutely clear—I am speaking on behalf of my constituents—that the Bill is the most inhumane and unjust piece of legislation. It will do nothing to solve any of the problems that the Home Secretary outlined today. If it passes, it will effectively criminalise asylum in this country and allow the Government to commit flagrant human rights abuses without any real consequence. The United Nations says that the Bill would breach the refugee convention and undermine a long-standing humanitarian tradition of which the British people and I are proud, instead punishing people fleeing persecution and conflict—conflict that is often the consequence of decisions taken in this place and by our country, historically or in more recent times.
In the short time that I have, I want to tackle the incendiary rhetoric from this Government. It is the playbook for the next election from a desperate Government. I have spent a large part of my life fighting the far right, not just in Barking and Dagenham but across the country. Some of the language that I have heard over the past months and days has reminded me of the language that people like Nick Griffin used to describe people. It is appalling, it is un-British, it is unacceptable, and it needs to be challenged.
In a recent report, Hope not Hate said that there is growing alignment between the language of the traditional far right and the language used by the mainstream right. Those on the Conservative Benches are supposed to be the mainstream right, but I look at that side of the House and it is just like a turbocharged UKIP. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this Bill.
Sam Tarry
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish simply by saying that if the desire is to prevent children from making these dangerous journeys and to protect them, the solution is clear: more safe routes for resettlement, and expanding and improving the existing family reunion schemes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member knows that you do not address directly other hon. Members.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
After that extraordinary contribution, which mirrored a number of contributions we have heard, let me first say something about the irony of those on the Opposition Benches criticising rhetoric and incendiary language. So far, we have had one Member describe the Bill as “fascist” and one describe it as “racist”—we have gone through the whole gamut of left-wing clichés. I am not bothered, Madam Deputy Speaker; it does not concern me what any single Opposition Member thinks about what I believe and what I stand for. But it does concern me when they slander my constituents and millions of people throughout this country who have legitimate concerns about small boats and their social consequences. We are spending £6 million a day—the total is £3 billion and rising—on hotels, and we are expected, as a Parliament and a Government, simply to do nothing. I believe that this legislation is needed.
Let us get to the heart of the Bill, rather than the rhetoric that we have heard from Opposition Members. Let us see whether the British people disagree with this. The Bill makes provision for an annual cap on the number of people admitted to the UK through safe and legal routes. Who disagrees with that? Nobody. Numerous countries, all over the world, have an annual cap. Would it not be nice for this place, just for once, to take some responsibility for immigration policy—not to subcontract it to a court or somebody else, but to decide the type of immigration we need and where we need it?
Let us talk about capacity—this is never addressed by the Labour party. In my area, we have no housing, we have no doctors’ places and we have no school places. This is something the Labour party just simply wants to ignore. Migration policy is related to a number of different factors, but it is an eminently sensible policy that the people of this country support. Let us go on to the next one that is such an outrage, which is promptly removing those with no legal right to remain in the UK. That is a principle, and there is a legitimate debate to be had about how successful we have been, but how can we argue about that as a principle? There will be a legal duty on the Home Secretary to remove people within a reasonable and practicable time, and a 28-day period to allow that to happen. How on earth can that be unreasonable? This is a policy that responds, and it is what we should have.
In the current system, we have the ironic situation with the Home Office where we have doubled the number of case workers and have lost productivity. We need some targets, and we need people to be held accountable. What this Bill is about, which Opposition Members do not want, is holding each and every single one of us accountable for what we believe in terms of immigration policy and it is about how that immigration policy can be put in place in a reasonable, sound and fair way for every single person in our country.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Gary Lineker and others are right to caution about the use of language in this debate, but I think it is important that we also understand why people use the words they do. When the Home Secretary talks about invasion, when she refers to “us and them” continuously and when she tries to characterise this problem as there being millions of people waiting to come to the shores of this country, she does so for a particular reason. She does it because, generally speaking, the people of these islands are compassionate and fair-minded, and in order to get acceptance for proposals that are so inhumane and so brutal, it is first necessary to dehumanise and then demonise the people to whom those words refer. That is why the public are invited to regard migrants as some sort of amorphous collective menace and a threat to our way of life and our wellbeing, rather than the truth, which is that they are an assembly of some of the most wretched people on the earth, who have undergone unimaginable horror and have stories to tell that most of us would never wish to experience.
Let us be honest: the problem of small boats is one entirely of this Government’s making. For years, they have been playing a game of grotesque political whack-a-mole, in which the hammer of Government policy has come down on the heads of the world’s most vulnerable people every time they try to find a route through to the shores of this country. We have got to a situation where the legal routes are now so non-existent or so limited that most people have simply no alternative but to put their lives in the hands of the people smugglers on the shores of France. The truth is that until and unless we open up those safe, legal routes, this problem will continue.
The Government’s novel approach to the increasing number of people claiming asylum is now simply to make it illegal to claim asylum in the first place. That is a grotesque and absurdist logic that Franz Kafka himself would be proud of. I have heard a lot of Conservative Members talk about criminal gangs. Let me tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: if I was organising an organised criminal group and I was engaged in people smuggling and modern-day slavery, I would be rubbing my hands in glee at these proposals, because they alter the balance of power between these criminal gangs and the people they oppress by removing the redress and the rights that people have when they come to this country.
Finally, there is a lot of talk about how many millions this is costing. Getting rid of the cost is quite simple: process the applications and allow people to work and pay taxes while they are being considered. That would solve the problem overnight.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I am very grateful for the chance to say a few words in this debate. This is an issue that has been raised with me repeatedly on the doorsteps in Wolverhampton North East, and it is of importance to my constituents. I am really disappointed about some of the language we have heard from Opposition Members. My constituents are not without compassion and my constituents are not xenophobic, and to paint their concerns as coming from a very bad place is very disappointing.
The inability of Opposition Members to accept that we have to limit the numbers of asylum claims we process and accept into the country astounds me and my constituents. Evidently resources are limited, and we face a global migration crisis. The moral case for stopping the boats cannot be denied, and I do not hear that. A fair and just asylum system does not mean one that relies on a person’s physical fitness and ability to scramble across a continent and pay a people smuggler. A fair and just asylum system means that the most vulnerable are given the chance to claim asylum, not young men climbing into boats.
In Syria we took people from the border of a warzone. We took older and disabled people, pregnant women and those who could not make the journey. We must recognise that this is a difficult Bill to put forward. It is not a fluffy huggy bunny Bill, but in this situation we have to come to this place and make difficult choices. We need a limit, but the Bill opens more safe and legal routes for people in the greatest—[Interruption.] With a quota that we will set in this place. We will have the opportunity to decide the number of asylum claims that we process each year. I welcome the Bill and hope it works, but overwhelmingly there is a case for looking at why we have the migration crisis. It is a case for more foreign aid and for better trade links; it is a case for lifting those countries out of poverty, and ensuring that they are stabilised. That is a global problem, and the whole western world should be uniting to attempt to make progress on that. But I will not be lectured by people who, when we say we have to have a pragmatic limit on numbers, shout “shame on you, shame on you” at the Home Secretary. That is not worthy of debate in this place.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I wonder what our international partners across the globe are thinking about this Bill and this discussion, and about the fact that we are acting like a bunch of Poundshop Ukippers. Whatever happens with the Bill, I feel totally ashamed. I am ashamed as a Member of Parliament to be thinking that in the mother of all Parliaments. We are all elected; we all represent constituents with differing views, and we are talking about the best way to deny people—some of the most deprived and desperate people in the world—the right to come to this country.
It is an absolute outrage. This Bill should not, under any circumstances, see the light of day. It really shouldn’t. It pains me to say this, but there have been some decent contributions from Conservative Members, who I have lots of respect for. But my goodness there has been some rhetoric. And I will not take any lectures on rhetoric, because what has been said tonight is that every hotel—nearly every hotel—in the UK is now full of refugees. What a load of nonsense coming from the Conservative Benches.
They also referred to a number of other issues. Don’t not talk to me about compassion. It is only a matter of months since the previous Home Secretary wanted to have wave machines to blast these people back on to the shores of France. We have a situation in a Brighton hotel where 137 kids are missing. Don’t talk to me about compassion. We are talking about real people here. It is absolutely essential that we do not get into a number crunching game about the nitty gritty of looking after people. Be proud. Of course we are proud to be British. Be proud and stand firm on behalf of these people. Put these people before politics. Recover some semblance of humanity. Scrap this ghastly toxic Bill and support some of the most desperate people in the world.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The public expect action on small boats and illegal migration. The main issues raised with me are illegality, asylum seeker hotels, and safe and legal routes. I will come on to those points in a moment.
It is clearly extremely dangerous and not sustainable to have 45,000 people arriving across the channel in small boats, many of whom are paying people smugglers. It is not sustainable for our own communities, housing and services. Many councils, including Labour councils, say that they absolutely cannot cope and are not able to take additional people at the moment. The Stroud public also know that this is an international issue, something that is often lost in the debate online. It is an international issue and it has a very serious national security bent, too. I find that, away from social media, all the yelling and the noise of shouting down anything—literally anything—that the Government try to do on this issue, people really understand that the Government have to do absolutely everything they possibly can. Given that we are legislators, it is not a surprise that we are going to try to legislate.
On hotel accommodation, my constituents know that I have worked really hard and been very careful not to use my social media or my platform to draw attention to hotels or to asylum seekers in our county of Gloucestershire. Given the attacks on various hotels and places around the country, I do not think it is fair or responsible to communities to do that. Instead, I have spoken to people directly. I have held meetings and I have had police down to particular parts of my constituency. I have spoken before about my disappointment and anger that hotels have been placed in inappropriate areas that we know will cause difficulties. The hotels have to close and I want to hear more from the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about when that will happen.
On safe and legal routes, like many of my constituents I of course want to see safe and legal routes that are controlled. Unfortunately, that term has become quite nebulous. We have to nail down what it means. The reality is that the safe and legal route policy should work transparently alongside the Bill. It is good that it is referenced, but we need to have that transparency. I want to know whether my right hon. Friend will consider creating a super clear, simple, and safe legal route policy. I look to the recent leader in The Spectator, which talked about the simple policy of a safe route being created for each illegal migrant who is returned. That is gloriously simple and I think it would deal with a lot of the concerns of the public. I think it would also pull the pants down from the Opposition.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
We can agree or disagree with Gary Lineker on his choice of words, but he was perfectly entitled to say what he did about the vile incendiary language of the governing party, who have spoken of refugees as invasions and swarms, and how he sees the parallels with the rhetoric of 1930s Germany. What he expressed was a cry out: a warning from history. We remember the horrors of the past in order to learn the lessons in the present and ensure they are never repeated.
In their desperate bid to hold on to power and distract from their disastrous handling of the economy, where working people have seen their standards of living decimated under 13 years of austerity, the Tories are, at very best, playing culture war cards. They are trying to distract attention away from their failures by using the age old far right strategy of scapegoating and dehumanising the most desperate of people, pointing the finger at them to say, “They are the cause of our problems,” as was explained by the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms). With breathtaking disregard for basic humanity, Ministers are now determined to deny refugees their most fundamental human rights. They are not even trying to hide it—it is explicit on the face of the Bill.
The Home Secretary has been advised that the Bill will, more likely than not, be found to breach the European convention, but nevertheless she told the House that she was confident that it was compatible. That is either gross stupidity and incompetence or much, much worse. We should worry about a Home Secretary who admits to dreaming of expelling refugees to Rwanda and who has used such disgraceful language as “invasion” to describe the arrival of refugees by the English channel.
The UK did the right thing by responding to Putin’s war crimes with the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but how is the plight of the people involved any different from someone fleeing Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen? Do they not feel pain? Did they not lose their homes or have loved ones killed in plain sight? Do they not deserve our compassion and assistance? It beggars belief that the Government claim to be compassionate. The Bill is not compassionate; it is cruel, heartless and wicked and goes against any claims they have of providing a welcome sanctuary to refugees. As we are one of the prime architects of and signatories to the conventions on refugees and human rights, this evil Bill brings shame on this House and on this nation. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote against it tonight.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
For my constituents, the Bill is long awaited. They want us to crack down on the horrific people smugglers, stop small boat crossings, remove those who have no right to be here and deny asylum to those who illegally cross our borders from safe countries.
People voted in overwhelming numbers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire to take back control of our borders, and they expect this Government to deliver. Stoke-on-Trent has done more than most to welcome those in the greatest need—more than 1,000 refugees and asylum seekers have now been accommodated, not to mention the Ukrainians and others who have been taken in by local families having arrived as a result of Putin’s barbaric war. But we can only take so much. There is certainly no room for chancers from safe countries who are paying big money to shameless smugglers to play the system.
Small boat smuggling is unfair, immoral and unsustainable. The pressure on local health services, schools, social services and the third sector has been significant. I welcome the new Home Office hub in Stoke-on-Trent, which will help to clear the backlog of cases. For too long, all the accommodation pressures have rested on a small number of authorities—including Stoke-on-Trent—defined as resettlement areas, in a “Hotel California” scheme that is supposedly voluntary but with no ability to leave. We were forced to accept totally unsustainable numbers, often in totally inappropriate locations.
I am pleased that the Government have listened and taken action to ensure a more equitable distribution across the country but, ultimately, action is needed to reduce the overall number entering the UK illegally in the first place. I welcome the Bill and the measures announced by the Prime Minister both in December and last week. Unprecedented pressures necessitate unprecedented actions. The actions in the Bill will break the people smugglers’ model. I hope that they will be properly resourced and implemented.
The Home Office must restore our confidence in its ability to deliver, particularly on detention and removal. There is an abundance of determination on that on the Front Bench, which I hope is shared across Government. It is vital that we ensure that the measures are legally watertight and do not face ongoing challenges by Labour-backed lawyers, as we have seen with Rwanda. Everything possible must be done to ensure that the Bill is incontrovertible. We will not enjoy the support of the general public unless we tackle these issues.
The Bill is about fairness and ensuring that illegal migrants cannot jump the queue. It is about ensuring that we never again allow the generosity and compassion of the British people to be abused by unscrupulous people smugglers and bogus claimants.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
We have heard a shamefully grim level of debate from some Government Members. The debate has lacked compassion and logic, but I want to start on a positive. Last night, something truly historic happened: Ke Huy Quan became the first east and south-east Asian actor to win an Oscar. He said:
“My journey started on a boat. I ended up in a refugee camp….They say stories like this only happen in the movies…This is the American dream.”
Why is that story of success not a British dream, especially when people such Mo Farah have had a similar experience, filling stadiums, smashing records and being wrapped in a Union flag? Why is that hope and aspiration crushed before it even starts? Because of fear and failure —13 years of Tory failure, to be exact; a failure to provide any sense of international leadership or to negotiate workable deals with other countries. And at home, this Government are making 40% fewer asylum decisions a year than they were in 2015, leaving 160,000 people waiting in limbo for much longer and pushing up accommodation costs. This immigration Bill is based on fear—the fear of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary losing a grip on their own party.
People of faith often speak about the opposite of fear—hope. And they have spoken out against the Bill. The Board of Deputies has shared its concerns and, earlier today, I met members of the Jain community, whose focus is on compassion for all living things, not on this. Last June, all the bishops in the House of Lords signed a letter raising alarm about the Rwanda policy. Today, the Archbishop of York joined the Muslim Council of Britain and 350 other charities and faith organisations to condemn the Bill, saying it was “immoral and inept”.
Normally, that level of criticism would make a Government stop and think, but we are not in ordinary times. Instead, we have yet another Prime Minister who is so desperate to stay in power and keep the Conservative party together that he is willing to tear a country apart. That is the base level of the Bill—the Government blaming others and reaching for unworkable, inhumane covers for their own wretched failure.
My grandparents’ generation, which fought in the war, will not be fooled, and neither will generation Z. Last week, Luton Sixth Form College celebrated its culture day, which was beautiful, exciting and harmonious. Those young people know that there is strength in diversity, not fear. That is true strength. What we hear today is fear, the only card that this clapped-out Conservative Government have left to play. As our faith communities, the generation that fought against division and hatred, and our young people all know, Britain is so much better than this Bill, and our country is so much better than the Conservative Government give it credit for.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is obvious that not everyone will get in. The final speakers—they know who they are—have said that they will try to take two minutes, which means that I can get four more speakers in. David Simmonds will lead the way.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Away from the noise and heat, there are a number of elements of the Bill that are to be welcomed and that have had cross-party support in the past. They include the principle of a cap, which we already operate with our resettlement schemes; the principle of consultation with local authorities to determine the capacity that the country has to accommodate newly arrived refugees; and, in particular, the focus on early and swift decision-making. In my view, those are strong reasons to support the Bill this evening.
Clearly, the focus will be mainly on areas where there is a need for improvement, and I will simply highlight two such areas. First, there is a need to clarify the interaction between clauses 15 to 18 of the Bill and the Children Act 2004. There is a long history of the Home Office taking a view about the primacy of immigration legislation, simply for it to be overturned on judicial review by the courts, which take the view that duties contained in the Children Act come first. We need to ensure that this legislation is watertight, and that it will serve the interests of unaccompanied children in a way that is practical and operable.
Finally, the key weakness I see at the moment, which we need to address, is the lack of a permission stage for those wishing to claim asylum in the UK. If people wish to work, get married or study here, they have to apply for a visa before they travel to the UK, then we decide to whom we will issue visas and how many we are going to issue. In respect of asylum, there is no such process of control. My argument to the Front Bench and to the Government is that we should introduce an asylum visa. We would give ourselves genuine control over who arrives in the UK, how many people come, in what numbers and where they go, and avoid the risk of both a free-for-all and the legal challenges that are a significant peril for the Bill.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Last year, child poverty nearly doubled, workers’ wages fell at the fastest rate in decades and there was a more than 25% jump in people sleeping on the streets, while our schools and hospitals continued to crumble with their funding slashed. These are the crises that grip our country, but instead of addressing them, the Tories focus on this: whipping up fear and hate, demonising people who flee war and torture and whose only supposed crime is wanting to rebuild their lives in Britain.
This Bill is not really about stopping the boats. No one believes it will do that. It is about scapegoating. It is about diverting attention. It is about pretending that the crisis we face is people arriving in dinghies, not growing poverty and inequality. It is about pretending that the challenges our constituents face are not due to soaring bills and a collapsing NHS but due to refugees. This Bill is really about divide and rule. It is about the Tories’ plan to get ahead in the polls and desperately cling to power, even if that means breaking international law and throwing refugees under the bus. I do not think anyone believes that this Bill will work on its own terms. I do not think Government Members believe it will work.
The real problem is the terms that the Bill sets. These are not boats that we are legislating on, but people. They are people the vast majority of whom have their asylum claims accepted once they are here, and who are taking this route because the Government have closed safe routes for refugees and refuse to create new ones.
This is really a crisis of compassion. It is a crisis of solidarity that has been created by those at the top. A decade ago it was David Cameron who called refugees a “swarm”; today the Home Secretary uses the far-right language of an “invasion”. Instead of pandering to the right-wing press and attacking the rights of refugees, let us defeat this Bill and actually address the real sources of the problems in this country.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I will continue the trend of highlights without commentary. Of the 45,000 people who crossed the channel illegally in 2022, we know that 27% were Albanian and 74% were males under 40, as the Home Secretary highlighted earlier. That is on top of the hotels that have been costing us up to £6 million per day, putting our public services and our NHS under great strain.
Today’s debate is actually about fairness. We are a fair country and a welcoming country, as we have shown with Ukraine, with Syria, with Afghanistan and with Hong Kong—with the 89,000 people from Ukraine and 18,900 from Afghanistan. This is a humane policy, tackling the people smuggling gangs responsible for the deaths in the channel, which cannot continue. We must make processing times shorter and we must clear the backlog for the genuine refugees. That is what today’s Bill is about, so I welcome the plans to tackle it and I welcome the wider package of measures—not just the Bill, but everything else we are introducing.
Some people want to make this about the ECHR and whether we stay or leave. That is a debate for another time, but I think all hon. Members will agree that that is a better reason to make this legislation work. Show that we can control our borders—that is my challenge to the Opposition. Vote with us today and show that it can be done. But this is an Opposition who have shown patronising views of countries such as Rwanda, who have campaigned to drag murderers off flights and who want open borders, blanket approvals and amnesties for those who are cheating our system. I support this legislation 100%.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Government have failed to build a system that takes on the refugee and migrant-related challenges of this century, shows compassion to those who so desperately need it and deals with the very small number of people who seek to exploit it. Let us not forget that stopping the boats once and for all can be attained only by calling time on the criminal gangs that seek to exploit the most vulnerable. Nothing in the Bill addresses that issue. This Government have no interest in penalising the perpetrators; they are more concerned with playing to the gallery, even if that means pursuing a cruel and impractical policy that they themselves know will not work.
The Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. It is a hallmark, pure and simple, of a desperate Government who have long run out of ideas in their last-ditch attempt to cling on to power. This Government are seeking to use wedge issues to drive division in our society and mask their fundamental failings in every other aspect of public life. That is the reality facing our communities after 13 years of failure by this Conservative Government, and it is not the fault of refugees.
I am proud that my city of Liverpool, as a city of sanctuary, plays its part in the support of the most vulnerable from overseas—people who have fled violence, persecution and genocide. The Bill does nothing to deal with criminal gangs, nothing to assist the victims of modern slavery, and nothing to address returns agreements—and so much more. It is time to scrap this Bill, go back to the drawing board, and build a system that will deliver for the British people and those seeking refuge from overseas.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Because this has been such an incredibly well-subscribed debate, in the time available to me I will not be able to thank all my hon. Friends individually for their excellent contributions, so I hope they will forgive me for thanking them all collectively. I also want to thank some Conservative Members for their excellent and insightful contributions, particularly, of course, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
I am old enough to remember a Conservative Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), standing at that Dispatch Box and promising the House that her new Nationality and Borders Bill would
“deter illegal entry to the UK…break the business model of the smuggling gangs and protect the lives of those whom they are endangering.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 706.]
Fast-forward two years, and scroll your way through a few more Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries, and here we are again having to listen to the same old reheated rhetoric and empty promises. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Conservative party likes to claim that it stands for secure borders, but when the last Labour Government left office in 2010, fewer than 10,000 people were waiting for a decision for a claim for asylum. The number now stands at more than 160,000, the highest since records began. Conservative Members will also recognise that the number of failed asylum seekers being returned has decreased by an astonishing 80% since 2010. The reality is that, since 2010, successive Conservative Governments have lost control of our borders, and the people smugglers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Another bit of nonsense being peddled on the Conservative Benches is that this Bill will stop the boats. Everyone agrees that the small boat crossings must be stopped. Thousands of people are risking life and limb, and it is utterly appalling that the people smugglers are making millions from this trade in human misery. The fundamental question is whether the measures in the Bill can reasonably be expected to solve the problem, and the answer to that question is a clear and resounding no. In fact, if the Bill were passed, it would actively make matters worse by adding further to the enormous asylum backlog, and by piling further cost on to the staggering £7 million-a-day hotel bill that is currently being picked up by the British taxpayer.
The Government can label channel crossers “inadmissible” or “illegal” all they want, and they can promise that they will be detained and swiftly removed until the cows come home, but the fact is that Ministers are completely unable to answer two obvious and vitally important questions: “Detained where?” and “Removed to where?” Rwanda is a non-starter because the Rwandan Government can only take 200—and how on earth are the Government planning to send asylum seekers back across the channel unless we have a formal returns agreement with the EU to replace the Dublin convention? Ministers tried all this last year: under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, they made 18,000 people inadmissible, and how many did they remove or return? Twenty-one. Let me therefore encourage Ministers to drop their obsession with chasing tabloid headlines, and to focus instead on prioritising measures which will actually work.
That brings me to the final myth that needs busting: the idea that we on these Benches have somehow not been putting forward our own proposals. Every single time the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Home Secretary and I have come to this Dispatch Box, we have set out exactly how Labour in government will tackle the small boat crossings and fix an asylum system that has been utterly broken by 13 years of Tory incompetence and indifference, but it appears Conservative Members have not been paying attention, so let me remind them of our plan.
First, we will scrap the unaffordable, unworkable and unethical Rwanda scheme, and redirect all that wasted taxpayer money into resourcing a 100-strong elite cross- border police unit to relentlessly pursue the real enemy—the ruthless criminal gangs and traffickers—and ensure that we tackle this upstream, working with the French and across Europe to defeat the gangs.
Secondly, we will negotiate a returns agreement with the EU as a matter of urgency. Successive Conservative Governments since 2016 have focused on trashing relations with our European partners and allies, so the Prime Minister has a mountain to climb in rebuilding the trust that will be required as the basis of securing a returns deal. We wish him well, but the reality is that it is going to take a Labour Government to pick up the pieces and succeed where this Government have so badly failed.
Thirdly, we will introduce long overdue measures to get a grip on the decision-making process for asylum claims. We will clear the backlog once and for all by establishing an effective triage system and by reversing the absurd and incomprehensible decision to downgrade the seniority of key Home Office officials. Fourthly, while the Government do little more than pay lip service to the idea of safe and legal routes, we will act to fix the current resettlement programmes, including the broken Afghanistan pathways.
It is time to let the grown-ups back into the room. Three years ago, many people who had never voted Tory before put their trust in this Government because they wanted secure borders, controlled migration and competent governance, but absolutely none of those things has been delivered. So it is little wonder that the country has had enough of a Government who cynically bring forward Bills that are far more about scapegoating and slogans than they are about solutions, and it is little wonder that it has had enough of a Government who know that they cannot stand on their record and who are instead planning to fight the general election on a platform that is all about stoking anxiety, fear and division.
The good news is that the British people are not stupid. They watch as Conservative Ministers blame everyone else for their own failures: they blame the civil servants; they blame the lawyers; they blame the European Union and the ECHR; and they even blame the football pundits. But our constituents know exactly where the buck stops. They know that the day is approaching when they will be able to vote for a Labour Government who will tackle the small boats crisis and deal with the myriad other challenges and crises that our country is facing after 13 years of Tory failure, and they know that that day cannot come soon enough.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
This has been a passionate debate characterised by many excellent speeches, and I commend among others on my side my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for a series of outstanding speeches. I commend none more than my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall), who said that his constituent had told him:
“I implore you to vote to stop this vile trade…and you and your fellow MPs can make it happen.”
He spoke for the country.
As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made clear, we must stop the boats and secure our borders. Our approach is guided by that most British of values: fairness. The present situation is anything but fair. Ours is a generous and compassionate country and we will continue to offer sanctuary and refuge to those fleeing persecution, conflict and tyranny, but we will not accept mass illegal migration to our shores, orchestrated by people smugglers. It is for that reason that we are introducing this Bill today, to address this challenge once and for all.
Let me start by addressing some of the important points that were raised, first by those hon. and right hon. Members who have argued for the exclusion of children and families from the scheme or the detention powers. This is a difficult and sensitive topic, but let me be clear: we cannot allow women and children to be used as pawns in the people smugglers’ despicable trade. I have seen for myself the depravity of the people-smuggling gangs. There is no low to which they would not stoop. They have no regard for human life. If we were inadvertently to create an incentive to split up families and to encourage adults to make false claims, there is no doubt in my mind that the people-smuggling gangs would do it. That is why we will handle this issue with the sensitivity it deserves, but we will also ensure that we break the evil people smugglers’ model.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) both spoke powerfully about the modern slavery frameworks they forged and the need to protect genuine victims. We agree. The Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery and to supporting victims, and it is for that reason that we want to prevent abuse. Just 6% of detentions ending in 2019 involved a modern slavery referral, rising to 53% in 2020 and 73% in 2021. We have to defend the modern slavery architecture by reforming it and ensuring that it is not open to abuse.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, spoke eloquently, but she could not bring herself to say that those crossing the channel in small boats are illegal or that it is wrong to break into our country.
Robert Jenrick
No, I will not.
Nor could the shadow Home Secretary explain what these migrants, the overwhelming majority of whom are young men, fleeing through Greece, through Italy, through Germany, through Belgium, through the Netherlands and, indeed, through France are actually fleeing. She lamented the absence of a European replacement for the Dublin agreement, but she failed to mention that just 1% of the UK’s transfer requests were granted in 2020 and that, year after year, we took back more people than we transferred. She did not provide one credible proposal to stop the boats, which should come as no surprise because, when Labour announced its five missions, stopping the boats did not even feature. Labour has literally nothing to say.
The right hon. Lady was sensible enough not to say it, but her Back Benchers betrayed the real views of the Labour party. They queued up, one after another, to dismiss the perfectly reasonable concerns of the British public as “racist” and “fascist.”
And from the SNP we heard what can only be described as performative compassion. In her 25 minutes, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) did not mention the fact that Scotland accounts for 8% of the UK’s population but hosts only 1% of all migrants in initial and contingency accommodation. In fact, there are more migrants housed in contingency accommodation in Kensington than there are in the entirety of Scotland. The SNP’s message is clear: “Refugees welcome, but not in SNP Scotland.”
Let me be clear that this country will always provide support to those in need, and nothing in this Bill will ever change that. As we have seen with the 500,000 people who entered this country in recent years on humanitarian visas—more than at any time in our modern history—this country believes in dealing with migrants with dignity, but it also believes that there is no dignity in the dinghies. There is no humanity in the people smugglers, and we have to break their business model. That is why we brought forward this Bill.
There is a simple choice before us. Is it for the British Government or for the people-smuggling gangs to decide who enters this country? On this side of the House, we believe that, without border controls, national security is ultimately compromised, that the fabric of communities begins to fray and that public services come under intolerable pressure. Although we should always be generous to those in need, we believe there are limits to the support we can provide. It is Members on this side of the House who are on the right side of the moral debate. It is clear that, for that reason, we will stop the boats, we will secure our borders and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day Clauses 37 to 51; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Second day Clauses 2 to 5; the Schedule; Clauses 6 to 36 and 52 to 58; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; Clause 1; remaining proceedings on the Bill | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Online Safety Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I do not intend to detain the House, but I have made intimations to a number of Ministers that I wish to put on record.
Time is always a factor in the House, and the sheer scale of business inevitably leads to delays. I absolutely agree with the motion to extend the time available for this essential Bill to continue its passage to the next stage in the other place before it returns to us so that we can fine-tune it and get it right.
I have received large numbers of emails about the Online Safety Bill, and Ministers are well aware of the issues of concern to me and others. The fact is that this Bill and the provisions it contains are necessary in this modern world. Loopholes must be addressed and measures added to ensure that the spirit of the Bill’s aims is achieved, that people are safer online, with the prohibition of bullying, attacks, wrongful advice and out-and-out harmful lies, and that there are powers to enforce that. That is what is needed.
It is right and proper that appropriate time is given to discuss the Bill—I support that entirely. I look forward to returning to this place to get the job done and to get it right for my constituents. For me, that is what it is all about.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition submitted by homeowners at the relatively new Acton Gardens development, which is on the site of demolished blocks where the external shots of “Only Fools and Horses” were filmed. It is not even a decade old, but leaseholders are concerned about spiralling service charges paid to the London & Quadrant Housing Trust in the face of incomplete repairs to communal doors and security systems, malfunctioning water and energy supplies, unanswered inquiries and the bottomless pit of the sinking fund, leaving them to wonder where the money is going.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the difficulties faced by Acton Gardens residents, and leaseholders who have been fighting for increased transparency of service charge accounts and expenditure and take immediate action to ensure that leaseholders who seek transparency of service charge accounts are granted that transparency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002815]
Pavement Parking
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
In my time in this House, I have been lucky to obtain a number of Adjournment debates, but never before has one generated quite the same level of response as this one. This issue has a daily impact on constituents and makes their lives materially worse. For some constituents, it is beyond frustrating and actively stops them from enjoying the things that many of us take for granted. That includes people who have mobility impairments, who are blind or partially sighted, and people who are neurodiverse.
I heard from my constituent, Barbara, who told me about the difficulties she had getting to the supermarket when she was in a wheelchair. Carolyn told me she is finding it harder to take out her mum, another wheelchair user, on walks to Alexandra Park. New parents like Hafsa, Jack and Antony told me how difficult it was to navigate parked cars with a pushchair, and the dangers of having to take their children into the road to get around.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on pavement parking. Sadly, it is an issue that affects people in my constituency daily. Does he agree that ultimately what we need to rid our towns and villages of this problem is behaviour change? The question is how we get people to stop inconsiderate, selfish and dangerous parking that blocks paths for pedestrians, wheelchair users, pushchairs and guide dogs. Sadly, appealing to people’s better nature does not always seem to be effective, so does he agree that we need councils and police forces to be properly resourced so that they can issue fines, put signs up, repaint lines and work with local businesses, which should also remind customers about not parking on pavements, for the good and the safety of all our communities?
Afzal Khan
I agree wholeheartedly and thank my hon. Friend for her amazing hard work in her constituency. I will be covering the issues she raises in my speech.
I have heard from my local council about missed bin collections and expensive damage to pavement surfaces. Walk Ride Whalley Range in my constituency commissioned its own local research; the response was that pavement parking not only is an issue for those with disabilities or young children, but encourages speeding and reckless driving in neighbourhoods. It discourages people from choosing active travel alternatives to cars, such as walking and cycling, and prevents people from accessing public transport.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is absolutely right that there is a very clear safety issue. If cars are parked on the pavement, that means that women with prams, ladies who are walking and blind people with their guide dogs have to go on the road, thereby endangering them. Does he agree—perhaps the Minister will address this point, too—that safety has to be paramount? People have to be considerate of others. Back home, whenever I have brought these things to the attention of the police, they have gone out and enforced the rules with tickets. Maybe that needs to be done here as well.
Afzal Khan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and will expand on some of those points.
I know that local councillors across my constituency have worked hard to tackle the issue, despite not having the right tools to do the job. For example, they have joined efforts to leave notes on parked cars to remind drivers to think about the impact of their parking on other road users.
Most streets in my constituency were constructed before car ownership became common. There are many narrow terrace streets and houses without drives or garages. There needs to be a much wider debate about how a reduction can be achieved in car use in cities, but I want to focus on this one specific issue today. Our starting point must be that footpaths and pavements are for people walking or wheeling, not for vehicles.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue that has united Members of all parties across the House. Does he agree that the best solution already exists in London, where we have had a default ban on pavement parking for decades, and where local authorities can work with residents on exemptions where there is no choice? It is about time the Government responded to the consultations that took place more than two years ago and brought something in across the country similar to what we already have in London.
Afzal Khan
I agree. That is exactly the point I will make: we need to move forward, because we should not be still waiting. What is good enough for London is surely good enough for the rest of the UK.
In 2020, the Government held a consultation called “Pavement parking: options for change”. There have been written questions on when we can expect the outcome of the consultation; the response every time is “As soon as possible.” We are now on our fifth responsible Minister since the consultation closed. Government instability aside, surely the Minister agrees that two years, three months and 19 days is more than enough time to prepare a response. I hope he will be able to make “as soon as possible” mean sooner rather than later.
PATROL, a joint committee of local authorities—the name stands for Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London—points out that it is a misconception that all pavement parking is currently legal outside London. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 make it clear that causing “unnecessary obstruction” of the highway by a stationary vehicle is a criminal offence. However, because it is a criminal offence, only the police have the power to issue penalty notices. The truth is that this is not a priority for the police and, to be honest, I do not blame them for that. After all, since 2011, Greater Manchester police have seen real-terms cuts of more than £215 million, with 2,000 fewer officers. They simply do not have the capacity. The current law is also ambiguous. The word “unnecessary” is subjective and leads to significant confusion among drivers: a study by YouGov found that 46% of them were confused by current laws.
The real difference between London and the rest of England lies in the fact that the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 created an unambiguous offence which authorities are confident to enforce and which, moreover, is also enforceable by local councils, rather than just the police. There is widespread agreement that we must bring the rest of England into line with London.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
My first Adjournment debate in the Chamber was about the issue of pavement parking. We were told that there would be a response very soon. Is it not now essential, for the sake of people such as Laurel, a blind constituent of mine who has a guide dog, for these laws to be introduced?
Afzal Khan
I entirely agree.
While it is already possible for councils to issue a traffic regulation order, there are drawbacks to the process which make it not only an unsustainable option for local authorities, but one that is unlikely to drive widespread behavioural change. The cost of permanent TROs can be astronomical. There is a clear need for a separate review of TROs to bring the process into the 21st century. They are rightly only enforceable when clearly signed, but that is yet another expense, and the overall cost makes them suitable only for a narrow and targeted approach. It would never be possible to create a TRO preventing pavement parking covering the entire city of Manchester, for example. If an order is applied to just one small area, the problem may shift to a nearby area without changing driver behaviour.
What is needed is a national approach that sets an expectation for all drivers everywhere. One way of achieving that would be to amend the Traffic Management Act 2004 to add obstruction to the list of offences to which civil enforcement applies. This would be imperfect, but would allow local authorities to issue fines, and would give councils outside London the first ingredient in the recipe that their counterparts in the capital enjoy: the power to enforce. We would also need a second ingredient, a lack of ambiguity. However, there should be very few circumstances in which obstructing the pavement is necessary, and we must set clear expectations on that to change driver behaviour.
A step beyond would be the introduction of a default ban on pavement parking across England through primary legislation, which is the approach now being taken by Scotland. The main benefit would be the creation of a simple, uniform and easily understood system, allowing for exceptions to suit local circumstances. I appreciate that that might take more time, which is why I hope the Government might make use of intermediate options now to begin to tackle the issue as soon as possible.
Any of these options will need to be accompanied by more resources: resources for national and local information campaigns on how the law is changing, and resources for local authorities for the purpose of enforcement. Only by doing both can we change behaviour for the better, and we cannot expect local authorities to foot the bill when they have already faced millions of pounds of cuts forced on them by Conservative and Lib Dem Governments since 2010.
There is a clear and widespread desire for change across the country. We must do better to make our streets usable for people walking or wheeling, and create an environment that is for the many, not the few. That will mean more people on foot, on bikes and on public transport, fewer cars and healthier, cleaner air.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on his speech today and on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I have a constituency similar to his with a lot of 19th century terraced housing, which is also similar to the constituencies of the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater). I also thank the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for contributing to the debate.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned his constituents Barbara, Carolyn, Hafsa, Jack and Antony. I also have several constituents who regularly contact me about this matter, so I know that there is concern across the House about it and we all want to see positive change. I would like to make it clear that the Government are determined to ensure that disabled people have the same access to transport as everyone else and that they can travel easily, with confidence and without extra cost. That is why the Government’s inclusive transport strategy aims to create a transport system that provides equal access for disabled people by 2030, with assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier. I am delighted also to be the accessibility champion for the Department.
We also want to make walking and cycling the natural first choice for shorter journeys wherever possible. We have set an ambitious vision that by 2030 half of all journeys in towns and cities will be either cycled or walked. To help to deliver that, Active Travel England was launched in August 2020 to work with local authorities to develop and deliver new high-quality walking and cycling infrastructure schemes.
Ruth Cadbury
We all welcome the words about active travel that the Minister has just read out, so why is the budget for Active Travel England, which was launched only last year, being cut by two thirds?
Mr Holden
I cannot speculate on what is going to be in the Budget, and I would urge hon. Members to wait and see what is going to happen later in the week. What I would say is that we have placed huge emphasis on this area already, with major investment going on across the country, and we expect to spend around £850 million by the end of this year, which is a record amount of funding. That represents a step change from previous Governments and Administrations of all colours in this space, and I expect to see that continue.
Recently in Parliament, I met Matthew Campbell-Hill, the new Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee chairman, and Cameron Wood, a constituent of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who are both actively campaigning on this issue. They highlighted to me, as has happened in other recent meetings I have had in Parliament, the real issues that pavement parking can cause for pedestrians and people with buggies and prams, but particularly for disabled people with sight or mobility impairments. This is an issue I have been campaigning on in my own constituency as well, where the blind community is particularly prominent in the town of Dipton.
Pavement parking has been prohibited in London since 1974, except where councils choose to permit it by implementing exemptions and erecting the necessary traffic signs. There is no specific ban outside London, but councils can implement local pavement parking prohibitions through traffic regulation orders, as well as prescribed traffic signs and bay markings. It is also the case that waiting restrictions such as yellow lines can apply to pavements as well as to the carriageway.
The Transport Committee reported on pavement parking in September 2019, with the key recommendation that the Government bring forward proposals to reform the TRO process to make it cheaper and easier for local authorities to use. Having seen it myself, I know that the process clearly needs reform. The Committee also recommended that the Government consult on a new civilly enforceable offence of obstructive pavement parking, and that we legislate across England, outside London, to address this issue more broadly.
Although successive Governments have recognised that there is no perfect solution to this difficult problem, the Government believed in 2020 that it was time to look again at the issue in detail. I am delighted to say that we had over 15,000 responses to the consultation, and each respondent was given the chance to answer up to 15 questions, providing tens of thousands of pieces of feedback and information, all of which needed to be read and analysed. Although I do not think I can please the hon. Gentleman as much as I would like by saying that we will imminently publish our formal response to the consultation, it is a very real and complex problem that we are looking to address at the earliest opportunity. I am actively working on this inside the Department.
At the moment, there are inherent dangers for all pedestrians from pavement parking, including being forced on to the carriageway. This is an issue faced by many disabled people, particularly those using motorised chairs when there are no dropped kerbs, resulting in further damage to pavements, which is a trip hazard. Maintenance is also a burden for local authorities and local taxpayers.
It also needs to be recognised that many towns and cities like ours were not designed to accommodate today’s traffic levels, or indeed cars per se. In some locations, particularly our narrower terraced streets, the pavement is the only place to park without obstructing the carriageway and so allow the free flow of traffic, including for emergency services.
All the measures on which we consulted have challenges in respect of efficacy and deliverability, and we want to take the right steps for future policy. Existing legislation allows local authorities to introduce TROs to manage traffic, and it allows them the freedom to decide what they wish to do at a local level. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, the process is time-consuming and burdensome. We recognise that it has to be reformed, as it is hugely important, and the Department is committed to doing that.
Removing bureaucracy and digitalising a costly, paper-based system is desperately needed to help speed up applications and the process more broadly. This will make it quicker and cheaper for local authorities to implement TROs. We need to reduce the average wait time of six months, which is far too burdensome and bureaucratic. At the moment it takes 12 weeks even for temporary TROs. We estimate that this could easily be reduced by a third, with resultant savings in both administrative costs and time. Digitalised TROs will also provide accurate digital data on how our roads operate, which will be needed to support autonomous vehicles in the longer term, and they will help to provide accurate information to road users in the shorter term. We are actively looking at this at the moment.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton also mentioned the second recommendation on the offence of unnecessary obstruction of the road. I agree with him and other hon. Members that this is a broad and not well understood area of law. The offence includes the carriageway, verges and pavement, and it already exists as a criminal offence. We could amend the regulations to make unnecessary obstruction of the pavement enforceable by local authorities, while leaving obstruction of the carriageway as a criminal matter. That would enable civil enforcement officers to address instances of unnecessarily obstructive pavement parking, as and when they find it. Enforcement against this offence would be more targeted than a general prohibition of pavement parking. This would allow egregious cases to be addressed while not penalising motorists where pavement parking is the only option, and where it is safe for pedestrians and other road users. This could be implemented relatively quickly, as it would require only secondary legislation. Through this approach, pavement parking would not become a general offence, so local authorities would not need to conduct costly and time-consuming audits of their road networks, nor would it be necessary to place traffic signs and bay markings to indicate where pavement parking was still permitted.
However, there is a challenge with this option. Parking offences currently subject to local authority civil enforcement are violations of clearly defined restrictions indicated by traffic signs and road markings, such as yellow lines or white bay markings. By contrast, unnecessary obstruction could not be indicated by traffic signs or bay markings, as “obstruction” is a general offence that may occur anywhere. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, “unnecessary obstruction” is also difficult to define. It would require case-by-case assessment and the Department would likely need to issue properly extensive guidance to steer local authorities in the right way as to what might be deemed unnecessary obstruction, in order to prevent inappropriate and inconsistent enforcement. Any such inconsistency would also ensure that our mailbags were overflowing with correspondence from people rightly concerned about that issue.
The third option, which we have also consulted on, is a national prohibition, extending the London arrangements to the rest of the country or making local authorities able to implement this as they see fit. That option would establish a general rule against pavement parking except where there is a specific permission of a local authority, or vice versa. I think we would all agree that motorists would also benefit from a consistent rule in this space. That option would need a significant implementation period. Furthermore, it would require primary legislation, as the hon. Gentleman noted. Local authorities would need to audit their road networks to decide where pavement parking remained necessary, implement the necessary exemptions, and place traffic signs and bay markings to indicate all the places where pavement parking was to be permitted—or vice-versa, depending on which route we went down.
Consideration also needs to be given to whether it would be disproportionate to ban pavement parking across the whole country. For example, in rural areas the scale of the road network would mean that the costs of implementing a national ban in this way would be higher, while the issues caused by pavement parking are often likely to be lower, especially on verges in some rural communities. This is a complex area and it is only right that we are thorough in taking our time to consider it.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady rightly presses me on this point. There are things I am actively considering in this area, and these are interim steps. Primary legislation is a long-term aim in this area, but there are certainly things we can do in the interim and things I hope to bring forward in the not-too-distant future.
Overall, local authorities are clearly in the best position to decide where pavement parking should or should not be permitted in their local areas, especially outside London, which is an urban conurbation. It is the Department’s role to ensure they have appropriate and effective tools to prohibit pavement parking where desired. I am fully aware that the Department’s response to the consultation is eagerly awaited, as has been made clear by hon. Members today. Although I cannot pre-empt publication of the Department’s consultation response, I am actively working on this, not just on the primary legislation, but on other measures that could be put in place in the interim period. All the options have challenges in respect of efficacy and deliverability, and it is our job to weigh up all of that and take the right steps forward. We are working through the options and the possible legislative opportunities for delivering them, and as soon as those matters are certain, we will publish the formal response. Although I cannot say this evening exactly when that will be, and I am sorry to let the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and others down on that, I assure them that this matter is receiving our full consideration. It is a priority for us and we are aiming to publish as soon as is practically possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
This statutory instrument amends the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment and Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015. The existing legislation supports the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries by providing for a scheme exempting eligible businesses from a proportion of the costs of funding renewable electricity. These are costs associated with funding the renewables obligation, contracts for difference and the small-scale feed-in tariff schemes. The costs associated with those schemes are passed on by electricity suppliers through their electricity bills, and they have a particularly high impact on foundation industries such as steel, paper, chemicals and cement, which are critical to many infrastructure projects and provide well paid, highly skilled jobs across the United Kingdom. As foundation industries, these businesses are critical in the development of new projects, including offshore wind, and therefore play an important role in the transition to net zero.
The exemption also provides relief for new and emerging industries such as battery manufacturers, which are critical to electric vehicles, and manufacturers of semiconductors, which are critical to the UK high-tech economy. They provide not only direct jobs but indirect jobs in the aerospace and automotive sectors. They employ people from Cornwall to Kent and from Grangemouth to South Wales.
The original legislation was put in place in 2017, and since then over 320 businesses have benefited from the exemption. Under the regulations, businesses that applied in 2017 will need to be reassessed this year using the last three years of data. For many businesses that will include 2020 and 2021. This statutory instrument allows businesses to exclude data from that period where it does not reflect the normal course of business. Some businesses had to reduce production or lost profitability during the covid pandemic. The flexibility in this instrument will enable them to continue to benefit from the exemption. It also allows companies applying for an exemption to apply for relief with one quarter’s worth, rather than two quarters’ worth, of data. That will encourage new businesses and start-ups to apply for relief.
The sectors eligible for the existing exemption scheme employ around 400,000 workers and account for over a quarter of total UK exports. Many are located in areas of economic disadvantage and provide good, high-paid jobs. In the UK, our electricity prices for medium and large industrial users were the highest in western Europe in 2018. Clearly, electricity costs have a significant impact on the competitiveness of such enterprises. The industries affected operate in international markets, so higher electricity costs place them at a competitive disadvantage, which results in the risk of “carbon leakage”, whereby companies choose to move their production to countries with less ambitious climate policies.
Existing legislation covering energy-intensive industries allows eligible businesses to receive an indirect exemption of up to 85% of the costs of funding renewable electricity schemes. Where an eligible business applies successfully for the exemption, its electricity supplier receives a reduction in the costs, which in practice it passes on to the eligible business. That approach mitigates the cost of the renewable electricity scheme, supports industrial competitiveness and provides certainty for businesses. The costs of the exemption are distributed to all other electricity users. The regulations amend legislation to improve access to the exemption for new companies. They also allow companies to exclude two years of data from their application, which accounts for the impact of the covid-19 pandemic.
In conclusion, the regulations will improve the operation of the scheme and support the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom, and I commend them to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The SI looks very straightforward. It proposes two minor amendments to the qualifying arrangements for the energy-intensive industries exemption scheme, which, as the Minister says, came into force in 2017. It replaced a discount scheme with one in which energy-intensive industries were eligible for a discount of 85% on the green and environmental levies charged to other industries to deal with, for example, the cost of the renewables obligation and contracts for difference.
As the Minister says, the continued eligibility of companies for the scheme was designed to be reviewed by 2022. Some companies’ eligibility may have lapsed because during the pandemic they did not produce to the same extent as they do now, or because they had other arrangements that they needed to carry out that might have infringed on the rules of the scheme. The arrangements proposed today shorten the period for which accounts and various other things need to be provided, so that eligible companies can be judged on the basis of their present performance, rather than their performance over five years.
I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate other matters relating to the scheme, as they are quite important for our overall judgment of it. First, as she said, the original 2017 EII exemption applied to about 315 eligible businesses. Indeed, the SI that introduced the scheme provided a number of specified activities in sectors exempted because of their energy-intensiveness. However, although she suggested that those 315 businesses now have their eligibility up for renewal, it appears that when the scheme was launched in November 2017, only 170 companies applied. Unless there has been substantial changeover since 2017, and a number of new companies make up the difference between the 315 eligible businesses and the companies that applied, we appear to be short a number of companies—eligible companies that have not yet received the discount on their electricity bills, for reasons that I can only conjecture about. Perhaps they thought applying for the scheme was too difficult, or did not know about it.
We have a potential double problem. The SI suggests that things could be made easier by our relaxing the requirements on companies that are renewing their eligibility. It appears that a number of companies that were in principle eligible for the scheme as it was—not as it is now—still have not got any exemption. With these new reliefs and eligibility requirements, companies not in the scheme could be brought into it. Whether the Government have any positive methods of ensuring that they are brought in, I do not know; the Minister may be able to enlighten us.
In 2017, when the scheme came in, it gave an 85% exemption, but in August 2022 the Government announced that they would take the scheme further and introduce 100% exemption for energy-intensive industries. As far as I know, nothing has happened on implementing that proposal. There was considerable press coverage of the intention to increase the exemption to 100%, but there is very little press coverage of the fact that the Government appear to have done nothing to implement that increase—or if they have, it has passed me by, and it has certainly has not been recorded to any great extent.
If it is still proposed that the 100% scheme will be implemented in the not-too-distant future, that will make a difference to the extent of the exemption arrangement, and to the measures needed to make sure that the scheme is easier to requalify for, so that businesses can get an exemption more valuable than the 85% exemption.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, Dame Angela, but only this morning, I received a letter from a laundry based in my constituency, which made the point that its energy bills have escalated considerably. It appears—unless I misread the letter—that the laundry sector is not covered by the regulations. Does my hon. Friend agree that laundry—for the tourism trade in my constituency, but also for healthcare operations—is a vital sector that has soaring costs, and needs to not be overlooked?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes a very good point that slightly anticipates my third and final question for the Minister. She is quite right, and by coincidence, I have in front of me the complete list of activities that qualify as energy-intensive industries. Laundry and associated activities are not on the list. However, interestingly, the mining of hard coal is. It is curious that those mining hard coal are exempt from all the levies that go towards mitigating the pretty bad things done to the environment through the mining of hard coal. I would have thought that the mining of hard coal should in no way be in the schedule of specified activities. My hon. Friend suggests other things that should be in that schedule and eligible for levy reductions. Does the Minister intend to review the schedule, which dates from 2017, and who is eligible for exemptions? If she does, what will be the criteria for inclusion among energy-intensive industries? If she does not, is she happy that mining hard coal continues to be 85% exempt?
Labour will not oppose this SI, because it represents a sensible change to the scheme and takes account of what happened during covid. I think the Minister will agree, however, that there are questions, some clear and some rather less clear, about the operation of the EII scheme that need answering before we can conclude our business this afternoon.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member, as ever, for his valuable and well thought out contribution.
The exemption provides relief for key foundation industries, including companies operating in the steel, paper, chemicals, cement, and glass sectors. The scheme also supports emerging sectors, such as battery manufacturers and companies making semiconductors. The companies that the scheme supports are located across the country and provide high-paid, good-quality jobs, both directly and in the supply chain.
The hon. Member asked about communication. Communication is key in all that we do, and we will endeavour to ensure that we keep on communicating all we are doing to support the industry. The regulations are necessary to improve the operation of the scheme. They will make it easier for start-ups and businesses to apply. They will also allow businesses to account for the impact of covid-19 when applying for relief. We will update and publish our guidance on gov.uk in April 2023 to ensure that business is aware of the relief, and we will proactively engage with stakeholders to ensure that they are aware of the changes. All 320 companies have received a discount, and we know that other companies have already applied. The list of eligible sectors is based on the most electricity and trade-intensive businesses. We continue to engage with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that support is targeted at those sectors most exposed to high electricity costs.
The hon. Member asked about the 100% exemption. On 23 February 2023, the Government announced their intention to move to 100% as part of the British industry supercharger. The delivery mechanisms and timelines for the implementation of the supercharger will be consulted on this spring.
Dr Whitehead
What the Minister says appears to be a reannouncement of what was announced in August and not proceeded with. Is the Minister now saying that the 100% discount is being proceeded with, and will be in place, say, this spring or later on? When does she think that might happen?
Amanda Solloway
To reiterate, the Government announced their intention to move 100% as part of the British industry supercharger on 23 February 2023.
The Chair
Order. Rather than speaking while sitting down, the Member might want to intervene; I am sure the Minister would let him.
Amanda Solloway
Following a consultation in spring 2023, we will come forward with our proposals on the recently announced British industry supercharger, which aims to roll out further support to important manufacturing businesses by exempting firms from certain costs arising from renewable energy obligations, as well as GB capacity market costs, while exploring reductions for network charges, which are the costs industrial users pay for their supply of electricity.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Given the intention to look at the list of industries, will the Minister commit to reviewing the inclusion of the mining of hard coal? My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, suggested that it may be wise to do so.
Amanda Solloway
The list of eligible sectors is determined by their electricity and trade intensity. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Draft Treasure (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2023
Draft Treasure Act 1996: Code of Practice (3rd Revision)
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Treasure (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2023.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Treasure Act 1996: Code of Practice (3rd Revision).
Julia Lopez
I am pleased to be speaking to this order, which was laid before the House in draft on 20 February, and the code, which was laid in draft on 23 February. I suspect that this may be the most interesting statutory instrument that I have ever laid and ever will. The order and revised code are intended to support the aim of the Treasure Act 1996 to preserve important and significant finds for the benefit of our nation. The order designates a new class of treasure based on the significance of a find, and exempts finds that currently also fall under the legal processes of the Church of England. The code has been revised to make it easier to understand and use, and includes guidance on the new class of treasure and exemption.
The Treasure Act replaced the common law of treasure trove in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The current definition of treasure broadly captures only those objects that are made of silver or gold and more than 300 years old when found, as well as hoards of prehistoric base metal objects. Coroners then decide whether an object meets the definition of treasure, and the finder of an item of potential treasure has to report it within 14 days. If the object is found to be treasure, it belongs to the Crown unless an heir of the original owner demonstrates their claim to it.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend said that the measures apply to the finding of metal objects. For most of our history and pre-history we have been a stone-bearing culture. Can we not include significant stone objects?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend. That is something that we have considered as part of this process. We have looked carefully at the question of capacity and scope, and while we believe that this is the most appropriate and proportionate next step in treasure regulations, the Department will continue to consider the issue.
Treasure is made available to museums to acquire for public benefit. If a museum acquires a find, it funds a discretionary reward for the finder and landowner. The amount and division of the reward are decided by the Secretary of State, advised by the Treasure Valuation Committee. That process is expertly delivered by our partners in the British Museum, Amgueddfa Cymru— the National Museum Wales—and National Museums Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, the portable antiquities scheme, which records archaeological objects found by members of the public, plays a key role in facilitating the reporting of finds and their acquisition by museums.
The Act has been very successful. More than 17,500 finds have been reported since 1996, over 95% of which were made by metal detectorists. An estimated 6,000 have been acquired by over 200 museums across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those include outstanding finds such as the Corrard torc in Northern Ireland and the Staffordshire hoard in England. When a museum acquires a find, it means that it is available for the public to see and admire, but beyond that it educates people about their own heritage. By giving museums the first chance to acquire archaeological discoveries, the Treasure Act has a fundamentally important role in preserving our past.
However, there have been times when the Act has not been able to help museums to secure important finds. Discoveries that do not meet the current definition of treasure, such as individual base metal objects, may be sold by the finder at auction. Museums are now competing with private buyers or dealers, with a high risk of being outbid. Even if they are successful they will have to pay additional costs such as premiums. For example, the Crosby Garrett helmet, a unique base-metal Roman find that did not meet the definition of treasure, as subsequently sold on the open market. Despite the great efforts of museums to raise funds, they were ultimately outbid.
Another object at risk of being lost to the public is the bronze birrus Britannicus, a Roman figure that provides a singular insight into Romano-British life and one of the highlights of Chelmsford Museum’s collection. The museum was able to acquire it only when it was sold overseas and the export deferral system stopped it. However, we should not need to rely on that system to protect important discoveries, particularly as it comes into play only if an overseas buyer happens to purchase the object. The change we are debating will ensure that that does not happen and that museums will get the first right to acquire the most significant finds.
The order designates a new class of treasure based on significance. For the first time, the most important base metal finds, gold and silver finds that are between 200 and 300 years old and single gold coins, all of which are currently outside the definition of treasure, can now be considered to be treasure. Such finds will be caught by the definition only if they meet the specific criteria in the order that are aimed at identifying objects of outstanding historic, cultural and archaeological importance.
John Howell
My hon. Friend has described a set of rules for treasure that are based on financial value. The cultural value of these assets is more important, so why can we not have a definition based on cultural rather than financial value?
Julia Lopez
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. This policy area is led by my departmental colleague Lord Parkinson. I understand that the point my hon. Friend made has been considered, but it was balanced against the implementation challenges and the system’s capacity to deal with such questions. I should be happy to facilitate further discussion on the matter if that would be helpful to my hon. Friend.
The criteria have been carefully designed to ensure that the new class is limited to finds of exceptional national, regional or local significance. We consider that to be a high bar. The order owes its origins to a wide range of sources. We took into account the responses to the 2019 consultation on the Treasure Act, many of which recommended a significance-based definition. The Heyworth Heritage research report, which was commissioned by my Department, provided detailed, pragmatic advice on the implications of the new class. We also worked with sector experts such as the treasure registry at the British Museum and colleagues at Museum Wales and National Museums NI, whose practical experience of treasure was invaluable.
We are introducing another change in the order. The Treasure Act removed the common-law requirement that for a find to be considered treasure, there had to be some evidence that it had been hidden with an intention by the owner to return to recover it. That brought into the process objects associated with human burials, including those on consecrated land, which also fall under the Church of England’s statutory process for managing moveable objects. This overlapping jurisdiction complicates both the Church of England’s legal process and treasure legal processes.
The order therefore seeks to remove the confusion around Church of England finds by exempting them from the treasure process, as the Government undertook to do during the passage of the Act. We have worked with the Church of England to define the scope of the exemption, which we hope will avoid conflicts arising between the treasure process and the ecclesiastical legal system for managing moveable objects.
Alongside the order, we are also debating the associated statutory code of practice, which provides essential guidance and principles for the administration and operation of the treasure process. The current code is out of date, does not reflect current administrative practices and, naturally, does not include information on the proposed changes to be introduced by the order.
Revisions to the code introduce changes to the process to ensure that it is more efficient and transparent for all parties involved. The changes are the result of an extensive public consultation, to which there were more than 1,400 responses, representing the full range of interested parties including museums, metal detectorists, archaeologists and landowners. They provided evidence and feedback on the process that have enabled us to make the changes.
We have introduced specific deadlines for all parties in the treasure process to improve timeliness, and we have included more information on the individual administration processes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and clearer information on rewards. The language of the code has been updated to make it easier for all users to understand their responsibilities under the Treasure Act.
The changes aim to make the treasure process more efficient, but that is obviously not an end in itself. Beyond that, the intention is that a clear and understandable process will encourage museums to decide to acquire treasure, satisfy finders that decisions on their finds will be made within a reasonable time, and ensure that the public will benefit from increased access to significant finds. I commend the changes to the House and would like to open these matters to debate.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell, and to speak on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the Minister and officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for the conversations that we had ahead of today’s Committee.
As the Minister set out, the draft Treasure (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2023 amends the Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 so as to extend the eligibility criteria for classing a found object as treasure. Base metal objects that are at least 200 years old and provide exceptional national or regional historical, archaeological or cultural insights will now be included among the objects covered by the definition.
The draft third revision of the Treasure Act 1996 code of practice updates the administrative framework for the treasure process, clarifies the role of the portable antiquities scheme, provides clear deadlines to improve the process, and reflects the different systems in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We understand the rationale for the changes, which should ensure that more significant finds from our shared past end up in public museums, to inspire, educate and delight future generations, rather than in private collections. The changes have been broadly welcomed by archaeologists, museum curators, finder communities and landowners, and we will not oppose them.
Interest in metal detecting has grown substantially since the last revision to the treasure code of practice in 2008. There are now thought to be around 20,000 detectorists in England and Wales. The detecting community makes an important contribution to our national museum collection, with over 96% of all archaeological finds reported by the public coming from detectorists. Thanks in large part to detectorists, cases of treasure have increased by over 50%, from 778 in 1996 to 1,071 in 2022. With more finds come more opportunities to display artefacts in our public museums for everyone to appreciate and enjoy.
Under the previous definition, significant finds such as the Crosby Garrett helmet, the Ryedale hoard and the Staffordshire Moorlands pan would not have been protected in law. Museums were able to acquire some of these significant items off their own bat, but the Crosby Garrett helmet is one of many valuable finds that ended up in private hands; it is still held privately and rarely exhibited. We support measures to ensure that more of our shared past can be displayed for public benefit.
We acknowledge that the bar will be set very high when judgment is made about an object’s “significance”; it is envisaged that no more than 100 finds a year might meet the new criteria. Does the Minister plan to keep the threshold under review, in case fewer important objects meet it than was intended? The Government’s changes extend only to metal objects. As we heard from the hon. Member for Henley, a number of archaeologists would like significant items made from other materials, such as worked stone and organics, to be protected under the Treasure Act. The Government have taken the decision to proceed cautiously, and are effectively trialling the changes with metallic items, so as to properly understand the implications. That is understandable, but when might the Government see fit to consider further amendments that include non-metal historical objects? Does the Minister have plans to ensure that local museums can benefit from significant finds discovered close by? What is the Government’s view on the concerns expressed that the change may lead to the under-reporting of treasure finds?
The Government have acknowledged that widening the definition of treasure and changes to the code of practice will result in more objects needing to be assessed to determine their
“outstanding historical, archaeological or cultural”
significance. That will put a greater resource burden on our national museums—the British Museum, Amgueddfa Cymru, and National Museums NI—which will administer the process. Ministers have committed to increased funding to allow for that, which is welcome. Will that be kept under review until the impact of the changes on our museums is understood more fully?
Overall, Labour feels that the changes to the code of practice are sensible. We hope that they will lead to many more treasures being displayed in museums for the benefit of local communities across the country.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I ought to declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on archaeology, and on the British Museum, and as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. I have a real interest in the issue. I am delighted that the Minister said that this was probably the most exciting statutory instrument that she would deal with.
The Chair
May I remind the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Minister through the Chair? Otherwise I am not deciding on any legislation.
Tim Loughton
That was a terrible faux pas of mine. I apologise, Ms Bardell. I am delighted that the Minister is so excited by the order.
Some 26 years ago, when I first came into the House, one of my first SI Committees was on some of the first regulations to the Treasure Act 1996. I remember having a lengthy debate with the then Minister, who I think was a Member for Sheffield Central, about whether medieval Sheffield slag would be included in the qualifications. That is exactly what these regulations will now do, so the measure is long overdue. We have waited several years to get these changes to the Treasure Act, which I welcome and will certainly support.
The British Museum—I declare an interest—manages the portable antiquities scheme, it provides the secretariat for the Treasure Valuation Committee, and the treasure registry is based there, so it is absolutely central. I should also say that Mike Heyworth—the Minister referred to his report—provides the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary archaeology group.
The portable antiquities scheme has been a huge success by any measure. To date, it has recorded more than 1.6 million finds on its online databases. Its finds liaison officers are based around the country and have played a part in reigniting the general public’s interest in archaeology, along with the popular television programme, “Detectorists”.
John Howell
I declare that I, too, am a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and a long-established archaeologist. My hon. Friend mentions the success of the portable antiquities scheme. Does he not think that that means that the term “treasure” is outdated and that we should take the definitions of the scheme?
Tim Loughton
This Committee is in danger of having an awful lot of talent on it who know a bit about the subject; I will come on to exactly that point.
In my county of Sussex, the portable antiquities scheme has so far registered almost 40,000 finds, and there have been 486 pieces of treasure across East and West Sussex since the Treasure Act. On average, as the Minister mentioned, between 20% and 30% of those declarations end up in museums, so there has been a substantial increase in the amount of antiquities of interest available for public viewing, interpretation and explanation, which must be a good thing.
This is a good measure, as far as it goes, because the Treasure Act, which enables museums to acquire items more than 300 years old, as we have heard, based on the content of gold and silver, will now be extended to base metal items. That would have included the Crosby Garrett helmet; the Ryedale Yorkshire hoard, which recently came up for auction and ended up in a museum; and the Staffordshire Moorlands pan. However, that is based on their cultural and archaeological significance as an aspect of their
“national or regional history, archaeology or culture”
by virtue of their rarity, where they were found, or their connection to a person or event.
It is envisaged that, with the extension of the definitions, only something like 100 additional finds a year will meet the criteria, so it does not place a hugely onerous additional burden on the Treasure Valuation Committee, the museums and the FLOs. To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, I ask why it has stopped at metal items, because the whole principle behind the changes is to recognise that items are of cultural interest regardless of the material from which they are made. They may sound more like treasure because they are made of gold, silver or other precious metals, but for an archaeologist or somebody studying history, that is frankly immaterial to their potential cultural significance and uniqueness.
So, may I ask again why the Minister has not extended the definitions to non-metal items? There is a precedent, because the definitions have been extended on the Isle of Man, whose treasure law otherwise mirrors the Treasure Act 1996, so that they can take in non-metallic items. This is a serious question. I do not believe that it is one of capacity, based on the estimates of the increased workload from the extension of the criteria. Could the extension at least be piloted now in certain parts of the country, say, where there is sufficient capacity to take on additional items that just happen not to be metallic?
The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists has raised this point and it specifically referred to palaeolithic hand axes or other organic materials, such as worked wood. Such wood is certainly rare, in terms of its capacity for preservation, when it is dug out of the ground, and culturally and archaeologically it may be hugely more significant than a gold coin found in situ.
I will take the second point that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley made, too, about whether we should still use the terminology of “treasure” when it really promotes the wrong image. The legislation is moving in the right direction to recognise the cultural and archaeological significance of finds, rather than what they are made of. Should we not refer instead to significant antiquities in terms of their cultural significance rather than in terms of their financial value? I think the Government have perhaps missed a trick here, because they are embedding the impression that treasure is only something that is bright, shiny and made of metal, when not all treasure is.
There is a third consideration, which I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to. The rolling date for treasure, which is still to be used, is considered by many to add unnecessary bureaucracy to the system; people constantly have to change the date where the 200-year criteria now apply. There is a body of support for having this date as a fixed date in the legislation. Perhaps she will say why that is not the case in the regulations.
Also, in the guidance that accompanies these regulations, there are lots of useful additions. The guidance gives greater clarity on what items are treasure, and why; it better explains the role of the portable antiquities scheme and how it works alongside local coroners; it clarifies the legal obligations of those who find treasure, setting out what their responsibilities are; it gives clearer timelines for the processing of treasure; and it explains better that treasure is owned by the Crown and that rewards are made at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Sport and Media.
That is all welcome, but further work is required—again, perhaps the Minister can give some clue as to whether this work will be undertaken—to examine the impact that the exponential growth in metal detecting over the past 20 years has had on the portable antiquities scheme.
In terms of value for money, the portable antiquities scheme is one of the most efficient investments by the taxpayer. For a relatively small amount of money—in excess of £1 million—we achieve greater awareness of our past and of the importance of antiquities, and better governance of metal detectorists in bringing their finds to public display through the finds liaison officers and ultimately, in some cases, museum, and that is hugely welcome. However, I do not think that the guidance has moved on quite as much as it needs to. By and large, metal detectorists are a responsible bunch, but there are nighthawkers who can cause serious damage to scheduled sites. Will there be additional work on further guidance, given the number of people who are now involved in metal detecting and associated leisure activities?
I will raise a final point, regarding the exemptions for the Church of England, which the Minister did not really touch on those. The explanatory notes to the regulations state that the proposal to remove from the definition of treasure finds that fall under the legal processes of the Church of England was included in the 2019 public consultations. The result was that 30.9% of those who expressed a view were supportive of the proposal and 30.1% expressed disagreement, which is an even narrower margin than in the Brexit referendum. Views were clearly split. Can the Minister flesh out the reasons the Church of England continues to benefit from the exemptions? What are the upsides or downsides of that?
Overall, though I hope I have been constructively critical, I certainly welcome these long-overdue new regulations. They put the Treasure Act 1996 on a much sturdier footing, but have gone halfway to conceding the principle that treasure is not just shiny, precious metal. How much longer will we have to wait until the Government go the whole way so that we can embrace, appreciate and safeguard items of archaeological or cultural significance that happen not to be made of a valuable commodity? Although I support the measures, I would appreciate some additional clarification from the Minister.
Julia Lopez
I thank hon. Members for the opportunity to debate the order and the code. This is a fascinating area of cultural protection legislation. I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington for agreeing that the changes will improve how we take care of our heritage in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and ensure that the most important finds can be saved for all our benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) recognised that the changes are long overdue. I am glad to deliver them. I welcome his detailed and considered input; he has studied archaeology in his academic career and also for his contributions as a Member of this House. He highlighted the public appetite to uncover more of our own history. Active metal detectorists are now very much in the ascendency. Ahead of this debate, one such metal detectorist, who is a close friend, sent me some pictures to set out how some of the finds that are now posted on Facebook are not currently in scope. We are losing those precious objects for the nation, so I know that the changes are welcomed by a large number in that community.
Extensive research commissioned and published by my Department demonstrates that introducing the high bar for significance may lead to around 100 to 140 new discoveries being made available to museums each year, as other hon. Members have said. In answer to hon. Members, we will keep this under review. All types of objects have the potential to be archaeologically or historically significant. At the moment, the new definition will apply only to artefacts that are at least partly metal. We are taking that approach so that we can measure the impact and effectiveness of the change. That is already a major shift in the emphasis of the Act. Research, funding and long-term preparation of stakeholders are required for further expansion. I assure hon. Members that we want to explore options for broadening the definition to include other types of objects that are culturally significant, such as stone, sculpture and ceramics.
As I have discussed with officials, treasure cases are taking up to six years to determine value, so we are mindful of not wanting to put additional pressure on the system.
As I mentioned, this is not a policy area on which I lead, but I am happy to put concerned Members in touch with the lead Minister, Lord Parkinson. I will also relay personally some of the concerns expressed in Committee about the next steps. I am sure that he will be happy to look at that and at the question of the rolling date, which was raised in the debate.
Finders will be under a duty to report finds when they have reason to believe that finds may be treasure, because of their expertise or because they receive advice—for example, from fellow detectorists, a dealer, a finds liaison officer or a curator—that a find may be sufficiently significant to be considered treasure. We recognise that the change will lead to more objects going through the treasure process. Those that deliver it, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington said, will need extra support to do so. We will provide that extra support.
We have increased financial support for the treasure registry at the British Museum and the portable antiquities scheme, which in England and Wales acts as a gateway to the treasure process. We have also invested in a new digital treasure system, which we hope will make it easier to record and track treasure cases, but that is in the early stages of being developed. I hope that people will find it to be an exciting innovation in the area, modernising the whole treasure process to improve transparency and efficiency.
I will also work with our delivery partners, including the treasure registry, to provide training and guidance to support those who are integral to implementing the change, including finders, coroners, finds liaison officers and curators. We hope that that will help everyone to understand their legal and administrative responsibilities.
We have introduced the change only for objects that are partly or wholly metal. As I said, we recognise that that leaves out ceramics and stone, which is something that we will monitor closely as we look at how the changes take effect. We want to work closely with experts to explore options on expanding the definition.
We believe that the change is needed now to ensure that we can look after, for future generations, the objects that tell our shared national and local history. I look forward to seeing the first object to be declared under this new class going on display in our tremendous museums. I also look forward to more people engaging with and learning about their heritage. On the Church of England point, I believe that was taken so that there was not double legislation for particular objects. Again, however, I am happy to put my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham in touch with Lord Parkinson to discuss the matter further. I look forward to new knowledge coming to light and changing our understanding of our glorious past.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Treasure (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2023.
draft treasure act 1996: code of practice (3rd Revision)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Treasure Act 1996: Code of Practice (3rd Revision).—(Julia Lopez.)
Petitions
Funding for Small and Rural Primary Schools
Keighley Household Waste and Recycling Centre
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
Suicide Prevention and the National Curriculum
(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
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 623390, relating to suicide prevention and the national curriculum.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. First, I thank the petitioners—the 3 Dads Walking—for their brilliant campaign; I know that they are here today. I also thank Papyrus, the charity leading the prevention of young suicide in the UK, for its work and the support it has given to 3 Dads Walking. This is something that those dads never thought they would be involved with, or even want to be, but sadly, each of them, along with their families, has suffered immensely through the loss of their daughters. If anything good can come out of three such tragedies, we in this place must do all we can to help.
I will speak about the three dads and their daughters. First, there is Tim and his daughter Emily from Norfolk. Emily was 19 and took her life in March 2020. She was the life and soul of every room, meeting and party—a free spirit and a talented artist. She had struggled for some time and a late diagnosis of autism had not helped. She could not cope with life under lockdown and attempted to take her life. She sadly died five days later.
Secondly, there is Andy and his daughter Sophie from Cumbria. Sophie took her life just before Christmas 2018. She was 29. She was an open, happy young lady with a wide circle of friends. She brought a smile and a sense of fun to everyone she met. No one had an inkling that she was feeling suicidal—everyone said,
“she seemed like ‘normal’ Sophie.”
If she had felt able to share her emotions, everyone would have helped, but sadly, she did not.
Thirdly, there is Mike and his daughter Beth from south Manchester. Beth was 17 and she died in March 2020. She was a leader, including being the head girl at her primary school. She was outgoing, independent and an artist with a record contract. Her dad Mike says:
“Not one single person…saw this coming.”
If she had only known about the many charities, maybe she would still be alive. Those are three tragic stories and three brave dads.
Those three brave dads came together to set off on walks to raise more than £1 million for Papyrus and its HopelineUK helpline and text service, which provide much-needed support for our young people. More importantly, they have raised awareness of a subject that sadly affects many families across the country.
I am fortunate to be able to stand and lead debates in this place, and I hope that many are watching. When leading such debates, I like to not only ask the Government what the petitioners have requested, which I will come on to, but speak directly to the public. Hopefully, I can pass on information that I have learned in my research and in my position as a Member of Parliament. I will therefore start by sharing some guidance on talking about this subject.
The first message is never to say “commit” when speaking of suicide. That is an out-of-date term for people taking their own lives, and one that we should refrain from using. People do not commit a crime when they take their own life. They are obviously in a place of deep unhappiness, and their memory should not be tarnished by poor language. They took their own life or they died by suicide. Let us all try to remember that today.
There are many great charities working hard to end suicide. As well as Papyrus, there are the Samaritans, James’ Place, Mind, the Campaign Against Living Miserably, Mates in Mind, Baton of Hope and many others that do great work in this field. We should pay tribute to them all in this place.
Helpfully, Samaritans has produced some basic rules for discussing or reporting suicide, and we should all take note. The rules include: not reporting the method or sensationalising the act; not referring to a site or a location; and avoiding an excessive amount of coverage and/or speculation in the media or on social media. Those are really helpful tips that might just prevent someone from taking their life. I recommend the information on the Samaritans website and also its excellent Small Talk Saves Lives campaign.
Let me now look at what Andy, Tim and Mike, Papyrus and the 160,000 people who signed the petition are asking for. It is to ensure that suicide and self-harm awareness is included in the national curriculum, specifically in the relationship, sex and health education curriculum, and that it should be age appropriate. Obviously, all three dads have a specific interest because they have each suffered their own individual tragic loss. However, their main aim is to help other families and young people, and to stop the biggest single killer of our young people.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and he is making a very important speech about this subject, which is not talked about often enough. Some of my constituents got in touch with me about their son, Peter, who sadly took his own life in 2012. They are clear that there has to be more information about suicide and suicide prevention in schools. I know that Scotland has a different curriculum to England, but this is something that we can work on on a cross-party basis to achieve across the UK.
Nick Fletcher
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I offer my condolences to Peter’s family. As she said, this greater awareness is something that we want across the entire UK.
As I was saying, suicide is the single biggest killer of young people in Britain. The figures are very difficult to swallow. The latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that between April 2020 and March 2021 157 young boys and 72 young girls between the ages of 10 and 19 took their own life. That cannot be right, can it?
At least until my time in this place began, I was one of the many people who thought that talking about self-harm and suicide was not a good idea; I thought that putting thoughts into young people’s minds by discussing the issue openly would only make things worse. However, the many professionals and charities I have spoken to disagree, and a literature review conducted by Cambridge University showed that there is no research to prove that that idea about putting thoughts into young people’s minds about suicide was true. Children are exposed to so much on their phones that they need the tools to help them to deal with the subject. An appropriate curriculum, taught well, could do just that. However, we also need to think and act maturely and responsibly on this issue. If we find that, by discussing this issue, an unintended consequence is that suicide rates among young people increase, we must be prepared to think again.
The professionals who I have spoken to are all agreed that this subject should be included in the curriculum. They also agreed that year 7 and upwards was the best time to start. Furthermore, they agreed that it should not be discussed just in one year of secondary school, which I believe some schools already do, but should form part of each academic year for 11 to 12-year-olds upwards. For those children who are younger, this subject should not necessarily be broached. However, the message to them should be that they have the right to be, and to feel, safe. There should be no secrets and nothing should be kept from parents, on this matter or any other.
The professionals said that ideally this subject should be taught by external providers who are specialists in it and that after each session there should be a follow-up session to talk to any children who are concerned. They also said that both parents and teachers should be trained in how to deal with children who were struggling; in how to better spot any signs that something might be wrong; and in being proactive in starting conversations. We cannot place the responsibility on the shoulders of our young boys and girls to come forward and talk. It is our responsibility—in fact, our duty—to keep our eyes and ears open at all times. Mental health first aid training might be one way of achieving that.
I have concerns about bringing external providers into schools, as I have seen some highly inappropriate content on other subjects within RSHE, and parents are kept in the dark about what is being taught. If we are to use such providers, the content must be shared with parents. If a parent has concerns, their voice should be respected. I am sure the Government will take that on board.
Last week, I was delighted to receive a letter for the 3 Dads and I from the Secretary of State for Education. It said that the Government will include suicide prevention as a key priority area in their forthcoming review of RSHE. I greatly welcome that move; it is a real step forward. I am hopeful of a good debate today where we all have one aim: stopping our children and young people taking their own lives. Their lives are so precious. As a dad, my children are my life and my greatest joy; I cannot think of anything worse than losing them. I ask the Minister to do what we can to stop this. The Government are good, and they can—and do—do good things. Let this be the next good thing they do.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I ask hon. Members to stand if you want to speak, even if you have written in. If you have not written in, please stand. It will give you and me an idea of how to proportion the time during the debate.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
Most of all, I thank the 3 Dads Walking for everything they have done to raise awareness of suicide in young people. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mike, Andy and Tim. I am delighted that their petition has led to this debate being brought forward, with 160,000 signatures. That is truly amazing. There could not be a more fitting tribute to the lives of Beth, Sophie and Emily than the passion and dedication that their dads have shown. I also thank Papyrus for its support to the 3 Dads and for all its work to tackle young suicides.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, it has been an honour to meet so many inspiring people who, having lost a loved one to suicide, have dedicated so much time and energy to ensuring that other families do not have to go through the same thing. The 3 Dads is the club that no one wants to join, as they say. However, many people who have found themselves in it have carried out brilliant work in the face of great adversity. The Government must do everything they can to match their efforts.
Unfortunately, the issue is touching more and more families. Suicide has recently become the biggest killer of young people under 25. It is estimated that in an average week, four schoolchildren will take their own lives. Although young men are three times more likely to take their own lives than their female peers, the suicide rate for young women is now at its highest on record. We are getting better at tackling the stigma and talking about mental health, but suicide and self-harm is still a taboo subject. As we have heard, people are worried that by talking about suicide, they may say the wrong thing—or worse, encourage it. That is a particular fear when talking to children and young people about suicide.
Sadly, this issue is already in the lives of so many young people, as demonstrated by work carried out on online harms. In a recent Samaritans study with over 5,000 participants, over three quarters of them said they first saw self-harm content online before the age of 14. Several studies have suggested an association between suicidal ideation and accessing relevant content online. Better online safeguards are a must, but we must also equip our young people with the skills and knowledge to deal with the unique pressures that they currently face.
It has been my pleasure to work with the local organisation If U Care Share, which has been delivering suicide prevention workshops to school pupils across the north-east for over 10 years. The charity was founded by the family of Daniel O’Hare, who was just 19 when he took his own life in 2005. Its dedicated team, which includes Daniel’s brother Matthew, is primarily made up of young people who have lost a loved one to suicide. The team speak to primary and secondary school children about their own stories, and how the children can be open about their emotions and mental health. Research carried out by the charity found that 19% of young people would go to a friend if they needed help, compared to just 6% who would approach someone at their school.
Suicide prevention training equips pupils with the skills and confidence to help each other as well as themselves. If U Care Share is one of many fantastic voluntary organisations that are working with young people to prevent suicide, but currently those organisations are picking up the pieces left over from the incapacity of statutory services. They often rely on short-term grants to carry out their vital work.
I am delighted to be able to say that If U Care Share has just been awarded funding from the National Lottery to support its suicide bereavement multiple death response programme over four years. Multiple deaths refers to a situation where more deaths occur by suicide than is normally expected at a certain time or place—or both. That can sometimes be as a result of contagion, whereby one person’s suicide influences another to engage in suicidal behaviour. Such suicide clusters are a rare event, but schools can be a setting in which they occur.
We must do more to ensure that suicide prevention work is placed on a stable footing. Currently, all funding supporting local areas’ core prevention plans is set to cease in 2023-24. We need continued ring-fenced funding across three years to support local areas to deliver targeted, non-clinical support services to prevent suicide. That would allow local authorities to commission long-term services from our best organisations, and empower them to support the most at-risk groups.
We must also do more to ensure that children are able to access help when they reach out for it. NHS figures show that children suffering mental health crises spent more than 900,000 hours in A&E last year. Between July 2021 and July 2022, referrals to child and adolescent mental health services increased by 24%. It is still important that we work to prevent suicidal ideation in young people, and promote mental wellbeing. It is also important that we ensure there are systems in place to support them in the most acute crises.
Making suicide prevention an essential part of the curriculum is another step towards ensuring that statutory, long-term support is in place for our young people whenever they may need it. But it must be backed up by the funding to ensure that all school pupils are able to access those life-saving workshops, such as those delivered by If U Care Share, and many other organisations. It must take the form of sensitive and thought-out content, delivered by people with the experience to make it count. Crucially, it must be built in as part of the curriculum, as the petitioners request, so that every student is supported.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for her excellent speech, and particularly for the work she is doing as part of the APPG. On the comment that this is a cross-party issue, it has been mentioned that suicide sadly affects many families across the UK. My family is one of those, following the tragic suicide of my brother. Recently, I launched a campaign to have 100 people on Anglesey trained in mental health first aid. Does the hon. Member agree with me that it is absolutely vital that we talk about mental health, particularly with our young people, so we can give them the tools to speak about it and signpost them to the many fantastic organisations and charities that are there to support?
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I offer my condolences to her on the loss of her brother. I, too, have been affected by suicide, so have personal experience of that and know how important it is to share. I certainly agree that it is vital that people talk more about suicide, and about having difficult suicidal thoughts as well. We want to prevent suicide, rather than see it continue. I thank her for that.
To conclude, I want to share a message from Daniel’s family, who often say,
“We taught Daniel to tie his shoe laces, and how to cross the road safely—but we never spoke to him about how life can throw things at you that you need some help to deal with. It is not a sign of weakness to reach out for help.”
Just like Daniel’s family, our schools teach our young people all about road awareness, online safety and many other vital lessons necessary to keep them safe, but today one of the things that is most likely to take the lives of our young people is our young people themselves. By talking more openly about suicide, we can save more young lives and prevent families like Daniel’s, Beth’s, Sophie’s and Emily’s from going through unimaginable pain.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on his excellent and powerful opening speech. I am humbled to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who does excellent work in the all-party group.
The debate is one we all wish was not necessary. Sadly, it is, but I am relieved that we have a thoughtful and compassionate Minister in place who I know will look at the issue in great detail, as he does so many things, and will try to come to a speedy decision for the benefit of everyone. I had not met them before the debate, but I pay tribute to 3 Dads Walking, who have done a phenomenal amount to raise awareness. We can all agree that that is something that no parent ever wants to do, but they have powerfully put across that personal story. I pay tribute to Papyrus, which continues to campaign on the prevention of young suicide, and other national and local charities that continue to support those with suicidal tendencies and the family members who have been left behind.
As local MPs, we are often approached by constituents with some of the most tragic and challenging circumstances, and we do our utmost to support them and provide the right advice. However, being approached by a parent whose child has taken their own life is utterly heartbreaking, and I suspect it leaves most of us struggling to find the right words of advice and support. I am sorry to say that I have learned of too many suicides in and around my constituency. Each and every one is a tragedy. Each and every one is a person with a unique story. Each and every one is a life taken too soon.
Nationally, the statistics speak for themselves. In 2021—the last date available—5,583 people took their own life, three quarters of whom were men. While there is a specific concern about middle-aged men, we are seeing a worrying increase in the number of school-aged children taking their life, with figures suggesting over 200 a year. That could and should be reduced through better institutional and individual awareness, as well as a better functioning mental health support system.
Today I want to focus on two recent lost lives, and I do so with permission from their parents. I thank them for having the courage and strength to share their experiences with me and, importantly, their thoughts on what steps are necessary to potentially prevent other parents and loved ones from experiencing the loss of a child. In both cases, they were boys at secondary school.
It was just over a year ago that Ryan’s body was found. He had gone missing from his home in Eccles, a small close-knit village that neighbours my own. I found myself quite affected by Ryan’s disappearance. He had a connection to my son’s football club, and the CCTV footage of Ryan on the night he went missing was from my street. I quietly joined others in looking for Ryan and found myself doing regular walks along the river when it became clear that that was where the police were focusing their efforts.
Ryan’s disappearance and subsequent recovery was absolutely heartbreaking for Eccles and Aylesford. I know his school well. I know of his friends and I know his teachers. I confess that, when his dad emailed me, I did not know what to say. What do you say? What would I want someone to say to me? Ryan was 17, and it turns out that he had made a passing comment at school. Although there is certainly no blame cast, with better awareness could something had been done? Ryan’s dad said:
“Whilst we will never know why Ryan did what he did, and we will also never know if having suicide spoken about openly at school might have saved him, we are keen to see suicide awareness and prevention in schools progress. If it saves just one person now and again it will be worth it”.
Ben Ambrose was 15 when his mum, Cathryn, found him lifeless in his bedroom. There is currently a legal case regarding Ben, so I should be careful what I say, but Cathryn felt and still feels very let down by the institutional failures in education and mental health services. We met and spoke for a very long time about the deep lack of awareness and understanding of mental health issues in some schools, and how their policies and procedures on paper do not necessarily reflect their practices. In my eyes, Cathryn is a phenomenal woman. She is not only fighting for Ben, with support from Irwin Mitchell, but she wants to help stop this happening to others. She is very pro suicide education and awareness, and like me wants there to be more conversations in schools about it. She wants to talk to students about mental health; she wants to be part of the prevention programme.
Cathryn is not alone. Pre covid, I was on the cusp of trialling a few talking sessions in schools with boys about mental health. The idea had come from a question and answer session at a local boys’ school, where mental health was mentioned more than once. It also came from another mum who lost her adult son to suicide, and, coincidentally, from a man who, having experienced his own brush with suicidal thought, was keen to talk to others, particularly young boys, about mental health.
Covid scuppered it all, and the plans have not been revived, in part because it is scary to go and talk about these things without qualifications and proper guidance. I get why schools might be nervous about having conversations, and why Ministers might be nervous about allowing them to be had, but by working with the right people in the right way, we can create a useful tool that would work.
Sadly, as I am discovering, there is no definitive parenting manual out there. There is no guidebook that tells a parent how to react—or, indeed, how not to react —when their child is struggling with mental health, or starts to self-harm or look at harmful websites. The natural reaction might not be the right reaction. That is why I truly believe that we all need better awareness and much more access to support for mental health, whether it is our own, our friends’ or, most worryingly, our children’s.
In our formative years, because of the amount of time children spend in education, teachers become incredibly important figures in our lives. I understand why some have concerns that we are asking our educators to do so much more than teach maths, English, science and so on, but if we are to take a more holistic approach to addressing mental health, they need the right tools and training. If targeted interventions and teaching at the right age can help people identify mental health conditions and suicide thoughts they or others are experiencing, could that help those suffering there and then or later in life?
I will leave the final words to Ryan’s dad:
“The devastating and lasting effect that this has had on everybody is very difficult to compare to other bereavement we have experienced. One minute our happy and brilliant son is with us and in the blink of an eye he has gone.”
I know the Minister understands how difficult it would have been to write those words; they are hard to speak and hard to hear. If there is one thing that the tragedies of Ryan, Ben, Emily, Sophie, Beth and many others have sparked, it is an awareness of suicide and mental health among their peers and teachers, but we need that to remain long after their friends have left school. That is why I support the petition to put suicide prevention on the national curriculum. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for bringing this petition to us.
My constituent Mike Palmer’s daughter, Beth, died by suicide on 28 March 2020, in the first week of lockdown. She was just 17. She was a talented singer, with a vivacious personality. She was deeply loved by friends and family—a great character who belonged on stage. Indeed, Beth was the last person anyone would have thought would take her own life. She had so much to live for. Sadly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), the chair of the APPG, said, this is far too common: suicide is the biggest killer of under-35s in the UK, with around 200 school children each year taking their own lives.
Mike felt Beth’s loss so acutely that he was plunged into a suicidal spiral himself. A complex grief is left behind for families. The facts show that around 135 people are affected by one suicide and that those closest to the individual lost are 80% to 300% times more likely to take their own lives. However, through that despair, fate was to play a part. Mike was to team up with Tim and Andy, the fathers of two other beautiful young women, Emily and Sophie, who were also sadly lost to suicide, and so 3 Dads Walking was born.
For these men, a simple walk between their homes, raising funds and awareness for the charity Papyrus, which is dedicated to the prevention of young suicide, has turned into a life mission to prevent other families from going through the same lifelong agony that they face. Walking in 2021 and 2022, they covered over 900 miles and were on the road for 46 days. During the walks, Mike, Andy and Tim were joined continuously by other bereaved parents and those affected by suicide. Through conversations with those individuals, the same messages kept coming through: if our children had only known how to reach out, and had had an awareness of how to keep themselves safe, they might be here now. 3 Dads Walking believes that, if our young people’s greatest danger is themselves, we as a society should tell them and teach them, in an age-appropriate and sensitive way, how to keep themselves and others safe.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I put on record that many of my constituents in Weaver Vale have been inspired by 3 Dads Walking, and the clarion call to ensure that suicide prevention is integrated into the curriculum and that there is greater regulation. The call for greater regulation of online harm has come from my constituents who have been affected by suicide in their family.
Mike Kane
I thank my colleague for his intervention. I am sure that the Education Minister will have heard that fully. I know the Minister to be an extraordinarily honourable man who takes the education of our children seriously, as I previously shadowed him in the post for a number of years.
We should talk about mental health in schools more, building the awareness and coping mechanisms that will foster more positive mental wellbeing and resilience in young people and helping to lay the foundations that will keep young people safe and reverse the tragically high rates of young suicide. Mike tells me that some of the most powerful stories that the 3 Dads hear on their walks are from those who have experienced severe mental health episodes, and in some cases have attempted suicide, but who have overcome those struggles and are now living happily, with full lives. Those stories show that hope is always possible and that people, especially with support, can make different choices and overcome the worst mental health struggles. Is an alternative outcome for families affected by suicide not worth fighting for? Surely the testimonies starkly demonstrate what is at stake if we do not act and what we can offer if we do. By providing life-saving knowledge to our young people, we can give them and their families an alternative path—a path to hope, a path to a happy and full life for them and their loved ones. That is a path that everyone deserves.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing the debate, and the petitioners, the 3 Dads over there in the Public Gallery—Andy, Tim and Mike—who are doing a fantastic job.
I also thank my good friend, Graham Lynk, who is sat in the Public Gallery. He lost his son, Sean, to suicide in December last year. Graham is a brave man. He is a hard man and a gentleman. Like me, he is an ex-coal miner—we have done many a shift down the pit together. He is one of the bravest men I have come across in my life, but the loss of his son has broken him.
Sean Lynk was a brilliant young man. He was 30 years old when he took his life. He was a big, strong, confident, good-looking lad. He was a handsome man; he had his mother’s looks—and his mother’s brains, I think, Graham. He was a lovely young man. When he walked into a room, he lit it up. Everyone wanted to be around him. Everybody liked Sean.
We all loved Sean. I was drinking with him in the Dog House pub just a week before he took his own life. I never saw it coming. He was such a lovely young man; his death shocked the whole community and left many of us asking why. I would sit with him at weekends with his mum and dad, swapping old stories about our mining days. Sean would be sat there laughing and giggling with us. We never knew; he must have been in pain. On the face of it, he was a happy man. He was a good footballer and loved his sports. He loved his family and friends. He always surrounded himself with great, loving people. There were no signs, but something must have been wrong.
Sean’s dad, Graham, believes that Sean was using the dark web and looking at things that he probably should not have looked at. He was tapping into this dark, horrible web, which was giving him dark thoughts. But who knows? The police still have Sean’s phone, so we are yet to get to the bottom of that. I know the internet can be a dangerous place and can target people with the algorithms and do some horrible stuff—it can target vulnerable people. I am glad that the Online Safety Bill is going some way to address that, but we need to go further.
I thank the charities and support groups that are helping young people who have dark thoughts. In my patch, we have a charity called Enlighten the Shadows, which was set up by a young man called Rory Green, who had some dark thoughts himself. He and his partner lost their baby through a miscarriage. He felt hopeless and worthless—he felt like ending it all. He was in a really bad, dark and horrible place, but he got through it and he set up a support group online through Facebook and social media, and it had a website. He was absolutely astounded by the number of young men contacting him who had dark thoughts and suicidal thoughts. He reached out and got some other people on board, and he talked to men on a regular basis. He tells me that they have probably saved about 100 lives so far just through men talking to men. I know it is a big problem with young ladies and schoolgirls too, but the vast majority of suicides I have come across have been young men. There is no rhyme or reason for it.
Keeping quiet is not an option. People have to talk about this. It is all well and good telling people that they must talk, but they have to have somebody to talk to. At the moment, it can be very difficult for people from poorer families in more deprived areas, because a lot come from broken families so they do not always have great family support and people to talk to. Make no mistake, this is an epidemic, but it is not a means-tested epidemic. It does not matter whether a person is rich or poor, whether they are successful or unsuccessful, whether they come from a council estate or a country estate. It goes for anybody; it can affect anybody in any walk of life. I give a big shout-out for Rory and his group for doing that great work.
Probably everybody in the Chamber has been affected by suicide—my family has—but we do not talk about it. I travelled down with Graham this morning, and we had a long conversation. We MPs do not see inside our friends’ heads, and what goes on in their minds. Graham goes to bed every night and thinks about his son, but he thinks about his son with a rope around his neck—that is what goes through his mind. I cannot get my head around that: for a man to watch a little boy grow up from a baby, be his pride and joy, and then take his life in that way. Graham feels broken, he probably feels guilty, and he feels hopeless. I am here today to tell Graham that he is none of those things. He is not guilty and he is not hopeless. Graham is working with the Enlighten the Shadows suicide charity, and he is going to raise thousands of pounds for it. He is going to cycle 1,000 miles in 10 days, and he is doing some running as well. He has the support of the whole community. Graham wholeheartedly supports the idea of putting suicide prevention on the school curriculum, helping people and getting people to talk to save some lives.
I ask the Minister to please look at the families in the Public Gallery. They are broken people. We need to see less of those families coming to this place. We need to intervene, we need to get this subject on the school curriculum and we need to save lives.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is humbling to be called to speak in today’s debate. Every step breaks taboos; every mile tells a story; every day hearts are joined in grief and healing as sons and daughters are mourned and celebrated. But the void they have left is beckoning with not only questions but answers. As three dads are traversing our nation, they are tearing down the stigma of suicide that too many are wrestling with. They are creating safe spaces to talk; they are ensuring that Sophie, Emily and Beth are heard. They have brought us to this place, through their petition to seek change.
Andy, Tim and Mike, we are indebted to you. Today, it is their pleas that must be heard, and I sincerely thank them for all they are doing. Having had the privilege of meeting them last week, I know how much this debate means to them. I am sure that the Minister and shadow Minister will not only listen, but advance their calls. Their mission is to reduce the number of young people who take their own lives, by shattering the stigma surrounding suicide and equipping young people and their communities with the skills to recognise and respond to emotional distress. Across our nation, people are struggling with their mental health. Let us be honest, we all do, in different ways and at different times. For some, the night passes quickly, while others spiral into a dark and enduring place, where the echoes of despair resonate louder than any hope.
Papyrus knows better than any charity the scale of the problem, and I sincerely thank them for their work. Our mental health services cannot cope. Child and adolescent mental health services are struggling, and with mental health receiving just 8.6% of the health budget, there is no parity of esteem to speak of. We know that with early intervention only a few would ever need to call on the NHS for care. That is the call that must come out of this debate. Young people talk extensively about mental health, but when the moment gets hard—in the silences—it is the toxicity of TikTok that is sucking them into the algorithms of despair, drawing them to make the wrong choices. From self-harm to suicide, children are accessing content that takes them down some very dangerous paths. As adults, parents, teachers, youth workers and politicians, let us acknowledge that, and take the necessary steps to keep our young people safe.
As we have heard, suicide is the biggest killer of under-35s in our country, with over 200 school-age children taken every year.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for bringing forward this very important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was saying, the internet has some dark places. Surely, in schools we must be warning about online harms, and we must also make those platforms take more responsibility. I welcome the Online Harms Bill, but should we not also be addressing the platforms on this?
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Member is absolutely right that the online space continues to be unsafe for too many people. There is so much more that needs to be done to aid our understanding of new initiatives online and to ensure that everyone can be safe online at all times.
Of course, we are not talking about numbers, but about people who are struggling. According to the ONS, 5,583 suicides were registered in England and Wales just last year, with a ratio of men to women of almost 2:1. It is the young people we often think about. They need the skills and resilience to manage the very worst of their emotions. We know that talking is powerful, but, without young people knowing who to talk to and how to talk to them, and without parents and teachers actively reaching out, we are leaving our young people in danger. We need a greater therapeutic approach to our education system. We locked up our young people through covid, which proved tougher than anyone could have imagined. A generation is really struggling. They do not need brutal academic stress and harsh disciplinarian regimes, such as those that I discussed this morning at a local school in York. The behaviour in schools guidance needs serious revision.
The need for talking is there before us. Who can help young people to work through their anxieties, stresses and depression? They need space to explore and explain. Mums and dads need tools and skills to support and listen. Teachers need help too; they need training to talk about suicide. We cannot shy away or soften the words, for suicide is real. Adults need to catch up with young people and recognise that. As politicians, we cannot be squeamish or in denial, because we are losing our sons and daughters, and sadly mums and dads, too.
Life is really tough. People have not got enough money, and home is not always a safe place. Some young people carry a heavy weight. Life never turns out as we hope. Bullying is rife, there is a loneliness epidemic, and toxic social media is ever judging and tormenting, yet we do not talk about suicide and when that starts to play on the minds of its victims.
Minister, it is time to teach and time to talk to every child in every school. We start with the teachers, who need Government backing. We need every teacher trained so that they are ready to talk to their students, whatever age or context, knowing how to check in and reach out as well as guide and care. Every school needs to be a safe place for parents to learn and ask those questions that are never aired, for we can no longer hear the cries of “Why didn’t anyone tell us?”. We must also teach every child. For younger children, it is about mental health first aid—having safe conversations when they feel sad. As the years grow, children need to know who to talk to, how to talk and how to keep themselves safe. If we do not talk to our young people about suicide, it will find them. But if they are taught resilience, they will have the skills for life that they need to stay safe and well.
The pilgrimage of Tim, Andy and Mike has brought them to this place, to the Minister’s door. They are not here to beg or plead, because for them, this has come too late. Instead, they are here to tell us what it means to lose their beautiful daughters and how the tears of other parents need never be shed. This will probably be the most important debate of the Minister’s time in this place. It is time to open the door to open minds and open hearts. Let us listen and learn and ensure that all is done to keep our young people safe. It is time for walking to turn into talking.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for bringing and leading such an important debate on the introduction of statutory suicide prevention teaching in our current RSHE curriculum. There have been many powerful contributions this afternoon, but none more powerful than having 3 Dads Walking actually with us in this Chamber. I also thank Mike, Tim and Andy for their incredible work on this campaign. Mr Owen is a fellow Norfolk man, although not from my constituency, so it is a great privilege to represent our county for him this afternoon, along with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) beside me. Their efforts have clearly not gone unnoticed, and they will have a huge and significant impact on children and young people in future.
I thank those in my constituency, particularly the many mental health campaigners who I speak to, and Caroline Aldridge, who I know will watch the debate. She lost her own son to mental illness and she has done so much for others. I have also spoken to many others who have told me about their personal experiences and the tragedy of losing a child to suicide. I am honoured to participate in the debate on their behalf.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to 3 Dads Walking, including Tim, who is from west Norfolk. They have raised money and, vitally, raised awareness of the issue and of the support that exists by getting us talking about it today. The Government have rightly committed to a review, which I welcome and which I know the Minister will consider carefully. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should hear directly from 3 Dads Walking and others who have been directly affected by suicide to inform its decision?
Duncan Baker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree entirely. It is imperative that those with personal experience help to shape any future review and legislation that comes forward about the issue.
Mental health and mental health illness is a personal yet often isolating journey, despite the increased openness of conversation on that issue, which affects one in four of us throughout our lifetimes. Early intervention can make an astounding difference to the lives of those suffering, especially children and young people. When researching for this debate, I was devastated to learn that one in six children aged five to 16 were identified as having a probable mental health problem in July 2020. That number is likely to have risen since.
A survey by YoungMinds found that suicide rates for young people aged 15 to 19 rose by a third between 2020 and 2021—from 147 to 198. Despite those staggering figures, about 70% of children and adolescents do not get appropriate interventions at an early enough age, which begs the question of how we can begin to overcome that.
As many hon. Members have said, one of the answers is to implement this change in our national curriculum. Since September 2020, RSHE has been a statutory part of the curriculum, yet suicide prevention, taught in a safe and age-appropriate way, is only optional. I am pleased that the Government, too, see the incredible value in supporting mental health, but I believe that a review of the RHSE curriculum is the right step to provide consistent mental health support across all schools nationally. Introducing statutory suicide prevention teaching in schools would not only target the group most affected by suicide—the under-35s, as we have heard many times this afternoon—but make sure that our children and young people are equipped as they move into adulthood.
According to research, one in three mental health problems in adults can be attributed to childhood experiences, with higher rates of depression, suicidal thoughts and anxiety disorders presenting in later life. Educating our children on mental health will surely only serve to benefit them later. Moreover, mental health teaching within structured school lessons will have incredible benefits through early intervention to prevent suicide, normalise mental health, as many have said, and encourage conversations with support systems, whether that be parents, teachers or external agencies such as Mind or Papyrus.
Furthermore, where better to start following Papyrus’s three key principles—support, equip and influence—than in the classroom? Teaching, of course, should be preventive, and extra care should be taken to signpost a source of support. Promoting positive mental health in schools, however, and putting in place support, including by working with external bodies, is a positive way forward. I have always believed that schools should have trained mental health first aiders within their staff, because the suicide figures that we are seeing today and have spoken about are too high. The wider support is there to provide suicide prevention teaching in schools, and I think this should be considered for implementation.
To conclude, supplying consistent mental health teaching across all schools nationally is a necessity. Although the Government have in the past said that they will be taking forward proposals to train designated senior leads for mental health in schools by 2025 and to fund mental health awareness training, the review of the RSHE curriculum to include suicide prevention should continue to be a priority for the Government. I think it should be brought in as quickly as possible.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on introducing the debate, but I pay particular tribute to Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen, whom we know collectively as 3 Dads Walking. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) summed it up brilliantly: there could be no greater tribute to your beautiful girls than the work you are doing in raising awareness, in fundraising and in getting this petition. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that the Minister will probably not attend a more important debate in his career. We have already heard personal stories of people who have been affected by suicide, and I think we will be hearing more as the debate proceeds.
I fully support the proposals set out in the petition to make suicide prevention a compulsory part of the school curriculum. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central also made such an important point about converting walking to talking. I think we should bottle that phrase; it sums up where we need to go.
We know that 90% of suicides are associated with mental health issues but that 75% of people who take their own life had no prior contact with mental health services, so the earlier that children and young people are aware of and understand their feelings, but also where to access mental health services when they need them, the better. I would like to raise a few more points specifically in relation to deaths by suicide. In 2021, 5,583 people died by suicide.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is very kind, and I thank him.
Unfortunately, our much-loved 20-year-old nephew, Jack, died when he took his life. Jack was a lot younger than his 11 cousins and was doted on by all. At our regular Sunday morning breakfasts, he would be in the centre of the room, laughing at someone’s joke or telling everybody about the week that he had had at school. He was gentle, bright and kind. We are a very large family—my husband, John, is the eldest of seven and we all have our children; of course, Jack’s mum is John’s baby sister—but we are a very close one, and 19 months on from Jack’s death and a month after his inquest, to say we are all still devastated would be no exaggeration. This is absolutely nothing compared with the heartbreak his mum is going through. She has given me her permission to speak about the context of Jack’s suicide, in the hope that that may help others.
At 17 and without his mum’s knowledge, Jack was prescribed Roaccutane. Roaccutane is the trade name for isotretinoin, a medicine prescribed for severe acne, and has been available in the UK since 1983. It was also approved for use in the USA, under the trade name Accutane, in 1982. However, in July 2009, following the filing of thousands of lawsuits in which Accutane use was said to be associated with severe, life-changing health problems, both physical and psychological—in some cases many years after Accutane use—it was withdrawn from sale in the US.
In November 2020, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency announced that the Commission on Human Medicines had established an isotretinoin expert working group. This evidence review was prompted when the highest levels of fatalities associated with Roaccutane use was recorded in 2019 by the MHRA’s yellow card reporting scheme—an online portal for reporting adverse drug reactions. In total, 12 fatalities were reported in 2019—10 by suicide—and there were 85 serious incidents and 19 non-serious ones.
At Jack’s inquest last month, the coroner requested that the MHRA present evidence about the review’s findings. The scandal is that the review had been completed at the end of 2021, but the findings and recommendations had not been published because of “complications associated with Brexit”. It transpired that the recommendations, which 15 months on still have not been published, included requiring two doctors to agree to Roaccutane being prescribed to under-18s and prescribing it only after all other acne treatments had been tried. It is a serious drug, and it needs to be closely monitored.
The MHRA representative attending the inquest revealed that, since the completion of the review in 2021, there had been a further 81 adverse psychiatric events, including one suicide and one attempted suicide. On this issue, the family were pleased that the coroner had issued a prevention of future deaths report to the Health and Social Care Secretary, and the family looks forward to his early response and the publication of the 2021 review on isotretinoin. However, we believe that there needs to be an immediate awareness of the dangers of this group of drugs so that more of our young people and their families do not go through what we have been through.
The family also want to raise issues about the suicides of university students. Every year, three students per 100,000 will take their own life. Despite Universities UK’s “Suicide-safer universities” guidelines, there seems to be an ad hoc approach to how they are implemented. Prior to his death, Jack had been a first-year student at the University of York. In March 2020, he expressed concerns about his mental health to his departmental support officer, but although Jack was signposted to mental health support, this was not followed through. What Jack displayed was more or less word for word what was in the Universities UK’s guidelines on recognising signs and vulnerabilities, but it was not responded to as such, and it certainly was not flagged centrally.
We believe that, at registration, universities should get students to identify an individual—a parent, guardian or named advocate—for university staff to get in touch with if they have health concerns about a student. We also believe that there needs to be training for all university staff regarding suicide prevention. At this stage, I also pay tribute to Papyrus for its work on awareness training, particularly its campaign #SpotTheSigns, and similarly to the Samaritans for its training. That needs to be widespread not just in schools but in higher education institutions, so there is an understanding of the signs and symptoms.
We will never know exactly why our Jack took his life. We miss him every day, and want to do all that we can to prevent others from feeling that suicide is the only way out of the pain that they feel, because it is not.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). That was clearly not an easy speech to make. Coming from a large family—I am up to about 20 nephews, nieces, great nephews and great nieces; even the children are having children now—I cannot begin to imagine what it would be like if one of them sadly went down the same route as Jack, and her speech was incredibly brave. Having spoken in a debate last year after the death of one of my very close friends by suicide, I know you feel powerless when it happens but, at the same time, you think, “Well, by speaking up and using what powers we have in this place to try to draw attention to it, I am at least doing something that will help others.”
Before getting to the main thrust of my speech, I want to pick up on a couple of things that my hon. Friend mentioned. I too attended my friend’s inquest, and a prevention of future deaths notice was published. I did quite a lot of digging around beforehand as to what was going to happen at the inquest. There is an issue about how long these things take. He ended up having a fairly quick hearing, but some cases take a long time to get to that stage. It is not entirely clear what happens when these notices are issued, and I asked some parliamentary questions about this matter. It is one thing a coroner issuing a notice, but does it just end up in a big pile? Is action actually being taken and are efforts being made to ensure that lessons really are learned?
The other thing I would pick up on is what my hon. Friend said about university students. Sadly, University of Bristol had a spate of suicides, which was again why my attention was drawn to this issue. The issue also came up at an event I did last year with the band New Order, talking with the Campaign Against Living Miserably —the suicide prevention charity. One thing that came through was that, in some cases, universities do not feel that they can talk to the parents because students are classed as adults and, even though there are signs of distress, they feel they cannot go back to them. There is a need for a named adult when students register, so they can ensure parents know what is going on. Again, there were a few cases where that had not happened.
In some cases, as we have heard, there are few signs from young people and children, and families can be shocked by sudden incidents when they were not aware their child had mental health problems. However, a record number of children have mental health problems that are known and are on the NHS mental health waiting list. The situation is worsening rapidly, in part because of the pressures on children because of covid and the years of lockdown.
NHS stats from November last year revealed that one in six children aged between seven and 16 show signs of a probable mental health condition, and that jumps to one in four among young people aged 17 to 19. Half of all mental health problems are established by the age of 14, so it is imperative that we ensure today’s school pupils do not end up as tomorrow’s suicide statistics, whether that is when they are still young people or, as in my friend’s case, 30 or 40 years down the line.
I recently asked about adverse childhood experiences at Prime Minister’s questions. I think the Prime Minister just heard the words “children” and “mental health” and replied about what mental health support is available, rather than actually addressing my question. I do not particularly blame him for that, but I was asking about how we prevent children from reaching a stage when they are in mental health crisis because of things going on in their lives. We need to address not just the consequences, but the causes of poor mental health in children and, ideally, prevent those adverse childhood experiences from happening in the first place.
I entirely support calls to talk more about mental health. I encourage children to seek support if they are struggling, and I encourage teachers and professionals to try to identify whether children are in that place, but it should not just be about helping children cope. It should be about trying to ensure that children are happy and healthy right from the word go, whether that is trying to stop things like online harms; dealing with problems at home, including parents who may not be getting the help they need themselves, which will obviously have an impact on their children; or any of the other factors we know lead to children feeling in a dark place. Any strategy also has to include that.
As has been said, about four children a week—200 a year—lose their lives to suicide. I commend 3 Dads Walking for drawing attention to the issue, and for its work with the charity Every Life Matters. Going back to my earlier point, I see that the dads feel this work is the least they can do. I hope that we can do justice to them today, and that the Minister can show them that something will come of all their efforts. I also commend Papyrus and other charities for their work.
Bristol City Council published its updated suicide prevention plan last August. One of the seven action points is about targeting mental health among specific groups, including children and young people. That includes providing mental health first aid, a course called SafeTALK, and self-harm training to school mental health leads. I am sure we will hear more from the shadow Schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), about Labour’s plans for mental health professionals in every school. The council’s plan also includes a “suicide pack” and a “self-harm toolkit” produced in Bristol, which are practical resources. Members have mentioned quite a few local charities. In Bristol, Off the Record works mostly with young people to offer them outreach, mental heal workshops, one-to-one counselling and so on.
People have already flagged that any sort of education in schools needs to be done in a sensitive and age-appropriate way. My concern is that talking generally to a group of children who are in a reasonably good place might be fine. If a child is already in a dark place, I am not entirely sure that is the best way of reaching out to them, particularly for an introverted child who has gone inside themselves. That is a question for the professionals, but I wanted to flag that up.
Mr Robin Walker
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point in paying tribute to 3 Dads Walking and everyone who has campaigned on this issue. We have heard strong support from across the Chamber for doing more. Does she agree that it is important to work with the experts to ensure that any curriculum materials are properly sourced and age-appropriate? Elsewhere in the RSHE curriculum, there has been a big backlash and concerns when parents feel that might not be the case. If this is to be done, it needs to be done well. Organisations such as Papyrus and CALM, which the hon. Lady mentioned, can play an important part in informing that.
Kerry McCarthy
That is absolutely right. We always talk about the value of tailoring things to the individual, whether that is job seeking or health support. That can be difficult when resources are tight. My plea is that we have the teaching assistants and extra staff in schools so they can get to know the children and learn their individual characteristics.
I want to flag the issue of neurodiversity. We already know that children mature at different ages, so determining what is age-appropriate can be quite difficult. I have personal experience of one case where a child was in mainstream secondary school, but was so distressed and alarmed by what she was being taught about drugs, crime, gangs and so on, that she ended up in a full-blown mental health crisis and went to residential provision, where she was diagnosed with autism. She went into a special school because that was a safer environment for her. That is just one example of how being taught about something is different for every child. Some of the available therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, might not be appropriate for somebody with an autism diagnosis whose mind does not work in that sort of way.
The special educational needs and disabilities review, which was published last year, was jointly authored by the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary, but there was very little about the overlap with CAMHS. I know the Minister is not here to speak for the Health Department, but the role of CAMHS is crucial.
My other point is about what support is provided once lessons and that individual’s one-to-one support are over. I will end on that. I do not know what has happened to the suicide prevention strategy; I hope that we see it. I think I was told that it was imminent when I did my Westminster Hall debate last year, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and to follow the many thoughtful, heartfelt and, in some cases, difficult speeches. I pay tribute to the families who are in the Public Gallery for their powerful campaign, and to 3 Dads Walking for all its work to raise awareness. My constituency of Barnsley East has the highest number of children, adolescents and young adults admitted to hospital for self-harm in Yorkshire and the Humber. For every 100,000 young people, 638 are admitted—almost one and a half times the national average.
Child and adolescent mental health services are at breaking point. Wait times for treatment are months and sometimes years, and local mental health charities simply cannot get the funding required to treat the people who are falling through the gaps of NHS treatment. A number of local charities are working hard with young people. Hey!, which came to Parliament last year to meet the health Minister, and the Samaritans support young people experiencing suicidal thoughts across Barnsley.
My office is regularly contacted by desperate parents who are not sure how to help their children through mental health crises and are terrified that self-harm will progress to suicide. Last year, a mother contacted me about her child, who had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and had a very low mood, including suicidal thoughts. After they waited a year for treatment, it was delayed further as there was a debate about where it should take place. Because his school was in Rotherham, he was told that he must have his treatment there, despite the fact that he lived in Barnsley. That resulted in him being removed from his waiting list and placed on another one, which had a wait time of another 12 months. His mother was desperate and terrified that a longer wait for her son’s treatment could lead to his mental health deteriorating to the lowest point possible. Following an intervention from my office, a decision was made to start his treatment in Rotherham, but it should not have taken that.
The process may seem overly bureaucratic, but it is driven by low budgets and an inability to manage waiting lists when demand outstrips the available services by a huge margin. The mum says her son is doing much better since starting treatment, which of course is very welcome news, but it is unacceptable that, due to a lengthy waiting list, he was allowed to sink so low for so long before he was given the help he needed.
Another of my constituents was suffering from depression and severe anxiety. She missed a lot of school and occasionally self-harmed. She had to wait more than six months for an appointment with CAMHS, during which time her schoolwork suffered and she was put into lower sets for key subjects. Following her initial appointment, she had to wait a further three months to start treatment. At the time, she was studying for her GCSEs—a vital time in any young person’s life, when life chances can easily be decreased due to a lack of timely and effective treatment.
Those are just two examples of the many people who have been in touch, and sadly they are not unusual. The Government need an urgent plan to look at and deal with this crisis. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell): this will be the most important debate that the Minister takes part in.
Teaching children and young people about good mental health and improving their resilience from a young age will be hugely beneficial in helping them to grow up and be aware of their feelings and the pressures that surround them. Life for the average teenager has changed beyond recognition in the past generation with the advent of social media, and of course there are other pressures at home, such as a lack of money and poverty. We must keep up with the changes if we are to give young people the best chances and skills to navigate the extra pressures that they face today.
However, if we are to give schools and teachers that extra responsibility of support, there must be a plan of action to accompany it. The answer to the mental health crisis is not to give teachers and support staff more work. As a former state school teacher, I know that staff are already struggling to find resources for the same, and in some cases less, pay. We need a wide-ranging approach. A review of the RSHE curriculum must take on board experts’ views about how to add worthwhile, appropriate contact to the school syllabus in a way that has a positive and educational impact on all young people.
As someone who has taught RSHE in school, I see the benefits and would welcome the change. Adding suicide prevention to the school curriculum would be an important step in the right direction. We must learn the lessons from this mental health crisis and use all possible means to safely equip the next generation of children as they navigate their way towards adulthood.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak. It is a privilege to follow the other hon. Members, who made powerful speeches, and I thank the Petitions Committee for hosting the debate.
I pay personal tribute to the 3 Dads Walking—my constituent, Andy Airey, Tim Owen and Mike Palmer—for their tireless, selfless campaigning to make suicide awareness a compulsory part of the school curriculum. We are all aware of their campaign. Andy, Tim and Mike tragically each lost their precious daughters, Sophie, Emily and Beth, to suicide. It is humbling for us all to be here to support them in their campaign. They have bravely turned their personal tragedy towards positive change to help other people. It was a privilege to join them on their walk as they came through Penrith. As we have seen today, their petition has been amazing, gaining around 159,000 signatures. I have lost track of their fundraising, but it is over £1 million, and I congratulate them all. I also thank all those who work with people young and old to protect and support their mental health in my constituency and right across the country, in the NHS and in charities such as Papyrus, Mind, the Samaritans and Every Life Matters.
I am passionate about parity of esteem between mental and physical health, and I have mentioned that since my maiden speech. I welcome the progress that has been made so far on suicide awareness since the Conservatives came into power, such as the introduction of the national suicide prevention strategy in 2012 and the cross-Government suicide prevention workplan in 2019. I welcome that that endeavour is being backed up by funding, such as the £150 million for mental health facilities, which includes supporting a mental health crisis centre at the Carleton Clinic in Carlisle. That is all vital for ensuring that mental health crises are handled by the most appropriate people to provide the most appropriate care for their needs, but we are all here today to press for more preventive measures to try to avoid crisis and, ultimately, catastrophe.
Today’s debate shows the work of the House at its very best, as there is unity on addressing the important issue of mental health. The unity of the House is clear, with the early-day motion that I was humbled to introduce on behalf of the 3 Dads last year, which called for suicide prevention and mental health first aid in educational settings, being signed by 41 Members from across the House. That has also been recognised by our Prime Minister, and I look forward to taking the issue forward when the 3 Dads and I meet him in the meeting that I recently secured for them.
Why do we need this change? As we have heard, the evidence is clear that there is a crisis among our young people, and we need to take action. As Andy, Tim and Mike have highlighted at the heart of their campaigning, the reality is that, tragically, suicide is the biggest killer of under-35s in the UK. As we have heard, more than five young people take their lives each day and over 200 schoolchildren are lost to suicide every year. The majority are teenagers, but some are primary-age children. The data are unclear, and perhaps that is due to the way that deaths by suicide are interpreted and recorded.
The Government have long recognised that education is a crucial tool for ensuring that our young people are fully equipped to deal with the realities of the wider world. The Government’s action to make relationships, sex and health education mandatory in schools is an important commitment to our young people and their wellbeing, but that commitment can benefit our young people only if every young person across the country is equipped to tackle every serious issue that may well affect their wellbeing. At the moment, there is a disparity: we equip our young people to tackle relationships, drugs, alcohol and other problems that may threaten their wellbeing, but we do not consistently provide our young people with the tools in their arsenal to tackle the threat of suicide.
Although I appreciate that the Government provide statutory guidance on mental health, making suicide awareness a compulsory part of the school curriculum would do something even more fundamental. The change would fundamentally re-enforce to our young people that their mental and physical health are equally important, need equal care and protection, and have parity of esteem in the eyes of wider society. Ultimately, that would help to break down the stigma that many people face because of their mental health, providing the same ability to discuss it openly and honestly as we would do with other aspects of our wellbeing. As we have heard, however, we must ensure that there is proper support for young people at all stages of education, including university and college, where being away from family and friends, and in a unique environment, can be an exciting journey for the majority but very challenging for others.
I declare an interest, because in my career in higher education I have had mental health first aid training and also ASIST—applied suicide intervention skills training. The huge take-home that I took from that was that we must not tiptoe around the subject; we must address it directly, but in a very sensitive way. I can say from my personal experience that I have applied the training. When I addressed the subject with one person I was liaising with, their relief welled up and they said, “Oh my goodness, Neil, thank you. You understand.” That was a real lesson to me that we cannot tiptoe around the subject.
The training does not make someone an expert or a consultant in mental health, but it gives them the tools to help them to talk to people and signpost them towards the help they need. Accordingly, I am strongly supportive of the concept of mental health first aid training, as I have heard other Members say today. In addition to the petition’s aim of putting suicide awareness and prevention on the school curriculum, I would welcome the Government’s considering expanding mental health first aid more widely into all educational settings.
Tracey Crouch
Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue is that mental health first aid training is not a standard provision and that quite often it is only employed by people after a tragic event? Recently, a young man associated with Aylesford Football Club took his own life and as a consequence the football club has reached out and become a mental health first aid trainer. However, it was unfortunate that it took such a tragic event for that to happen. As part of the safeguarding policies in schools and sports clubs, mental health first aid training could be offered as a standard part of the toolbox.
Dr Hudson
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful and sensible point, and I completely agree. This is about putting in place measures to prevent crisis. On many occasions when I have met the 3 Dads, I have heard that schools have brought measures in after a catastrophe. What we are talking about today is preventive healthcare medicine.
It is very important that intervention in schools is done sensitively and, as we have heard today, in an age-appropriate way, in the curriculum, with guidance. We also need to think about how we deal with the question for younger children. Tim is one of the 3 Dads and when I met him recently we discussed some of the language that could be used and is being used for younger children, and I was very struck by that. There is the concept of, “If you are sad and you don’t want to be here”. That sort of language can actually address some of the issues in age-appropriate and sensitive way.
Let me also briefly expand out of education and into mental health in rural areas. Andy, who is a constituent of mine in Cumbria, will be very well aware of the issues that we face in rural areas. My interest is rooted in my personal and professional background, and my experience of the foot and mouth crisis. In Cumbria and right across the UK, we are now struggling with the avian influenza outbreak. The mental health impact of such things on rural communities should not be understated.
On the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we are conducting an inquiry into this issue. One of the key issues that we have found, which is why I wanted to bring mental health in rural areas into this part of the debate, is that there is a common theme of people being reluctant to seek help—to put their hand up and say, “I’m struggling”. It is that concept of being able to feel that it is okay to not be okay.
[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]
The devastation caused by outbreaks of disease among animals can be huge for farmers and rural communities and can be ongoing, too. The inquiry that the EFRA Committee has instigated will produce a report in due course, but one of the key areas is talking about prevention. How can we help people in whatever walk of life they are in—schools, education, rural communities or urban communities? How can we reach out and help people to help themselves? The principles that we are discussing for education settings have wider-ranging implications in society, for mental health first aid training and for putting in place preventative measures so that we can prevent catastrophe.
Finally, I pay tribute to 3 Dads Walking for their fortitude and their gritty determination to keep campaigning on this vital issue. I thank them and all the charities that are assisting them for all their work. Hon. Members on both sides of the House can work together and I look forward to hearing from the Government about how we can put in place preventive measures in schools and educational settings.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this incredibly important debate and for his wider work on mental health, for which he has become well known since coming to the House.
Some 17 people a day take their own lives in the UK—not just today, but tomorrow, Wednesday, Thursday and onwards. That is just a statistic, but in the last hour and a half, we have heard many personal, emotional and tragic stories of the individual people—the names—behind that statistic. When I woke up this morning, I listened to Mike, Andy and Tim from 3 Dads Walking on Radio 4 as I was getting ready and packing my bags to catch the train to London. I heard about Emily, Sophie and Beth, which made it very personal, so I thank the 3 Dads for coming along. I also heard that they will be meeting the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister, and I look forward to hearing more about that.
When I returned to Parliament in 2019, I pledged and wanted to do more on suicide prevention and mental health after losing two close friends who took their own lives. I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for the work that we do together on the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. We had an emotional meeting last week with James’ Place, the Samaritans and Mike McCarthy, who told us about his son Ross and the walk that he will be doing with the Baton of Hope in June—lots of people are walking and raising awareness. Mike is coming to Parliament with Steve Phillip, who lost his son Jordan.
After listening to the debate for an hour and a half, I ask: what can we do? I am a dad to two teenage daughters and I often—in fact, almost every day—think that I would like to turn off the toxicity, pressures and unreal expectations of social media; I really feel as though I want to switch it all off on their behalf. I also want to erase the isolation, disruption and anxiety that the pandemic caused for young people. I do not think that either of those two wishes is achievable or realistic, so what is?
In memory of Emily, Sophie, Beth, Sean and all the other young people we have heard about, we should get behind the motion. We should see how we can introduce suicide prevention and more support for mental health in the school curriculum in an age appropriate and sensitive way, of course. I hope that we will do our bit here in Parliament and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. To Mike, Andy and Tim, I say, “If you keep walking, we will keep talking.”
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to Mike Palmer, Andy Airey and Tim Owen, who, as we have heard, raised more than £1 million for suicide prevention charities, inspired 159,000 people to sign the petition that triggered this debate, and brought the issue of suicide prevention in schools to the national consciousness.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, the 3 Dads came together following the deaths of their daughters Beth, Sophie and Emily. They are united by their grief and a shared motivation to tackle the causes of suicide. They completed two heroically long-distance walks to raise money and awareness, and to campaign for suicide prevention to be included in the national curriculum. Last year, the trio spent a month walking 600 miles between the four Parliaments of the UK to bring their campaign directly to politicians. Poignantly, they say they are
“part of a club no-one wants to be in, and yet sadly they are always meeting new members.”
The strength of feeling they have generated for their campaign has been shown in the backing their petition received for today’s debate. I am sure everyone present will join me in saying thank you to them. I also pay tribute to the work done by other suicide prevention charities and campaigners who devote their lives to helping people who often feel they have no one to turn to in their hour of need.
We have heard from a number of hon. Members from across the House with helpful and insightful contributions, with stories from their constituencies, from personal experience and from our communities’ fantastic array of voluntary and community sector organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) spoke with real insight and expertise in her capacity as chair of the APPG, shared helpful research into suicide prevention and spoke about the invaluable role of the charitable sector in supporting families and promoting mental wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) spoke passionately about what is at stake if we do not act. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about the need to create safe spaces both in communities and online to prevent suicide and the support needed to give young people the skills to be resilient and to gain the confidence to speak up and talk.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for bravely sharing the tragic story of Jack’s life and the lessons that need to be learned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made helpful points about the need for support in universities, while my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) set out the challenges that CAMHS are facing and the consequences in constituencies across the country.
As we have heard tonight, while it is often not talked about, suicide is the biggest killer of the under-35s in the UK. Research has shown that women aged 16 to 24 are more likely to report having self-harmed than any other age group, with almost 20% reporting self-harm, and that suicidal thoughts are also most common in women aged 16 to 24. More than 200 schoolchildren are lost to suicide every year—each one of them a tragedy. In 2016, a commitment was made to reduce the rate of suicide in England by 10% by 2020, but by 2020 the rate was almost the same. Clearly, more needs to be done.
Research shows that with the appropriate intervention and suicide support for young people, all this could be prevented. It is therefore so important that we as a society ensure that the interventions are in place and that that support is always ready. We cannot bury our heads in the sand on these issues. Suicide needs to be discussed even if it is uncomfortable. In recent years, progress has been made in ending the stigma around mental health, but it is clear that much more needs to be done to ensure that mental health problems are given equal priority to physical health.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said, too many young people are struggling with their mental health. NHS data shows that one in six children had a probable mental health condition in 2021, up from one in nine in 2017. Children are struggling without support—unable to see a GP and stuck on children and adolescent mental health service waiting lists for years, left in limbo without help. Concerningly, a report by Schools Week last year found that suicidal children are being turned away by overstretched CAMH services, with schools instead told to “keep them safe”. The investigation also found that many mental health services refuse to see children with a diagnosis of autism and other neurodevelopmental differences on the grounds that they do not meet the criteria for therapy. Families told reporters that they are being left to “keep children alive” as they either wait or are rejected from support.
No child should be left without the support that they need to be happy and healthy. No parent should be left feeling unsupported and alone when helping their child to face mental health problems. No teacher should be left stuck, unable to refer children for the professional support that is needed. That is why Labour is committed to giving children access to a professional mental health counsellor in every school. We would also ensure that children are not stuck waiting for referrals, unable to get support. Teachers would not be expected to provide expert mental health services that they are not trained to deliver.
We would also ensure that every child knows that help is at hand, and for the young people for whom accessing that support in school is not the right choice, we will deliver a new model of open-access mental health hubs in every community. They will build on work already under way in Birmingham, Manchester and elsewhere, and provide an open door for all our young people. They will get support to children early and prevent problems from escalating—improving young people’s mental health, not just responding when they are in crisis.
Alongside the investment in children’s mental health, Labour would oversee a radical expansion of the mental health workforce, resulting in over a million more people receiving support each year. A new NHS target would be set, ensuring that patients start receiving appropriate treatment, not simply initial assessment of needs, within a month of referral. We would also review the school curriculum, making sure that young people are ready for work and life. As we have heard, it is important that we teach young people to understand their mental health, in order for them to be able to identify warning signs of deteriorating mental health and wellbeing, which could lead to self-harm or suicidal thoughts in themselves and others.
One in four people in England experiences a mental health problem of some kind each year. One in six people in England reports experiencing a common mental health problem, such as anxiety and depression, in any given week. It is key that young people who are struggling recognise that they are not alone in that, that help is at hand, and that they know how to find that help for themselves and their friends.
The Department for Education is committed to reviewing RSHE statutory guidance. I encourage all campaigners and experts, and those listening to the debate today, to submit their evidence to that process. Our schools and teachers must be equipped to talk about mental health problems and suicide prevention in a safe and age-appropriate way. That is something everyone across the political spectrum can agree on, so it is crucial that we get it right. We should ensure that all reforms are evidence based, and done with children’s wellbeing at their heart.
In conclusion, the highest priority for the Department for Education and all schools must be to protect children’s safety and wellbeing. In his response, I hope that the Minister will outline what his Department is doing to help children who are struggling with their mental health get the support they need. What is his Department doing to bring down waiting times for children who need mental health services? What is his Department doing to help prevent suicide among young people?
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and thank the 159,000 people who signed the petition to trigger this important debate. Conversations about suicide prevention can only lead to increased support and more dialogue. It is key that nowhere is off limits for life-changing conversations. I hope that any actions taken going forward ensure that more lives are saved.
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate under your careful stewardship, Ms Nokes. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on the way he opened this important debate. It has been a debate with many deeply emotional testimonies from families who have lost loved ones to suicide, including a moving speech from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
I also thank Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen for being here today and for their tireless efforts to increase awareness of suicide prevention. Through their campaign, 3 Dads Walking, Andy, Mike and Tim took on the challenge of walking between all four Parliaments, a 600-mile walk that has raised over £1 million to support suicide prevention, in memory of their daughters Beth, Sophie and Emily. Through the campaign, Andy, Mike and Tim shared personal stories of their kind, talented and much-loved daughters and the devastating impact that losing them has had on their parents, siblings, and wider families and friends. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has taken a keen interest in the campaign after she met Andy, Mike and Tim in 2022, when she was serving as Minister for Care and Mental Health. I know she has written to them recently and hopes to meet them again soon.
In 2020, as Minister for School Standards, I helped with the introduction of education on mental wellbeing through the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said in her intervention, we need to be able to talk about mental health. That is an important first step, but I recognise the concerns raised in the petition and in this debate and will do my best to address them.
The death of any young person is tragic, and we need to do everything that we can to prevent it. It is heartbreaking to think that some young people have suicidal thoughts and do not know how to address them, and it is heartbreaking that families have to go through the loss of a child with possibly no indication of their state of mind, as movingly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). We know that going to school can in and of itself be a protective factor for many young people, and we want schools to be places where emerging issues are identified and supported early and where pupils are taught to identify their own feelings and seek the right support at the right time. We need, as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) put it so well, to help young people back to the path of hope.
The statutory curriculum guidance for RSHE sets out the detailed content that pupils should be taught. They are taught about the building blocks needed to develop positive and safe relationships and good physical and mental health. The content includes how to recognise the early signs of mental wellbeing concerns, such as anxiety and depression. Pupils are taught where and how to seek support, including who in school they can speak to if they are worried about their own or someone’s else mental wellbeing. I hope that that valuable knowledge will stay with children as they progress into adulthood, so that they will continue to look out for friends and know how to seek the help that is needed when they or someone they know is struggling and not able to take the first step in supporting themselves.
In addition to mental wellbeing, the health education curriculum provides content on the benefits of daily exercise, good nutrition and sufficient sleep, which can all have a positive impact on a young person’s health and wellbeing. Ensuring that pupils understand the links between good physical and mental health will provide them with valuable tools for managing their emotions. We want schools to develop curriculum content that is helpful to their pupils. Our approach is not to dictate how and when schools teach this content, but to ensure that they recognise that it must be covered in an age-appropriate and sensitive way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said. The RSHE statutory guidance is clear that the subject of suicide and self-harm can be discussed as part of this topic, but it is important that teachers approach it carefully, because we have to acknowledge that, taught badly, it has the potential to do harm. We need to consider the issues carefully before making it an absolute requirement.
We know that mental health awareness, as already covered by the curriculum, can have an impact on preventing suicide. We have been funding a large-scale randomised controlled trial of approaches to improving pupil mental wellbeing in schools. The trial will provide evidence on what works to support children’s mental wellbeing and how it can be delivered in schools. The “aware” arm of the trial is testing approaches to mental health awareness teaching, including a school-based programme for young people aged 13 to 17 called Youth Aware of Mental Health, for which there is good international evidence that it reduces suicidal ideation. That has the potential to add to the work that we have already done to improve teacher confidence and the quality of teaching by developing online training materials and implementation guides that give advice to schools and staff on how best to support pupils’ mental and physical health.
The issue of social media came up during the debate. Teaching children to be safe online is another aspect of suicide prevention that is covered by the existing curriculum. The inquests into the tragic suicides of Frankie Thomas and Molly Russell found that unsafe online content, and in Frankie’s case the failure of the school to support her in the online environment, contributed to their deaths. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) pointed out, life for this generation of teachers has changed beyond recognition, compared with the previous generation and generations as far back as mine.
We know that social media can be a force for good in relation to mental health. It is part of life and relationships for young people, but for it to be helpful we need to make sure the online environment is as safe as possible. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) raised that concern. Technology and the risks and harms related to it continue to evolve and change rapidly. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, we need to be wary of the toxicity of TikTok, as well as of the dark web, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) put it, we must switch off the unrealistic expectations of social media.
Through health education, we are equipping children and young people with the knowledge they need to use the internet and social media safely, and understand how to deal with the content they encounter online. In addition to the statutory health education content, we have published guidance for schools on teaching online safety, which helps them deliver internet safety content in a co-ordinated and coherent way across their curriculum.
To check that RSHE teaching is having an effect, we are monitoring its implementation. We want to test whether schools are implementing the requirements with sufficient quality to understand what helps and hinders good teaching. As the Prime Minister announced last Wednesday, we have brought forward the review of the RSHE statutory guidance, which was originally due to commence in September 2023. The current content I have already set out on mental health and wellbeing covers a large amount of what it is important in suicide prevention, but we will look further at this as a priority area for the review and decide whether to add requirements on teaching about suicide. As part of taking a comprehensive, evidence-based approach, we will make sure we speak to the experts in the field. We plan to start the review as soon as possible.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister talked about testing whether RSHE is having an effect by monitoring its implementation, looking at what is being taught in schools and so on, but what is being done to take it beyond that and look at outcomes? It is one thing to prove that children are being taught about the dangers of drugs, but we must see an impact on the number of children suffering drug-related harm, getting involved in gangs or, in this case, going down that path. How do we judge whether it is having an impact, rather than just whether it is being implemented?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The review will be thorough. It will not only talk to experts, but will look at the data and evidence and statistics from Ofsted and other bodies to ensure it is thorough and leads to the RSHE guidance document being the most effective it can be to deliver the aims and objectives of the RSHE curriculum.
Tracey Crouch
On the review, will the Minister commit to speaking to the parents and loved ones of those who have taken their lives to hear them tell their stories and explain why they believe passionately that this should be on the curriculum?
Nick Gibb
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Debates such as this are illuminating, and I am sure hearing such stories will help those carrying out the review of the RHSE curriculum.
Teaching about mental health is only part of the story. Schools can play a vital role by providing safe, calm and supportive environments that promote good mental wellbeing and help prevent the onset of mental illness. We should not, however, expect teachers to act as mental health experts, nor to make a mental health diagnosis. Education staff are well placed to observe children day to day, and many schools provide excellent targeted support for pupils with mental wellbeing issues.
To help education settings implement effective whole-school or college approaches to mental health, we are funding all schools and colleges in England to train a senior mental health lead. Over 11,000 schools and colleges have already taken up that offer, including more than six in 10 state-funded secondary schools in England, and we have invested a further £10 million this year to ensure that up to two thirds of state-funded schools and colleges can benefit by April this year.
That is in addition to record funding for children and young people’s mental health support through the NHS long-term plan, which commits to increasing investment in mental health services by at least £2.3 billion a year, putting mental health on a par with physical health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) has been campaigning for. That means an additional 345,000 children and young people will be able to access NHS-funded mental health support by 2023-24.
A number of hon. Members raised the issue of access to mental health services for young people. Despite significant extra funding, we know that too many young people must wait for too long before they are seen by a mental health professional. Last year, the NHS set out its plans to introduce new access and waiting time standards for mental health services. One of those standards is for children and young people to start to receive their care within four weeks of referral, but hopefully sooner than that.
As a result of the 2017 Green Paper “Transforming children and young people’s mental health provision”, which is a very significant piece of work, more than 2.4 million children and young people now have access in schools and colleges to a mental health support team, which delivers evidence-based interventions for mild to moderate mental health issues; supports each school or college to introduce or develop its approach to promoting and supporting mental health; and advises and liaises with external specialist services to help children and young people to get the right support and stay in education.
Liz Twist
I am looking at the petition organised by 3 Dads Walking. The Minister has given us some very important information about mental health support in schools, but this is quite simple: it is about talking to young people about suicide prevention and knowing that it is okay for them to talk about their feelings. Will the Minister say how he will approach that specific point in the RSHE review?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member makes an important point. That is a matter for the review. It needs to be carried out with thoroughness and speed, but we also need to consult experts on the issue, as well as talking to families and young people who have important experiences to convey to the review. I would not want to pre-empt that review with my own opinions. We want to ensure that it is a properly carried-out review; we will then get the best possible outcome from it, not just in this area but across the whole of the RSHE curriculum.
Rachael Maskell
I would like to raise two further points. One is about teacher training, and ensuring that teachers get the right training put to them when they are going through their training. The second point is about parents. Schools are part of a wider community, and parents are obviously part of that community—knowing how to have those conversations with their children is really important. How will the review look, in a wider scope, at being able to provide the support in the right place?
Nick Gibb
I will take both of those points under advisement. The hon. Member is talking about the wider issue of parents; we are really talking here about a curriculum for schools. Of course, in due course those children become parents—they become adults and parents. Teacher training is a wider issue. First of all, we need to get the curriculum right, and that is what will come out of this thorough review of the whole RSHE guidance, which we are starting right now.
The Government have also committed to publishing a new national suicide prevention strategy for England this year. The strategy will reflect new evidence and national priorities for preventing suicides. The Department for Education has worked closely with the Department of Health and Social Care throughout the development of the strategy to understand what more we can do to reduce suicide and self-harm among children and young people. In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my Department and the Department of Health and Social Care are committed to publishing that strategy this year.
In conclusion, the mental health of children is a priority for this Government, and we know that schools can play a critical role in supporting children’s mental wellbeing. We will monitor implementation of the new curriculum and continue to work to improve teacher confidence to deliver these broad-ranging and sensitive topics to the best of their abilities—a point raised by the hon. Member for York Central. We will also continue the roll-out of training for senior mental health leads and mental health support teams to ensure that schools are getting the best support possible on pupil mental health.
I have set out the measures already in place and the ways in which schools can and do support pupils, including those with suicidal feelings. Once the review of the RSHE statutory guidance has concluded, we will be able to consider what more can be done to support pupils further.
Nick Fletcher
I thank everybody for coming today. So many MPs have spoken, giving so many heartfelt speeches, that there are too many to mention, but it is all extremely appreciated. I am sure that the 3 Dads will also appreciate so many Members of Parliament taking time out of their busy schedules to come and discuss this important issue. I would like to specifically mention the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for the important work that she does on this subject. It is also wonderful to see that we have cross-party agreement on this. That is how this place really gets things done.
I would obviously like to thank the 3 Dads, Andy, Tim and Mike. You have been on a journey that nobody would want to go on. The deaths of your daughters, Sophie, Emily and Beth, have brought us all here together today, and, with assurances from the Minister on the work that will proceed, I am hopeful that we can really get the number of young people taking their own lives down to zero. When we see that number fall, it will be thanks to your work, and in memory of your three precious daughters.
That just leaves me to thank the Petitions Committee for bringing all of this work together. An awful lot happens behind the scenes, and I know that Andy, Tim and Mike will also appreciate the work it has done. I thank Papyrus for the work it has done, and all the other charities that have been mentioned. It has also been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 623390, relating to suicide prevention and the national curriculum.
Written Statement
Non-crime Hate Incidents: Personal Data
(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)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before Parliament the statutory Non-crime Hate Incidents Draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data, which police officers and staff must have regard to. This code is being laid under the provisions of sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government are introducing this code to establish a proportionate and common-sense approach to the recording of non-crime hate incidents. This approach should better protect personal data, emphasise the importance of the right to freedom of expression, and reduce the number of unnecessary non-crime hate incidents that are recorded whilst still ensuring that vulnerable individuals, groups and communities continue to be safeguarded by the police.
This Government fully recognise the sensitivities surrounding the recording of non-crime hate incidents by the police, particularly in relation to concerns that this process infringes on the right to freedom of expression. We know there are concerns that individuals who express lawfully held views are at risk of becoming the subject of a non-crime hate incident report if their views are considered to be offensive, and that in turn, this may result in their personal data being stored on a policing record. This Government are clear that this should never be the case. The code makes it clear that offending someone is not, in and of itself, a criminal offence, nor does it warrant a non-crime hate incident being recorded. This aligns with this Government’s stance that everyone in this country, no matter who they are or what their views are, should be able to engage in lawful debate without police interference.
The code emphasises the importance of free speech with case studies that are designed to assist the police in considering how the right to freedom of expression should be taken into consideration. The code clarifies that debate, humour, satire and personally held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of a non-crime hate incident. Furthermore, the code sets out that a non-crime hate incident should not be recorded if the report is deemed by the police to be trivial, irrational, malicious, or if there is no basis to conclude that it was motivated by intentional hostility.
The code provides new personal data-related safeguards, setting out that the personal data of some who is the subject of an NCHI report should only be included in a record if the incident poses a real risk (a) of significant harm to individuals or groups with a protected characteristic, or (b) that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a protected characteristic. For the purposes of the code, protected characteristics are considered to be race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. If this new threshold is not met, personal data should not be recorded, and any personal data previously noted by the police in relation to the incident—for instance, personal information recorded by the initial call taker—should be deleted. This code therefore ensures that non-crime hate incidents, and relevant personal data, will only be recorded when absolutely necessary. We believe this will increase transparency and public trust in this process.
The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that vulnerable individuals, groups and communities continue to be protected by the police; indeed, this is the purpose of non-crime hate incident recording. We are confident that the code does precisely this. We are grateful for the advice provided by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and senior police officers during the process of drafting this code. This has allowed us to publish a code that strikes the right balance between respecting the operational importance of this type of recording for the police, while improving safeguards for free speech. If someone is targeted because of hostility or prejudice towards their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity, and the criteria in the code are met, the incident can and should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident. This approach will enable the police to intervene as appropriate in order to prevent significant harm or future criminal offences from materialising, while ensuring the right to freedom of expression is protected.
A copy of the draft code which has been laid before Parliament will also be published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS626]
Grand Committee
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Monday 13th 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-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 Mar 2023)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 197
Lord Sharkey
“Duty of the FCA with regard to interest rates for mortgage prisoners
After section 137FD of FSMA 2000 insert—
“137FE FCA general rules: interest rate for mortgage prisoners
(1) The FCA must make general rules requiring authorised persons involved in regulated mortgage lending and regulated mortgage administration to introduce a cap on the standard variable rates charged to mortgage prisoners and to ensure that mortgage prisoners can access new fixed interest rate deals at an interest rate equal to or lower than an interest rate specified by the FCA.(2) In subsection (1)—“mortgage prisoner” means a consumer who cannot switch to a different lender because of their characteristics and has a regulated mortgage contract with one of the following types of firms—(a) inactive lenders, or firms authorised for mortgage lending that are no longer lending, and(b) unregulated entities, or firms not authorised for mortgage lending and which contract with a regulated firm to undertake the regulated activity of mortgage administration;“new fixed interest rate deals” means the ability for the consumer to fix the rate of interest payable on a regulated mortgage contract for periods of 2 years and 5 years;“standard variable rate” means the reversion rate which is a variable rate of interest charged under the regulated mortgage contract after the end of any initial introductory deal.(3) The general rules made under subsection (1) must set the level of the cap on the standard variable rate at a level no more than 2 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate.(4) The general rules made under subsection (1) must make new fixed interest rate deals available to mortgage prisoners who—(a) are up to date with payments or have aggregate arrears of no more than one monthly payment in the past 12 months,(b) have a remaining term of 2 years or more,(c) have an outstanding loan amount of at least £10,000, and(d) have not received consent to let the property. (5) When specifying the interest rates for new fixed interest rate deals required by subsection (1) the FCA must specify rates for a range of loan-to-valuation ratios taking into account the average 2-year and 5-year fixed rates available to existing customers of active lenders through product transfers.(6) The FCA must ensure any rules that it is required to make as a result of subsection (1) are made no later than six months after this Act is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the FCA to introduce a cap on the Standard Variable Rates charged to mortgage prisoners and, under specified circumstances, ensure their access to fixed rate interest deals.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the APPG on Mortgage Prisoners. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for adding his name to my Amendment 197, which is a probing amendment to allow debate on the issue of mortgage prisoners. There are getting on for 200,000 mortgage prisoners in the UK, who are trapped with their current lenders. For eight years or so they have paid very high standard variable rates, now of around 7%, 8% or even more.
Mortgage prisoners exist because the Government sold their mortgages to vulture funds, which have been increasing their standard variable interest rates and refusing to offer mortgage prisoners new deals or access to fixed rates. The harm being caused to these mortgage prisoners is the direct responsibility of the Government; when the time came for the mortgages of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley customers to be sold back to the private sector, the Government could have pursued an approach that ensured that these customers were protected. They could have sold them to active lenders or secured a cast-iron commitment from purchasers to offer these customers new deals.
The risk to these customers was clearly identified. In January 2016, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, wrote to the Treasury, UK Asset Resolution and the FCA to highlight that many of those affected by the sales were mortgage prisoners who would be unable to switch lender. He warned:
“Given the prospect of rising interest rates it is important that all mortgage customers are given the opportunity to achieve certainty over their payments by accessing a fixed rate. I am concerned that some customers affected by these mortgage sales … will not be offered reasonable fixed mortgage rates.”
UKAR responded that, in returning these mortgages to the private sector,
“the option to be offered new deals, extra lending and fixed rates should become available”.
However, this requirement was not written into the contract when mortgages were sold to the vulture fund Cerberus, with the BBC reporting that UKAR is now claiming to have been misled by it.
Consumer champion Martin Lewis, about whose work I will have more to say in a moment, lays the responsibility for the treatment of mortgage prisoners with the Government. He said that they have
“sold these loans to professional debt buyers that don’t offer mortgages, and left these people with these types of mortgages that have been too expensive and crippled their finances and destroyed their wellbeing.”
The Government are directly responsible; they chose to sell the mortgages to vulture funds.
In 2021, the House of Lords passed an amendment that would have capped standard variable rates for mortgage prisoners. This would have provided immediate, practical help for the 200,000 mortgage prisoners and their families. When the Government rejected this amendment in the Commons in April 2021, the Minister claimed that
“the Government and FCA have undertaken significant work in this area to create additional options that make switching into the active market easier for some borrowers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 85.]
The FCA published an update in November 2021; this review confirmed that its interventions have, so far, had only a tiny impact. Only 2,200 of the almost 200,000 mortgage prisoners have been able to switch, just over 1% of the total. It turned out that lenders had only a limited appetite to offer options to switch using the modified affordability test devised by the FCA.
The FCA and the Government show little understanding of how vulnerable many mortgage prisoners really are or what stress and financial hardship they have endured and continue to endure. They certainly have not done anything practical to help. All this misery and harm could have been prevented, but even now the Government still refuse to acknowledge their responsibility or provide any help. At the moment, they and the FCA propose no further action.
This is deeply unfair and more than slightly ironic. A recent LSE report found evidence that the Treasury has not only made back the cost of managing the sales of these mortgages but has made a £2.4 billion surplus. However, there has been one significant development. Last Wednesday, my co-chair of the APPG on Mortgage Prisoners, Seema Malhotra MP, and Martin Lewis, chaired a meeting in Parliament to examine and explain new research conducted by the LSE, generously funded by Martin Lewis. The Treasury and the FCA were in attendance. This research contains concrete and costed proposals for a solution to this long-standing and continuing injustice.
Martin Lewis told the meeting:
“This report lays out starkly that the state sold these borrowers into poverty, knowing it could cause them harm, and made billions doing it. The result has destroyed lives. People have been left in financial, physical and mental misery, exacerbated by the pandemic and cost of living crisis ripping through their already dire situations. When we put solutions to the Treasury in the past, it said it wanted to look at them, but couldn’t as they weren’t costed. Now, having fought tooth and nail to get some of the data needed from official institutions, it is costed.”
Therefore, there should be no more excuses. He went on:
“The Government has a moral and financial responsibility to mitigate some of the damage done. Mortgage prisoners are the forgotten victims of the financial crash. The banks were bailed out at the expense of these borrowers. I hope the Treasury lives up to its past promise to investigate at speed and uses this report as a springboard to find any and all solutions to free mortgage prisoners.”
The APPG has sent copies of the LSE report to the Treasury, the FCA and other interested parties.
Will the Minister and her Treasury colleagues meet the APPG and its supporters to discuss the solutions proposed in the LSE report? Can she arrange this meeting urgently—certainly well before Report? Thanks to the support, generosity and persistence of Martin Lewis, and the work of the LSE and the APPG, we now have a clear and costed plan finally to bring relief to the nearly 200,000 mortgage prisoners. There can be no excuse for further delay. If we cannot set a course to free these prisoners, we will want to return to the issue on Report. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 197, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and to which I have added my name. I served on the former Services Sub-Committee of the former European Union Committee with the noble Lord and have been impressed by his accurate understanding of, and thoughtful approach to, this and other financial issues.
The noble Lord explained the reasons for his amendment with his customary clear logic. I will not take up the Committee’s time by repeating them. I particularly endorse the introduction of a cap of 2% over the standard variable rate for mortgage prisoners. UK Finance has identified 195,000 borrowers from inactive lenders, of whom 47,000 have been identified as mortgage prisoners.
I welcome the FCA’s recent review of this problem and its review of the effectiveness of its regulatory interventions to remove barriers to switching. Recently, only a small number of borrowers have been able to switch from an inactive lender to a new deal with an active lender. I share the FCA’s hope that more mortgage prisoners will be able to switch their mortgage and I hope that the Minister will support this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this amendment and to agree entirely with everything that has been said thus far. I feel a sense of déjà vu all over again. I was just looking back at the comments I made in 2021, when, it is worth noting for the record, this issue of mortgage prisoners went to ping-pong: the House of Lords passed an amendment, and it went back and forth between the two Houses. Back then, we were talking about people suffering under high rates of 4% or 5%, and some were suffering with the vulture funds of 9%. As we have heard set out clearly, the situation has not improved but has got much worse, and we also have a cost of living crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, noted that Martin Lewis is now involved in this, with his crucial supporting research. What a state our country is in when everyone can feel a great sense of relief and hope because someone who is, after all, only a private individual has stepped in where Parliament has failed. Surely this is the stage where Parliament—or the Government—can step up and rescue people trapped in often terrible situations through no fault of their own.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I recall our debates on this subject in 2021. Indeed, I think the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has tabled is word for word the amendment he tabled on Report during the passage of what became the Financial Services Act 2021. It will not surprise the noble Lord that familiarity with it has not made me any warmer to the amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, reminded us, mortgage prisoners derive from lending practices before the financial crisis. These mortgage borrowers were much more likely to have got a mortgage without proof of income or with an impaired credit history. They still have relatively high loan-to-value ratios, and they often have unsecured debt as well. Many of them have interest-only mortgages, with no repayment plan. Put simply, they typically have higher-risk characteristics than borrowers with active lenders.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has correctly excluded 50,000 or so of the population of mortgage prisoners from his amendment, because they are in arrears or within the last 12 months of their mortgage term, but I think he intends the remaining 143,000 to benefit from the largesse provided by this amendment. This is notwithstanding that the FCA estimates that 66,000 of them could, in fact, switch to active lenders because the active lenders in the market have changed their risk appetite, with the encouragement of the FCA, and they would now be able to remortgage. I do not believe that it is right to legislate to give preferential financial terms to those who choose not to take advantage of the opportunities available to them in the market.
The FCA’s last review found that around 30,000 of the remaining 47,000 would be unlikely to benefit from switching, because if they did find a deal it would cost them more than the interest rates that they are currently paying. High-risk borrowers do not get the best rates in the market, however much they might wish to. Amendment 197 would give these borrowers a rate that did not reflect the market for them, and I do not believe that it is fair to give them a special advantage by legislating for them.
The FCA has proposed some practical steps to assist the remaining population, but it does not propose anything like that which is contained in Amendment 197. That is not surprising because the LSE in its earlier, independent study—I have yet to see the study that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to—concluded that market interventions were not justified and could cause markets harms.
We all have sympathy for those stuck with debt that they struggle to afford, but the problem is not confined to mortgage prisoners, and it is just not fair to single out this group of problem borrowers for special treatment. It is also an extraordinary departure from regulatory norms. The FCA does not tell lenders to whom they must lend money; that is not how regulation works. Under this amendment, the FCA would be telling lenders what their risk appetite should be, which raises big issues of moral hazard and fails to deal with the prudential consequences in terms of capital, on which the PRA is the arbiter.
Furthermore, the FCA is required to set interest rate caps, but only by reference to LTVs. This ignores the other key driver of interest rates—namely, the credit risk of the borrower. Whatever rate the FCA comes up with, it will be the wrong answer for some borrowers, and it would be plainly unfair if the FCA set the rate assuming high credit quality, because that is very likely to be at odds with the facts. In addition, requiring the standard variable rates to be no more than two percentage points above base rate ignores any evidence about the correct uplift for the particular type of loan and borrower characteristics, which can produce outcomes that do not reflect objective market realities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, does not pursue this amendment, as he did in the 2021 Bill; it really does not make sense.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I take issue with my noble friend, as I have spent most of my political life involved in housing. We have a situation in the country, which is relevant to this amendment, of huge pressure on local authorities to help families who are homeless. The numbers are going up every month at the moment, and this amendment would at least ensure provision for a small section of society—possibly younger people or single-parent families—who find themselves in a situation that is nothing to do with their own original arrangement with the mortgage lender. It is entirely appropriate for our society to say that there is a means of helping them in a transitory manner to get them settled.
The most worrying aspect is in proposed new paragraph (b), which the noble Lord highlighted. This is not a new problem but a growing one, with unregulated entities on the fringe of the mortgage market. Any of us who has done any work in this area knows that it is quite a difficult area to control, but the FCA has not got a handle on it yet and it needs to.
I am not going to say any more, but I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take this issue away, think about it and recognise that, if we do not take action, the local authorities where these people live will have even more pressure on them to find a home for the relevant family.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I rise to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. There are some more generalised and wider issues around this problem. We have the situation quite often—in fact, it is perhaps the norm nowadays—that whoever extends credit, whether for a mortgage or another thing, is not necessarily the same organisation that ends up holding it later on. It may be securitised, sliced, diced and sold on, or it may be sold on to a vulture fund because they are in trouble. The same sort of thing has happened with student loans, which have essentially been sold to vulture companies.
This raises the issue of what the Government’s terms are when they are doing the selling. I fully understand that they say they have to get the best value for the taxpayer, or whatever it is, but you cannot have value for the taxpayer at the cost of usury on a minority, and that is the situation that has arisen. It could impact on some with student loans, if the pressure to pay is different from how it was when the loans were elsewhere.
I have two questions. First, what are the Government going to do along the lines outlined by my noble friend to assist mortgage prisoners? More generally, what are they going to do when looking at mortgage terms that allow it to be sold on to anybody without any safeguards and other types of selling on, whether in distress or otherwise, that likewise essentially dispense with any kind of consumer credit or similar kinds of protections?
I am sure the Minister will recall that when we were talking about bounce-back loans and we had to dispense with some consumer credit protections, I warned that we might get bad behaviour as a consequence. This is part of the same picture and why we have such protections there in the first place, yet nowadays they are being seriously circumvented.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I do not come to this debate with a predetermined position but to listen and take a view after we have looked at the circumstances and listened to the Minister’s response. I would value a copy of the report that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, spoke about. I have a lot of sympathy for these individuals and note that their problems are undoubtedly exacerbated by—I do not know how to describe it—the Truss impact on loan rates in the UK, which must fall particularly heavily on those individuals. I await the Minister’s response.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for tabling this amendment, and all noble Lords for their contributions.
The Government have a great deal of sympathy for borrowers who are unable to switch their mortgage, and the Treasury has already worked extensively with regulators and industry to act where possible to support borrowers. For example, we have worked with the FCA to implement changes to its mortgage lending rules, removing the regulatory barrier that prevented some customers, who otherwise may have been able to switch, accessing new products.
However, we do not believe there are further practical and proportionate universal options than those already taken to reduce the rates paid by these consumers. Extensive work has been done to look into this issue, partly as a result of prior interest from this House, which has emphasised the complex and varied circumstances that consumers are in. Specifically, following commitments made during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, the Government worked with the FCA to conduct a report into mortgage prisoners, which was completed and laid before Parliament in November 2021. This report found that the vast majority of those with the 195,000 mortgages held by inactive firms are not mortgage prisoners, as they are already paying competitive rates for their circumstances or they would be able to switch if they took action to do so—if, of course, they met the risk appetite of active lenders, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Noakes. Others had different factors that might prevent them being able to switch, such as being close to the end of their mortgage term or having an account in arrears. The report found that only 47,000 were truly mortgage prisoners—that is, customers who are up to date with their mortgage payments and unable to switch to a new mortgage deal, but who could potentially benefit from lower rates if they were able to switch.
While I understand the difficulty that many of these customers are facing, capping the standard variable rates charged on mortgages with inactive lenders to help this limited group of customers would have significant implications for the wider mortgage market which cannot be ignored. Any action we take must also be fair to other borrowers in the active market, particularly those with similar characteristics and paying similar rates, who may be unable to access fixed-rate deals.
A cap for mortgage prisoners would therefore create an arbitrary division between one set of consumers and another. Capping rates would also restrict lenders’ ability to vary rates in line with market conditions—a key part of responsible lending. This is a material risk, which, as Ministers set out during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, could have financial stability implications. Those concerns were also raised by the London School of Economics in its November 2020 report on mortgage prisoners, which argued against the introduction of a standard variable rate cap. In view of these risks and the proportionate steps that the Government and the FCA have already taken to support mortgage prisoners, it is clear that an SVR cap is not an appropriate solution.
However, borrowers who have switched have seen significant savings. The FCA’s review found that take-up was affected by consumer inertia and limited lender risk appetite. Some 140,000 letters were sent to borrowers about the rule change, which resulted in only 700 calls to brokers.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the new report from the London School of Economics and Martin Lewis. The Government will of course carefully consider the proposals put forward in this report. I note that it recommends free, comprehensive financial advice for all, but I would like to provide reassurance that the Government are committed to helping people in financial difficulty. We recognise the important role that debt advice providers play in assisting people, including mortgage prisoners, who are in problem debt, especially with the increasing cost of living pressures that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
This is why the Government have continued to maintain record levels of debt advice funding for the Money and Pensions Service, bringing its budget for free-to-client debt advice in England to more than £90 million this financial year. Furthermore, the Government have made a number of interventions, as a result of the financial crisis, to protect the economy and ordinary savers and businesses from the negative impacts of economic and financial instability. These include the interventions in Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, with their loan and mortgage assets ultimately held in the government-owned company UK Asset Resolution. It is right that the Government seek to achieve value for money for taxpayers as we exit the interventions made as a result of the financial crisis. The proceeds from these sales are not hypothecated and go towards supporting wider public finances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, sought to draw out the wider case of the Government selling on. I can say only that UK Asset Resolution sales met or exceeded best practice for customer protections. Firms had to agree to robust protections before their bids were considered. Inactive firms have and use a range of forbearance options for borrowers in payment difficulty, and many borrowers with inactive firms pay competitive rates.
However, the Government are consistently committed to looking for practical and proportionate options where they will deliver genuine benefits for affected mortgage borrowers, and where interventions are fair to borrowers in the active market and to taxpayers. In light of the request, we will be happy to facilitate a meeting with Treasury officials before Report. We will co-ordinate with Members’ offices to agree a time and place suitable for everyone.
While it is important that we do not create false hope, the Government will carefully consider the proposals from the LSE/Martin Lewis report. In light of this, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate. There was a sense of déjà vu in all this. I recognise the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it is not so long since we heard them last time. It would be indelicate of me to remind the Committee that, having heard all those arguments last time around, and mine, we voted fairly massively in favour of the amendment in front of us again today.
As I said in my opening remarks, at the moment this is not about the amendment as it is down on the page. This is a probing amendment to make sure that the initiative of Martin Lewis, the LSE and the APPG is taken seriously by the Government. I am grateful for the Minister’s promise—if that is what it was—to arrange a meeting with the APPG and other interested parties. It would be wrong if, after all this work and effort, we were simply to get a note from the Treasury passed under the door saying, “No, it doesn’t work”. We want an interactive process to discuss the proposals that Martin Lewis and the APPG are putting forward. I do not think the Minister talked about timing, but we need to do that urgently and before Report.
Baroness Noakes
“Financial Ombudsman Service
(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 229 insert—“229A Power of FCA to require Financial Ombudsman Service to refrain from specified action (1) Where the first, second and third conditions are met, the FCA may give a direction under this section to the Financial Ombudsman Service.(2) The first condition is that the Financial Ombudsman Service is proposing to exercise any of its powers in relation to the determination of a complaint.(3) The second condition is that the FCA is of the opinion that the exercise of the power in the manner proposed may have implications beyond the specifics of the complaint in question.(4) The third condition is that the FCA is of the opinion that the giving of the direction is necessary in order to avoid the possible consequence described in subsection (3).(5) A direction under this section is a direction requiring the Financial Ombudsman Service not to exercise the power or not to exercise it in a specified manner.(6) The FCA must consult the Financial Ombudsman Service before giving a direction under this section.”(3) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 17 (fees) after “respondent” insert “or relevant party”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives power to the FCA to overrule a decision of the FOS where this would have implications which would affect the FCA’s ability to regulate effectively and to allow the FOS to make persons other than the complainant make a payment towards the costs of a case.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this amendment concerns the Financial Ombudsman Service. It is in fact two amendments in one; I should have separated them. The amendments were suggested by UK Finance and I will speak to each leg separately.
The first two subsections of proposed new Section 229A of FSMA, which my amendment would insert, would establish that, in certain circumstances, the FCA can direct the FOS in a particular complaint determination. I should say that I welcome Clause 38, which will set up a new duty of co-operation and consultation between the FCA, the FOS and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It was curious that FSMA provided for co-operation and consultation for the FCA and the PRA but the FOS was left out. In practice, I understand that Clause 38 would do little more than formalise what has already been happening in practice as part of the FOS’s wider implications framework, although that is entirely voluntary and Clause 38 would make it mandatory.
In the past, there have been problems with regulated firms having acted in a way that they believed was wholly in accordance with the FCA rulebook, including the principles that should guide how firms act. Firms believed that their actions were in accordance with the FCA’s expectations as well, although those are notoriously hard to pin down. Then, following a complaint, the FOS took a different view. As we know, the FOS is required to determine each complaint individually and makes its determinations using the FSMA formula of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the individual complaint. That can and does result in outcomes that are, at best, frustrating for the firms involved when they believe that they have been doing exactly what was expected of them. A particular source of concern has been fraud cases, where the FOS has often gone beyond the requirements of the banking protocol, which was supposed to set out agreed expectations of what banks need to do in relation to suspicious transactions.
In addition, the FCA handbook requires firms to apply the outcome of FOS determinations to future complaints, so individual FOS decisions in effect become precedents, even though they were determined on the facts of individual cases. Another frustration can be that FOS decisions are not always internally coherent, so a confusing pattern of precedents can be created. In effect, a parallel rulebook grows up, but one created out of specific cases without underlying principles—certainly without any underlying principles that have been consulted on.
I think it fair to say that, although the financial services sector values the fact that the FOS represents a low-cost dispute-resolution service, it has for some time had concerns about how it operates and how its decisions become quasi-law. These concerns are now amplified, with the advent of the new consumer duty, which rests on the principle of delivering good outcomes for consumers. This adds a layer of complexity and uncertainty into an already challenging environment. There are concerns about precisely what firms are expected to do in the case of closed products and whether new vectors are being opened up for claims management companies. There will be an ongoing tension between the consumer principle, which is not intended to operate at the level of individual consumers, and the FOS, which is unambiguously focused on individual cases.
My amendment does not give the FCA an unconstrained ability to override the FOS; it is drafted to apply only where there are implications beyond the specifics of the particular complaint. The PRA has long had the power to overrule the FCA where it thinks it will have an adverse impact, as specified in Section 31 of FSMA. Similarly, the banking reform Act of 2013 gave powers to the Bank of England, the PRA and the FCA to intervene against the payment services regulator. It is genuinely puzzling that a similar power in relation to the FOS was not granted to the FCA when it was set up, or to the FSA under FSMA. This is a modest provision designed to ensure that the activities covered by both the FOS and the FCA are dealt with in a coherent way.
The second leg of my amendment is on a slightly different subject: it is a minor amendment to paragraph 15 of Schedule 17 to FSMA. Under this paragraph, the financial services firms complained about pay fees to the FOS—there is no problem with that. My amendment adds “or relevant party” to this, so that firms or individuals other than the firm complained about could be required to pay fees. This is obviously not intended to enable the FOS to charge fees to complainants, which I am sure it would never do, even if it had the power. Instead, it is intended to give some flexibility to the FOS so that, for example, claims management companies might be asked to pay fees if they have been responsible for unmeritorious complaints. That in turn could help disrupt the business model of the worst offenders in this parasitic industry. I hope this will be seen as a modest change that will give greater flexibility to the FOS. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I was waiting to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said on this amendment. I am afraid I cannot support her this time, although we agree on a lot of things. I accept that this is a hard call. The way I look at it, this goes back to our discussion about whether you follow rigid rules or you want people to think about what they are doing. Ultimately, there has to be a desire for people operating in financial services to think about what they are doing in all circumstances. Therefore, I see that as a proper override.
What has been portrayed as the ultra-right wing libertarian approach of just doing things and then being for the high jump if you get it wrong—that is a caricature, I accept—relies on your having done what is right in principle. Some things will not be fair if you merely follow a rigid set of rules. Therefore, it is right that there is a “fair and reasonable in the circumstances” backstop. It is right that if such things happen, there should be discussions about what it means for the generality.
However, it is not right for the FCA to have an automatic override and say, “We’re right, and our rigid rules derived from principles”—because they abandon principles once we have rules—“can never be wrong”, and that people should not have been thinking actively about these things, particularly while they were dealing with customers and individuals. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but I cannot support this. I plug again that we should expect that extra level of thought. This again goes to the heart of having a duty of care. It is the same argument. A duty of care does not mean, “I just do what I’ve always done and got away with” or “I just do what everybody else appears to have done, turn the handle and don’t think about it.” It is a fundamental principle of caring for the consumer that at least the ombudsman can continue with. I heartily think that we need a dash more of it in the Financial Conduct Authority.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her amendment. As she has explained well, Clause 38 requires the FCA, the FOS and the FSCS to co-operate and to consult with each other in exercising their statutory functions. However, it is important that FOS decisions with wider implications do not diverge from FCA rules, or there may be unintended consequences, and predictability and consistency may be negatively affected.
As my noble friend just said, this does not mean that the FCA or the FOS should act without thinking very carefully about what they are doing. Her amendment takes account of that and would be likely to encourage real thought about the consequences of making a particular decision in any case. Besides, Parliament never intended the FOS to be a quasi-regulator. UK Finance has recommended that the FCA should be given a power to overrule a decision by the FOS where it believes that the decision could have wider and perhaps unforeseen implications. My noble friend’s amendment would deal effectively with this potential problem.
Of course, the granting of additional powers to the FCA strengthens further the case that the FCA must be properly accountable to Parliament, and I regret that I have not yet heard my noble friend the Minister acknowledge that, as drafted, the Bill does not provide adequate arrangements for this. I firmly believe that a properly resourced joint committee is how to achieve that.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the Government agree that, where there are wider implications, it is critical that the bodies within the financial services regulatory framework, including the FCA and the FOS, co-operate effectively.
As my noble friend Lady Noakes noted, that is why Clause 38 of this Bill introduces a statutory duty for the FCA, the FOS and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to co-operate on issues which have significant implications for each other or for the wider financial services market. Clause 38 also ensures that the FCA, FOS and FSCS put appropriate arrangements in place for stakeholders to provide representations on their compliance with this new duty to co-operate on matters with wider implications.
As my noble friend also noted, these organisations already co-operate on a voluntary basis through the existing wider implications framework. The voluntary framework was launched in January 2022 to promote effective co-operation on wider implication issues. Clause 38 will enhance that co-operation and ensure that these arrangements endure over time while retaining the operational independence of the bodies involved.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his support; I was not expecting the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to support my amendment, because she and I have discussed the FOS in the past.
There is a potential problem in the relationship between the FCA and the FOS with the introduction of the new consumer duty. I think that is particularly concerning people: we are going a little into the unknown. We know that if regulatory pressures get too difficult for firms, their natural response is, ultimately, to leave or severely curtail the elements of the market that they are prepared to operate in. We need look only at the availability of advised investment to see what can be the consequence of heavy-handed regulatory action. If the new consumer duty becomes a nightmare, with individual cases being settled on particular circumstances but then having to be read across because of the FCA handbook, which requires cases to then be followed by firms, we could end up with a very confused understanding of what the consumer duty involves. That was the main burden of my tabling the amendment, but we may just need to see what happens when the consumer duty operates in practice to see whether those harms genuinely emerge.
As for the second leg of my amendment, which should have been a separate amendment, I was very interested to hear what my noble friend said about the case having been made. What I am not quite clear about, which she may be able to clarify, is on what timescale she believes the Government will be looking at this, because not many financial services Bills come along to get things done in.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will have to write to the Committee to clarify the timescale for the noble Baroness.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to that letter with great anticipation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the limitation that APP mandatory reimbursement is limited to APP scams made via the Faster Payments system, so that all APP scams must be covered regardless of payment system used.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is an unexpected feeling to be zapping through groups at some speed. In moving my Amendment 202, I will speak to the various other related amendments in my name in this group. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her support.
I greatly welcome the introduction of the requirement in Clause 68 to improve the current voluntary arrangements under the contingent reimbursement model, or CRM, for the reimbursement of losses resulting from authorised push payment, or APP, fraud. My amendments attempt to apply some of what we learned during the inquiry by the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, which reported at the end of last year, but I should stress that these are my amendments, not those of the committee.
The committee’s inquiry heard that the current voluntary system has led to a wide range of inconsistent outcomes for victims. In fact, the very process of claiming can add to the trauma for victims, especially when they are not applied consistently or fairly. At one extreme we have TSB, which has chosen to reimburse all fraud victims; at the other, we heard of banks that, because they are not signed up to the CRM at all and do not reimburse victims, have no incentive to try to prevent fraud going through their systems. We heard that some banks are now seen by fraudsters as a soft touch.
Levels of reimbursement vary widely even within the CRM and the scheme does not publish league tables, so consumers cannot see which banks are more likely to reimburse and which are not. That lack of consistency and of clarity over the circumstances in which reimbursement will be made leads to greater uncertainty and trauma for victims. Importantly, the lack of consistency also leads to different levels of incentivisation for banks to take the steps necessary to protect their customers. Any new mandatory scheme needs to address that and make things fairer for victims, but at the same time it needs to be balanced against the risk of unintended consequences. That is what my amendments try to achieve and I turn to them specifically.
As currently drafted, the rules will apply only in respect of fraud carried out using the Faster Payments scheme. I am sure the Minister will explain that this is because this will cover the majority of frauds by number. She is quite right; that is true. However, other payment methods are often used by fraudsters, such as CHAPS. Although smaller in volume, those other payment methods often involve larger, more life-changing sums. CHAPS is used for large payments, such as house purchases. Many frauds involve overseas payments.
Amendment 202, together with Amendment 207, would widen the scope of the reimbursement provisions so that all payments are covered, regardless of the method. I am sure the Minister will tell us that the Bill does not prevent the scheme being widened to other payment methods, but I am concerned by this statement on the PSR website:
“We are working with Pay.UK—the operator of the Faster Payments system which is how APP scams are carried out”.
That shows no recognition that the problem is wider than just Faster Payments. APP scams are carried out using all payment methods, not just Faster Payments. I wonder whether the real reason for restricting the changes to Faster Payments is because it allows the PSR to subcontract its responsibilities under Clause 68 to Pay.UK, the operator of the Faster Payments system. The Minister will be aware that concerns have been raised by the Treasury Select Committee in the other place about this approach. What are her thoughts on the PSR subcontracting its responsibilities to Pay.UK?
The Bill leaves the details of the reimbursement scheme entirely to the PSR, so Amendment 204 sets out some matters that it should consider when creating the new compulsory requirement. First, the key problem with the current situation is the lack of clarity for victims in how reimbursement decisions are made and the inconsistency of those decisions. Proposed new paragraph (a) of Amendment 204 therefore says that the PSR must consider
“how to ensure that the parameters used to determine whether or not reimbursement should be made are transparent and applied consistently”.
If that does not happen, we will not have moved much further forward, so that key point should be stated in the Bill.
I turn to proposed new paragraph (b) of Amendment 204. I have long felt that the bank that is more in the wrong in a fraud situation is the receiving bank—the one that, in effect, processed the stolen money on behalf of the fraudster. Although it is not in the Bill, the PSR apparently intends that the liability for reimbursement should be split 50:50 between the paying and receiving banks, with a mechanism to change that split in certain circumstances. I am content with that proposed approach as a starting point. Proposed new paragraph (b) of Amendment 204 simply puts in the Bill that the split must be considered but, as we move forward, the PSR and the industry should look to refine this. Importantly, discussion of how to split the reimbursement between the banks must not make things more difficult for victims.
Proposed new paragraph (c) of Amendment 204 says that the PSR should consider how
“mandatory reimbursement is likely to affect the behaviour of consumers”.
Our fraud committee deliberated long and hard on whether to recommend blanket reimbursement; in fact, we were criticised for not doing so. We recognised that there is a case for mandatory blanket reimbursement but concluded that such a policy could fall foul of moral hazard and lead to increased levels of fraud, including, potentially, directly to new avenues for APP reimbursement fraud. Our recommendation therefore was that this needed to be explored further and a solution should be found that creates a level playing field for all consumers.
I do not often disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but I am a little concerned by her Amendment 203, which says that
“reimbursement … cannot be refused on the basis that a victim … ought to have known that the payment order was executed subsequent to fraud or dishonesty.”
If someone really should have known but went ahead anyway, this feels reckless to me. We need people to take some basic level of precaution and we need to help them do that.
Proposed new paragraph (c) of my Amendment 204 tries to address this difficult area by saying that the PSR must consider how the reimbursement policy might alter the behaviour of potential victims. If the effect is that people stop taking any care to avoid fraud, because they are going to be reimbursed anyway, the policy might make it easier for the fraudsters; it might increase fraud, which would be an extremely undesirable unintended consequence. At the same time, we need to move away from victim blaming and ensure that, unless consumers have acted irresponsibly, they are reimbursed. There is a delicate balance here and it is something that the PSR should consider carefully and keep under review.
Finally, proposed new paragraph (d) of Amendment 204 says that the PSR must consider how appeals can be made. I hope this is self-explanatory.
Amendments 205 and 206 attempt to bring some transparency to the process. Amendment 205 would enable consumers to see which banks are most susceptible to fraud; in other words, which are doing less to protect their customers in the first place and which are better at reimbursing customers who become victims. This is important. If we want to incentivise banks to do the right thing and behave well, shedding daylight on how they perform is the best way to ensure it. Customers will be able to vote with their feet.
There is also a danger that banks might react to mandatory reimbursement by changing their behaviour in a way that disadvantages vulnerable consumers—deciding that it is too risky or expensive to provide services to those seen as more vulnerable to fraud, if the reimbursement process is seen as too one-sided. Later today, we shall talk about PEPs, which are a good example of how the banks are reacting to overzealous regulation.
Similarly, we need to avoid a situation in which the reimbursement process puts off new entrants into the system or innovation in payments. Amendment 206 requires the PSR to keep the situation under review and to report annually on the impact that the requirement is having, including whether it is causing any change in the behaviour of the payment service providers. Fraud is constantly changing—fraudsters are constantly finding new ways to get around rules and find victims—so the amendment requires the PSR to make changes to the requirement as it considers necessary, taking account of the actual impacts to keep protecting consumers better.
I will finish with a couple of general points. First, it is critical that people are properly and fully informed and educated about the changes. Clause 68(3)(b) mentions that, which is welcome, but in relation only to the draft requirement, not the final requirement. UK Finance and others have raised concerns about whether the full six-month timeframe is sufficient to ensure that that information and education process happens.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer, who cannot be with us today. She is making good progress but is still recovering from surgery. On her behalf, I gently disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The amendment is straightforward: it would simply prevent financial services from using the “You should have known it was fraud” excuse to deny restitution. In effect, in many sectors this allows the banks to decide whether to refund.
It seems to me that it is impossible to design a fair test for “You should have known” when talking of retail customers, especially vulnerable ones. How on earth do we devise a fair test under those circumstances? It is true that most consumers will not have the ability to challenge a bank’s classification of an event as “You should have known”, because they do not have the resource or the means to do so. Effectively, without Amendment 203, banks can decide for themselves which cases to allow, and that does not seem to be a good idea.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will speak broadly in support of these amendments, starting with Amendment 202. The incidence of fraud is growing almost daily. It is a huge worry and, unfortunately, it rests on His Majesty’s Government to try to find an answer to it. I accept that it is not an easy problem, but we cannot shy away from it. Over lunch today I was having some discussions with Transparency Task Force, a certified social enterprise. Certainly, some of the evidence it has is quite extraordinary and deeply worrying. I do not know whether there are other types of scams not covered in the Bill. I have not given any notice to my noble friend on that, but we would certainly like an answer.
On Amendment 203 on qualifying cases, I have spoken to only about half a dozen people who have had scams, but none of them knew anything about who was behind it. It is not very likely, is it? Having watched “The Gold” on television on Sunday, I can see how creative some people can be. It does not seem realistic, which is why Amendment 203 is important.
I have had a chat with members of the All-Party Group on Personal Banking and Fairer Financial Services. The only way to get a grip of these problems is to know what is happening on the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked for a six-monthly report, which is quite right. A quarterly report would probably be better, though it might be too tedious. At this point in time, His Majesty’s Government do not have a handle on the rate of growth, which is deeply worrying. I do not know whether these amendments are exactly right, but the problem is there, and it is the responsibility of His Majesty’s Government to get a grip on them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I broadly support this group of amendments. I particularly want to address Amendment 205 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, it is worth highlighting uncertainty and trauma. We have a society in which every time people pick up their phones or emails to look at a message, many of them think, “I’m worried. Is this right or wrong? Is this official-looking email something I should click or not?” That is where we are. These amendments seek to address some of this, although even with them we would not get far enough. In the other place, the Treasury Select Committee last month expressed concerns about the Payment Systems Regulator dealing with push payment scams regarding the banks handing out the money and controlling the Pay.UK body that would be doing that. There is a concern that this needs to be seen as fair and rapid; to take away some of that fear is the key issue.
Amendment 205 is particularly interesting because we are talking here about a league table for how fairly banks treat victims of fraud. I could not help thinking of the comparison with schools. We have intensely scrutinised and detailed league tables for schools; surely we can manage similar league tables for banks. We had a lot of debate on earlier days in Committee on whether we wish to encourage competitiveness. But however much we might debate competitiveness, surely we all agree that competition between banks to see who is fairest towards victims of crime would be good.
This may not go far enough, but there are amendments here that the Government should certainly consider, particularly Amendment 205 concerning the league table.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I signed all the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. We were both members of the committee looking at the Fraud Act 2006 and digital fraud. Although these amendments are not exactly what we recommended, they fairly represent the mood after what we had heard. We could not make them all exact recommendations. Some of them are difficult; there is difficulty between my noble friend Lady Kramer’s amendment and this set of amendments. I did not weigh them up beforehand, but it will be very difficult if you just allow a broad, “Well, you ought to have known” provision for the bank.
It is not a question of who you are and what you know. Some pretty intelligent people have been defrauded and you can be caught at a bad moment, but how do you prove that it was a bad moment, if you are being scammed? Say the scammer claims that a child is in trouble and says, “Send money now, mum.” Every now and then, the scammer is going to be lucky, and the message is going to arrive to a mum whose kid is off somewhere doing something, and it will look genuine. You might have been very worried about the circumstance in the first place. How do you prove that kind of thing, if the provision is going to assume that you are a sensible, intelligent person and you ought to have known? How do you discriminate against those who are not intelligent and sensible and who are vulnerable for whatever reason?
There is a lot to be said for my noble friend’s amendment, but at the same time there is the issue, which we discussed in the committee, whereby you do not want everybody to think that it is all right and that they are covered. Do you need some kind of hurdle? How do you encourage people? We need to see whether we can in some way nuance that, to make it clear that we are protecting the most vulnerable, including those with a circumstance that they might find themselves in, even though they would not have been vulnerable at other times—but then you do not want to make it even easier for scammers. People can think that it is a victimless crime, but it is not a victimless crime at all. Even if people get compensation, collectively we are all going to pay for it.
We also talked in the committee about why the proposal is just for Faster Payments. Yes, it is an easy target, because of the instantaneous nature of it. But what if, when you go into a bank to make a transfer by CHAPS—and a mortgage is the obvious kind of payment in that regard—somebody comes in with you and coerces you? What steps are taken at the counter? I have been in with someone who was doing a big CHAPS transfer for the purpose of a mortgage—it happened to be my son—and nobody questioned what I was doing there. There may have been a familial resemblance, and they may have thought that it was okay, but there was no one saying, “Would you mind just stepping aside?” No one asked him who I was, what the relationship was and why I was with him. It would be good to have some more checks to make sure what is happening, checking that the money is going to a genuine solicitor’s account and those kinds of thing. To have other payment methods included is not unreasonable, although I accept that these are big chunks of money. We also discussed in the committee the culpability of the receiving banks, if they have dodgy accounts that they have not checked out thoroughly, and have not joined up two systems to check the nature of the account and whether it is right.
As we go forward, it would be nice if we could agree that there was some kind of flavour of these amendments that the Government could bring forward so that we do not have to do anything on Report. Perhaps there could be assurances that that kind of balance, and the sorts of things that have been said in the report from the committee, are taken on board. A lot of work went into that issue. There are many ways in which we can do things—it does not always have to be through legislation—but all these points are very valid ones for what needs to be done. I think that is probably all that I need to say, but I recommend that the sense of these amendments is taken forward.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments has a general direction which may be supported. It would be much better if the Government were to come forward with proposals in that general direction and improve the situation.
I, too, however, feel that there is some moral hazard. The extent to which victims are compensated draws attention from the fact that this is serious crime which, as I understand it, is growing exponentially. I hope that in looking after victims, which I am broadly in favour of, we massively increase our efforts to prevent fraud in the first place. I do not have a simple solution to that, but it is my understanding that the relationship between a preventive resource in the police and the banks is, compared to the general application to prevent crime, disproportionately low. More resource has to be put into combating this frightening industry. There is a sense of almost moral decay that allows this virulent industry to continue to grow. I hope that, while responding to the concerns of victims, there is also feedback to the Government as a whole that we must find a way to get on top of this very unpleasant crime.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the keen interest across this Committee in the provisions in the Bill to tackle financial crime and fraud more generally, and, in this group of amendments, on tackling APP scams specifically and the related work of the Payment Systems Regulator to introduce mandatory reimbursement. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said that she hoped that the sense of the amendments could be taken forward, or that the Government could provide reassurance to noble Lords that it will. I hope to be able to do so.
Measures in the Bill not only enable the Payment Systems Regulator to act on APP reimbursement regardless of the method of payment used, but also have a specific requirement mandating, within a specific timeframe, that they are taken forward under Faster Payments. We have sought within the Bill both to provide further powers for the regulator and to specify that it needs to act within a certain timeframe on the form of payments, which currently represents the largest form of fraud, not only by volume—97% of payments by volume—but by value. The figures I have are that Faster Payments account for approximately 85% of the value. The noble Lord and noble Baroness also mentioned CHAPS. That is the next highest in value, but it is about 4%, so it is right that we prioritise action on Faster Payments first. That does not rule out further action on other forms of payment further down the line.
I appreciate that we often have a debate on what needs to be in a Bill versus powers that, in this case, we are giving to the regulators to make rules. We have also heard during this debate about fraud how dynamic that situation can be, so enabling the regulator to update its response to approaching these questions through its rules is the right approach in this situation.
None the less, a lot of detail of the Payments Systems Regulator’s approach is in the public domain, and I hope it would reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on a number of his amendments that the approach being taken is consistent with many of the recommendations made by his committee. Indeed, having its proposals out for consultation on how mandatory reimbursement should work has provided an opportunity for all interested parties to comment.
Turning to the specifics in the amendments and hopefully updating the Committee on work that the PSR is taking in relation to each, I begin with Amendments 202 and 207, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on the scope of the requirement on the PSR to mandate reimbursement. As I have noted, under this legislation the PSR could act in relation to any designated payment system, but with a specify duty on Faster Payments which, as I said, accounts for 97% of scams by volume today. We expect the PSR to keep under review the case for action across other designated payment systems, in collaboration with the Bank of England and the FCA.
In relation to Amendment 204, on issues that the PSR should consider as part of its approach, I assure the Committee that the PSR has set out how it has considered these issues in its consultation. For example, as discussed, the PSR is proposing that the cost of liability is split equally between the sending and receiving banks, recognising that both parties have a responsibility in preventing fraud.
On Amendment 205 on the publication of data, the PSR is currently consulting on a measure to require payment service providers to report and publish fraud and reimbursement data. I was surprised to hear Green support for league tables. I did not know that they were supportive of them on schools, but in this case that data is important and the transparency we are talking about helps noble Lords keep track of how effective these provisions are once they are implemented.
Amendment 206 is on a duty to review. The PSR regularly reports on the discharge of its functions through its annual report and has committed in its consultation to a post-implementation review of its action on APP scams, to assess the overall impact of its measures for improving consumer outcomes. The Government will also monitor the impacts of the PSR’s action and consider the case for further action where necessary. While the Government recognise the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendments, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to further circumscribe the actions of the regulator in primary legislation at this stage, given the extensive consultation the PSR has undertaken on this matter and its responsibilities and expertise in this area as the independent regulator.
On Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the Government’s intention, as already expressed in the legislation, is to ensure that more victims of APP scams across the Faster Payments system specifically, and wider payments systems in general, are reimbursed, and to enable the PSR to act in this area. The Government recognise that no one sets out to be defrauded and that APP scams are, by their very nature, convincing and sophisticated.
None the less, we also recognise that many banks take action to engage with their customers ahead of making a payment, and that questions of liability can be complex. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, set out, a blanket approach to mandatory reimbursement raises questions of moral hazard and the potential for APP reimbursement fraud itself to become an area of difficulty. This is a difficult balance to strike. While this amendment is well meaning, it will not help achieve effective resolution in these cases. We are confident that the PSR has the appropriate objectives, expertise and powers to develop proposals for APP scam reimbursement that both ensure strong protections for victims and incentivise banks to engage effectively with their customers to prevent fraud. In its consultation on its reimbursement approach, the PSR stated its intention to require firms sending payments over the Faster Payments system to fully reimburse all consumers who are victims of APP scams, with very limited exceptions. The PSR considers that this will ensure that victims are reimbursed in the vast majority of cases. In that regard, the PSR has already signalled its intention to set a high bar for customer liability—higher than currently applies within the existing code of voluntary reimbursement.
We do not believe that this amendment will improve outcomes for customers beyond the provisions already set out in the Bill, and it could impede the work of the regulator, which has already consulted on the proposals. I hope that noble Lords genuinely feel reassured by the level of detail in which the PSR and the Government have thought through these proposals, and acknowledge the ability to have a dynamic response in this area. I therefore hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Can the Minister comment on the Treasury Select Committee’s recommendation on the PSR, effectively subcontracting its responsibilities to Pay.UK?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord; I did have an answer for him on that. The Bill is clear that the Payment Systems Regulator has the duty to act on mandatory reimbursement. The PSR has the relevant powers and expertise, as well as the appropriate discretion, to determine the most effective approach in that area.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I think the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, set out the difficulty in finding the right balance to ensure that victims are not blamed and are reimbursed, unless they have really been irresponsible, versus the question of moral hazard and the issue of potentially making fraud worse. That will just have to be kept under review.
While I am reassured by a lot of what the Minister said and what the PSR has said publicly, the Government might want to think more seriously about Amendments 205 and 206 on transparency and review. The PSR may say that it will do a post-implementation review, but this has to be consistent and carry on happening, because fraud keeps on moving and changing. It is similar to the statistic that 85% of fraud, by value, is Faster Payments, but what we are doing now may change that. This will hopefully incentivise the banks to lock down the ability to carry out fraud over Faster Payments.
There is nothing specifically in here to prevent fraud, but we are providing an incentive to do that. Fraudsters are very good at moving, and if they move on to CHAPS or overseas payments—the Bill itself introduces stablecoins as a new method of payment—we can see that the situation will move. This has to be not just a one-off, post-implementation review; it has to happen regularly and be reported on. We must see which banks are doing better and which are doing worse. It is a question of not just who is reimbursing better but how many frauds they are suffering. If a bank is suffering greater levels of fraud, it is a clear sign that it is not taking as strong action to prevent it as other banks are. The only way to see that is for it to be reported on.
While I am unlikely to chase the other amendments, we might want to return on Report to Amendments 205 and 206 on transparency, reporting and review. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 202.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, as Amendment 209 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 210 and 211.
Lord Sharkey
“Access to Sharia-compliant financial services including student finance
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Treasury must make provision by regulations to facilitate the availability of Sharia-compliant financial services in the United Kingdom, including availability to students who are eligible for the Government’s student finance provision of Sharia-compliant finance products for paying tuition fees and for student maintenance on equitable terms with students accessing the Government’s student finance provision.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to allow debate on the progress towards provision of Sharia-compliant student funding.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 213 addresses the provision of sharia-compliant student finance, of which there is currently none. This matters because Islam forbids interest-bearing loans and that prohibition can be a barrier to our Muslim students going on to attend our universities.
This is not a new problem, nor the first time the issue has been raised in this House. The problem became clear in 2012 when tuition fees were significantly increased and it became worse when maintenance grants were replaced by maintenance loans. In 2014, the Government published a report on the consultation they had undertaken. It attracted 20,000 responses, a record at the time. The Government acknowledged that the lack of an alternative finance product to the conventional interest-bearing student loan was a matter of major concern to many Muslims.
The report also identified a solution: a takaful, a well-known and frequently used non-interest-bearing, sharia-compliant financial product. The Government explicitly supported the introduction of such a product. That was nine years ago, and we still have no takaful. In 2013, Prime Minister Cameron promised action. He said:
“Never again should a Muslim in Britain feel unable to go to university because they cannot get a student loan—simply because of their religion.”
But nothing has changed. There is still no available sharia-compliant student finance. In fact, it now looks further away than ever.
The Muslim community and parliamentarians in both Houses have continued to press. Last September, the right honourable Sir Stephen Timms wrote to the then Secretary of State for Education to ask whether delivering sharia-compliant student finance was still a government commitment. He got a reply saying that it was. Sir Stephen wrote again in October to the new Secretary of State, the right honourable Gillian Keegan MP, asking whether government policy had changed—there was quite a lot of change around at the time.
Ms Keegan confirmed that the provision of a sharia-compliant student finance product remained a government commitment and that the Government were considering whether and how the ASF could be delivered as part of the lifelong learning entitlement. She noted that the consultation on the LLE had concluded last May and promised to provide a further update on ASF as part of the Government’s response to that consultation.
The Government published their response to the LLE consultation last Tuesday. The whole response runs to 71 pages, yet ASF gets no mention in the document’s ministerial foreword and only two substantive paragraphs right at the end of the response. This does not seem a proportionate reaction, either to the gravity of the issue or to the overwhelming number of individual respondents who asked for sharia-compliant student finance, by far the largest group of respondents. The question about sharia-compliant student finance attracted 851 unique individual responses; the average number of unique individual responses to all the other questions in the consultation was 30.
The first substantive paragraph confirms the Government’s commitment to the ASF but says, without any explanation, that it will not be delivered with the 2025-26 launch of the LLE. The second paragraph says:
“The Government is procuring advice from experts in Islamic finance and will be working with the Student Loans Company … to better understand timescales for delivery of an ASF product under the LLE. Our aim is that learners will be able to access ASF as part of the LLE as soon as possible after 2025. An update on ASF will be provided by late 2023.”
This is miserable stuff. It makes it clear that, in the past nine years, there has been no serious thinking or planning for ASF. It does not explain why ASF has to be linked to the LLE at all or why it cannot be launched simultaneously with it. It also makes no hint of an apology to the Muslim community for condemning at least four more cohorts of Muslim students to choose between faith and education.
If we interpret the Government’s vague timings generously, the ASF will arrive in the academic year 2026-27. That is four academic years away and means an additional 16,000 qualified Muslim students not going on to university. It will have taken 16 years for the Government’s firm, clear and repeated commitment to be realised. The problem remains as it was 11 years ago. This is deeply unsatisfactory and obviously has gravely disadvantaged our Muslim community. It is easy to see how the Government’s inaction over such a serious issue over such a very long timescale could look like discrimination against our Muslim community, especially since the Government seem not to have engaged with the community or explained the very long delay and lack of a target date.
Before last Tuesday, Universities UK and 68 Muslim organisations and prominent individuals had written to the Minister, pressing for speedy action and a firm date for ASF. Since then, there has been widespread disappointment and dismay at the very long further delay and the continuing lack of a firm date. The Muslim Council of Britain, UUK, the CEO of Islamic Finance Guru, the NUS and others have all written to me expressing their disappointment at the Government’s response. It is deeply distressing and shameful that the Government, despite their firm promises, should continue to treat our Muslim community in this offhand, almost contemptuous way.
It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are making a fundamental error—moral, social and political—in putting Muslim students right at the back of the queue. Will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education to ask them to arrange an urgent meeting with interested parliamentarians and Muslim community groups? This would allow explanation of the further delay and of the work programme, and an exploration of the possibility of setting an earlier and firmer date for the introduction of the ASF.
All this has gone on for far too long. I hope the Minister will be able to give a substantive and encouraging reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s amendment. I should declare that, as a Muslim woman, I have a number of relatives who will be, and are being, affected by this. Not every Muslim feels unable to take out student loans as they are currently structured but there is a significant minority. It is usually women affected because they always come at the bottom of the list of who will be financed without a loan through private means. I urge the Minister, particularly given all the conversations we had last week about International Women’s Day, to consider this.
I will not detain the Committee long; my noble friend Lord Sharkey gave us chapter and verse on the Government’s position and prevarication on this issue, which, we are told, they have been able and willing to support for over a decade now. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 allows the Government to introduce a student finance product consistent with Muslim beliefs regarding interest-bearing loans. However, as my noble friend said, the Government have yet to launch such a product. In February last year, as part of the conclusion of their review of post-18 education and funding, the Government said that they were still considering whether and how to deliver sharia-compliant alternative student finance and whether they would do so as part of the lifelong loan entitlement.
We have a situation where, not only are 18 and 19 year- old Muslims—predominantly girls—unable to access higher education but it now looks as though, with the LLE, they will not be able to access post-18 further education either. That will curtail their life chances, their ability to contribute to the life of this country and the financial contribution that they make to their families.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, who has highlighted the gender aspects of this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has been a consistent champion on this issue in your Lordships’ House. I wish to make a couple of comments additional to what has already been said, while offering support for this amendment to push the Government to take action.
It was Green Party conference at the weekend, and I found myself discussing again and again how the public, who once thought that when the Government announced something that meant it would happen, are increasingly aware of the legislative process, and even the role of your Lordships’ House, because it is taking so long between government announcements and something actually happening. That is true of the announcement of a bottle deposit scheme for England, but there has been an even longer stretch between the promise of sharia-compliant finance, particularly for student loans, and the delivery.
The last figures that I saw showed that 9% of higher education students in the UK were Muslim. Extending loans for lifelong learning into further education makes it very likely that the percentage of students affected by the lack of sharia-compliant loans will increase. It is not as though the Government have not been reminded of this again and again. I note, again, that it was in July 2021, during the passage of what became the Skills and Post-16 Education Act, that we debated this. We were promised, “Yes, it’s going to happen; it’ll come”, but, yet again, we have just had a report from the Government which shows that there has been no progress. That is simply not good enough.
We often debate in your Lordships’ House how to get trust in government and the system. One way is to deliver on your promises in a reasonable and timely manner, particularly the things that really should not be that difficult, of which sharia-compliant loans is a case in point.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in this. There is no question that there are a large number of Muslims, both students and others, who have the very strong belief that their religion forbids them from engaging in normal financial practices as recognised in the West. It is about time we did something about it; it has taken far too long to get to where we are now, and we need to find a solution, particularly for student finance, where it is urgently indeed.
I can entirely understand why there is a problem. I understand why His Majesty’s Treasury is finding it difficult to find a solution. I spent a considerable part of my banking career devising means of meeting the religious requirements of Muslim communities to access financial services, often in conjunction with the Islamic Development Bank. It is an extraordinarily complex business. There are many different ways of doing it, but one of the problems is that there is no universal agreement as to what is an acceptable form of finance under the sharia. That is partly because of the difficulties between the various types of Islam—Sunni or Shia—and the various interpretations within the various branches of Islam itself, which also impact the nature of the financial products that are capable of being used. Indeed, Islamic scholars, particularly in the Sunni version of Islam, cannot agree among themselves what is acceptable and what is not. All this leads to considerable problems in devising a universally acceptable product.
Of course, the additional problem that the Treasury will have is that there is considerable scepticism among the conventional financial markets, particularly the western ones, about the credibility of Islamic finance altogether. To put it bluntly, there is scepticism about whether it is not just a con. In some cases, it is: the market is full of rogues, charlatans and crooks who will try to put up products that do not, in fact, meet the sharia requirements. So there is no great agreement on what should be done.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a series of powerful speeches. The Government really ought to react to this: either they believe what they have said they will do, or they do not. If they do believe in it, surely action could take place more quickly. The community concerned is now a very important part of our society, and it is crucial that we create an environment where its needs are taken seriously. It is particularly crucial that we do not create a situation where it is disadvantaged. I take the point about the gender issue, which is even more worrying, in many ways. I urge the Government to find some way of assuring us that they will act quickly.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for tabling this amendment on access to sharia-compliant financial services, including student finance. The UK is widely considered the leading western hub for Islamic finance. Institutions across the UK have been providing sharia-compliant retail and wholesale financial services for nearly 40 years, offering a range of products, including bank accounts, mortgages and insurance.
Last year, the Government expanded the scope of the alternative finance rules, which support equal treatment for sharia-compliant finance products, to include home-purchase plan providers and arrangements made through peer-to-peer platforms. This allowed for these products to be treated in the same way as conventional mortgages and loans for tax purposes, contributing to a level playing field for Islamic and conventional finance products. The Treasury is currently consulting on reform of the Consumer Credit Act, which will consider ways to make it easier to provide sharia-compliant consumer finance.
Within this context, the Government want to help ensure that higher education remains accessible to all those with the desire and ability to benefit from it. They remain committed to delivering an alternative student finance product compatible with Islamic finance principles and, more broadly, to ensuring equitable regulatory and tax treatment when compared to conventional finance. The Government legislated at the first opportunity to make a system of alternative student finance possible, taking the necessary powers in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. However, a range of complex policy, legal and operational issues need to be resolved before a sharia-compatible product can be launched.
When noble Lords discussed this matter during consideration of the Financial Services Act 2021, my noble friend Lord True stated that the Government would provide an update alongside the Government’s response to the post-18 education funding review. As a result of that review, the Government have been progressing plans for introducing a lifelong loan entitlement, which will provide an individual entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education. This will significantly change the ways that students can access learning and financial support.
It is important that an alternative student finance product mirrors the mainstream student finance offer; therefore, it cannot be delivered until the LLE regulations and delivery specification are finalised. The Department for Education consulted on the LLE in February 2022 and sought views on barriers that learners might face in accessing their entitlement, including consideration of an ASF product. The Government’s response to that consultation was published last week; it provided an update on ASF and set out the Government’s aim to deliver an alternative student finance product as soon as possible after 2025.
Several Members, including the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Bennett, spoke about timespans—in particular, harking back to 2013. In September 2014, the Government published their consultation on a potential model that could form the basis of a new student finance product. The Government signalled in the consultation response that they would need to take new primary powers to enable the Secretary of State for Education to make alternative payments in addition to grants and loans. These were secured in the Higher Education and Research Act, which received Royal Assent in April 2017. Specialist consultants were appointed in October 2017 to provide advice on the range of issues that would need to be resolved for a new system of alternative student finance to be implemented.
Work has started to assess how the Department for Education can ultimately deliver an ASF product alongside the LLE. Our aim is that students will be able to access alternative student finance as soon as possible after 2025. The reason for that timespan is that a range of complex policy, legal and system issues will need to be resolved to launch an alternative student finance product. Most importantly, that includes procuring advice from experts in Islamic finance, who will be working with the Student Loans Company to better understand timescales for delivery of such a product. The Government are introducing the LLE, which will significantly change the ways students can access learning and financial support. The scale and complexity here should not be underestimated. The DfE is trying to replicate a system of student finance that delivers the same results as now and whereby students do not receive any advantage, or suffer any disadvantage, through applying for alternative student finance.
Furthermore, the ASF product will need to mirror the mainstream student finance offer to ensure that access to finance and the repayments expected from borrowers are the same. From the 2025-26 academic year, new students studying at level 6 seeking government financial support will do so using the Student Loans Company’s systems under new LLE regulations. The LLE regulations and delivery specification therefore need to be finalised before an ASF equivalent can be delivered. Finally, every “touch point” for students at the SLC—that is, marketing and information materials, application forms, online portals and correspondence—will need to be reviewed and modified to ensure sharia compliance.
The Department for Education is procuring advice from experts in Islamic finance to support delivery and planning of this product, and launched an expression of interest advertisement, which closed on 20 February, to understand the market capability to deliver this advice. The department is currently considering responses and next steps. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the takaful. The advice will support the next phase of delivery of alternative student finance on the detailed design of an ASF takaful product, as part of the LLE, and on the delivery of ASF by the Student Loans Company.
In response to the request for a meeting, this is obviously something that will need to be done in joint consideration with the Department for Education. I cannot make promises for both departments but I will take the request back. As per the request in the previous group, I note that this would ideally be before Report.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that sharia-compliant financial products are accessible. I therefore request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I regret to say that the noble Lord has not convinced me at all that any progress is likely to be made and has not really explained why we are in the position we are in. I have talked to Islamic finance experts quite frequently over the last 11 years that this has been going on. They have always told me that it should take up to 18 months or so to have some kind of ASF product available on the market. They point to the Islamic version of the Help to Buy scheme, which I think the Minister mentioned. From a standing start, that was sold in the marketplace 18 months later. If that can be done, why can we not move faster? The basic question of why this is taking so long has not been answered by anybody here today.
I return to the 71-page report on the LLE. Why was the delay in ASF not explained? There was no attempt to explain why it was put back. It is quite obvious that no preliminary work of any standing was being done for the last 11 years. That in itself is deeply shocking.
It is also true that there has been no significant engagement with the Muslim community throughout this whole period. Why is that? That does not seem sensible, reasonable or honest.
I get no sense that the Government are embarrassed by their position, that they intend to move faster than they have over the past 11 years or that they understand the moral nature of this issue. I will withdraw the amendment but, unless we get the meeting that we talked about so we can sit down together to talk about this with members of the community as well as parliamentarians, when it comes to Report we will find a way, if we can, to encourage the Government to do more faster than they currently plan to do. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Politically exposed persons: UK taxpayers
(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Treasury must take all reasonable steps to make regulations to amend the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/692) so as to secure that, for the purposes of the regulation of financial services, individuals who are ordinarily resident for tax purposes in the United Kingdom are not treated as politically exposed persons, or as family members or close associates of a politically exposed person.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I move Amendment 215 in my name and speak in general support of the other amendments in this group, all of which tend in a similar direction. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Sharkey, for adding their names to my amendment.
Noble Lords will have many personal experiences of the harm and damage being done by the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 in their own lives and in those of their families and what are described as their close contacts, so I will not begin this short speech by giving a long list of examples; I will give only one. But I hope others will arise later, because while we in the Committee understand the damage done, members of the public who might be observing this debate will not necessarily know what we are talking about or why it matters so much to us.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 224 and to others in the group, including the ably moved Amendment 215, to which I have added my name.
I thought that this had been going on for a long time, but the 11 years on the sharia law amendment was even longer. This started only a decade ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Flight, raised it in 2013. Then the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised it in 2014 and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and my noble friend Lord Harris raised it in July 2015. I had a Question for short debate on it later in 2015, at which point the Minister at the time, who subsequently became Chief Whip—although he is no longer—completely understood it, partly because it had affected him, as he said in the debate. It was also covered in the Mail on Sunday, because Charles Walker had raised it in a debate in the Commons in January 2016. I also had a Written Question in March 2016. If we say that we are doing this quickly, I just remind everyone that this has been going on a very long time.
The problem is that neither the FCA, to which I wrote back in 2016, nor the Treasury has actually moved to lift the burden on us normal PEPs, despite the FCA’s July 2017 guidance which, if it was complied with, would solve the problem—but it has never been complied with. Since that guidance, which is FG 17/6, we have continued to raise the issue in the House—on 6 September 2021, 22 February 2021, 3 March 2021, 24 and 25 November 2021, 5 July 2022 and 28 November 2022. So there should be no surprise at anything that is being said today.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we all have our own stories of how we have fallen foul of the PEP regulations. My own relatively recent one is that Revolut refused to let me have an international payment card, with no real explanation. It must have been because it tagged me as a PEP, because I cannot think of any other reason why it would not want to give me one. But I do not think this is really about our individual experiences, even though they are extremely aggravating for us and, indeed, our families.
I have Amendment 227 in this group, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for adding his name to it. The Minister will see that the four amendments in this group are all slightly different, but she should take no comfort that they are not taking a consistent approach to this problem. They demonstrate, as I am sure this debate will, that we have a united resolve that this has to be dealt with.
Like my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, mine seeks to amend the 2017 money laundering regulations to exclude people with a UK nexus from the PEP regime in the area of financial services. My noble friend’s amendment excludes individuals who are “ordinarily resident” in the UK for tax purposes, while mine focuses on UK citizens. My amendment says that UK citizens are not to be treated as PEPs unless the FCA considers that any of the categories of PEPs set out in the regulation—my noble friend Lord Moylan read this out—presents a money laundering risk. My amendment is predicated on UK MPs, Ministers and all the others in the list not presenting a higher money laundering risk than the rest of the UK population. There may well be some bad apples in the PEP barrel, but no more so than in other segments of UK society.
I believe that the money laundering regulations are based on an erroneous assumption, at least so far as the UK is concerned, that all PEPs—and their families and associates—present a high risk in money laundering terms. My amendment leaves the decision on risk to the FCA, on the basis of a risk assessment, but I would be staggered if the FCA concluded that UK PEPs presented a particular money laundering risk. Indeed, its own 2017 guidance, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to—and apparently enjoys reading in the evenings—states that UK PEPs should normally be treated as low risk.
My amendment is based on citizenship. I believe that is a fairly straightforward way, because it can be established by way of a passport, which will often be required in any event as part of proof of identity for money laundering purposes, for all categories of individual. I believe it is administratively less complex than the way based on tax status in my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, for a number of reasons, including the fact that more than four times as many people have passports than fill in tax returns.
In addition, my noble friend’s amendment seems to admit that foreigners can be exempt from the PEP rules if they are resident in the UK and paying tax here. I am somewhat uncomfortable with that proposition. My noble friend may not be aware that the term “ordinarily resident”, which appears in the amendment, disappeared from the tax code 10 years ago.
I am similarly not convinced that the other two amendments in this group will do the trick, because they call for consultations and reviews by the FCA, but the FCA has consulted on and reviewed this before. As we heard, the latest set of guidance, which came out in 2017, recognised that UK PEPs are not high risk, but nothing has changed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. The fundamental problem remains that the regulations require enhanced due diligence for all PEPs, and that is where the aggravation arises. Even low-risk PEPs have to be subjected to enhanced due diligence, with all the record keeping and evidence that entails.
Furthermore, the regulated firms that have to comply with money laundering laws are, frankly, terrified of falling foul of their regulators, whether here or abroad. It has cost them a small fortune in regulatory fines and compliance costs, and they simply will not take unnecessary risks. From their perspective, upsetting a few PEPs and their families is a lot less expensive than getting entangled in regulatory enforcement. That is why I believe that we have to change the regulations if we are to achieve a step change and get UK PEPs treated with common sense in our own country.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 215 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I congratulate him on his opening remarks.
I first encountered the PEP problem in 2016, as the banks were preparing for and, in some cases, anticipating AML regulations. For years I had had money with NS&I with minimal fuss and no difficulties at all, so I was very surprised when it wrote to me demanding very much more detail about my finances and sources of funds. My three children were even more surprised to get the same letter from NS&I—they did not even have NS&I accounts, which showed overzealousness on the part of the organisation.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I rise for a moment to support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady Noakes. I spent much of my political career in Brussels, where I used to complain regularly that various directives and regulations were gold-plated when they came back to this country. We were always very stern in the implementation of just about everything that came from the European Union. I and others in this Room played some part in preparing these things, including the anti-money laundering regulations. In fact, for a long time, when I went places I endured the description, “Here’s the expert on money laundering”. This was not very nice, but it got even worse with the PEP issue.
My noble friend Lady Noakes is right to say that we should not dwell too much on our personal problems with this. I will not, although I have had problems—more particularly, one of my sons, when he tried to open an account with an emerging bank. Everything was going swimmingly until someone contacted him and said, “Are you by any chance related to a Lord Kirkhope?” He said yes, presumably thinking that it would help him get a better deal, “That’s my father—thank you very much”. That was that. He then received a communication some two weeks later telling him that his application for an account had been declined, but they would not give him a reason and apparently could not do so under our regulations in this country. It was obvious why he was declined; that information had been enough to make them use some kind of prescriptive arrangement whereby everybody is looked into not individually but under a general approach, subject to having a PEP in your family.
Again, I will not get into the point from my noble friend Lord Moylan that we can now ignore the anti-money laundering regulations or do something different. That might well be the case but I do not want to revive discussions on Europe in this debate. However, we were very careful when we drew up the regulations. It was very much a British component that insisted on the regulations being employed or deployed proportionately. The word “proportionate”, which has been referred to already, was conveyed with those regulations to us in this country. The problem was that, when we entrusted the implementation of the regulations into the hands of the FCA we failed to oblige it to follow a proportionate approach in the way we should have done, although the word “require” is set out in its instructions. It did not do so, has not done so and appears not to be willing to do so.
I simply want to make it clear that consultations, which I think my noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned a moment ago, seemed to take place, particularly in 2017. It was perfectly clearly stated how these things should be implemented. It was not expected that those holding politically exposed positions in the UK should be regarded as anything other than a low risk, rather than the enhanced risk that we seem to be stuck with. I suggest that it is too late for consultation and that it must be done by way of legislation. Very strict instructions must then follow to the financial institutions, past, present and future, that they must not deploy the draconian measures and inquiries that are totally unnecessary and unjustified.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that, in the earlier group of amendments, I omitted to declare my interests as a director of two investment companies.
All four amendments in this group seek in different ways to find a solution to the problem that all noble Lords, and members of their families, suffer as a result of being designated as politically exposed persons. Regulation 35 of the 2017 regulations provides that a regulated person must “manage the enhanced risks” arising from having a business relationship or conducting a transaction with a PEP. It assumes that such a business relationship always carries a higher risk than a business relationship with a person who is not a PEP. From my experience, I suggest that the reverse is the case—in other words, entering into a business relationship with a Member of your Lordships’ House carries, in general at least, a lower degree of risk than the average risk posed by a customer of a relevant person.
However, the regulation requires more personal KYC information to be provided in respect of PEPs than for other customers. As noble Lords are well aware, it is currently hard enough for anybody to open a bank account or an account with any financial institution. Long-standing customers with active accounts with banks who fail to answer emailed requests for proof of address or the like find their account summarily closed, without any appeal. It is very difficult and time consuming to speak to anyone with responsibility for such decisions. Quite extraordinarily, when a credit card operator obtains KYC information for a customer with regard to one account, it does not automatically regard that information as being equally relevant to other accounts held with it by the same customer. The situation for PEPs is disproportionately worse.
My son, who was resident in Taiwan, was nominated by his employer as a signatory on his corporate bank accounts but was subjected to entirely disproportionate questioning which caused a considerable degree of irritation. He experienced the same thing when proposed by his employer as a signatory on a Singapore bank account. He has now had to agree with his employer not to be nominated on the corporate bank accounts in Korea, where he now resides, and in several other jurisdictions.
I have put my name to Amendment 227, well introduced by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which sensibly seeks to disapply the application of PEP status for this purpose by the FCA in respect of UK citizens. Amendment 215, in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan and others, would place an obligation on the Treasury to achieve the same thing. But these amendments do not solve the problem for overseas relevant persons. I hope that the adoption of more proportionate and reasonable guidance, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope in his Amendment 234, to which I have also added my name, might eventually be copied by overseas regulators too.
In any event, I ask my noble friend the Minister to respond positively and to commit to take action on these proposals. It really is time that something was done about the expensive waste of time caused by the current regulations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the point that this should not be just about us and anecdotes about ourselves. That is true, but the fact that family members are caught up in it leads you to think, “Maybe I could cope with it, but why should innocent members of my family be affected in this way?”
However, I am falling into my own trap because I am saying “innocent family members” as though we are not innocent. One of the most disconcerting aspects of this whole discussion is that this is about the law of unintended consequences. We all know who these regulations should be aimed at, and none of us would advocate being soft on money laundering or not having the kind of regulatory framework necessary to deal with money used for terrorism and so on. But can you imagine what it would say to the public were they to find out that the PEPs on that list that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, read out are considered to be dodgy people who are not to be trusted? We are telling the public that political figures in this country are what some of the more cynical and nihilistic commentariat might have us believe—that everybody is on the brink of money laundering. It sends a terrible message, but I feel as though it is just the law of unintended consequences.
As noble Lords know, if you ask whether this is happening because you are a politically exposed person, the person you are talking to goes through the most extreme example of gaslighting, where they kind of glower at you and, as one noble Lord said, either imply that it is happening to everyone all around the country or that you are making it up. You are made to feel completely paranoid, even though you know that that is probably the cause. Without telling anecdotes, I can say that I am met with a certain amount of aggression.
On lots of aspects of the Bill—certainly the parts that I was involved in the other day—we have talked about the public’s frustration that banks are closing all the time. Barclays has just announced a whole set of closures. We are worried about the consequences of not being able to go into a bank and talk to a manager and about what kind of lives we will have if everything is overly removed from people’s interactions. Here we have the most unnecessary example of risk-averse, bureaucratic time wasting from banks which should be spending their time serving the public and working for society’s financial services as we face an economic crisis. Can you imagine how much time they waste checking on us? I know how much time I have wasted during their completely unnecessarily and spuriously checking on us.
I do not know which of the amendments I prefer but, for once, I just want the law to change. I shall go with whichever is likely to win and pass. We are not doing the public any favours at all by worrying that they might think that we are just talking about ourselves in this instance, because the public are having their financial services wasting time on something that is not due diligence but a complete distraction from attacking the real problem.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I may have had the unique experience among us here of having to chair the committees that did some of the anti-money laundering directives. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, points at the origins and the fact that we have carried through some things that were not necessary.
We have to go back to where it all began. He was quite right that it was with the Financial Action Task Force, which related to foreign nationals. We had a problem in the EU with what that meant—foreign vis-à-vis the EU—and tried hard to construct ways in which we could exempt the whole of the EU. There were words that would do that, but they did not get past the civil liberties committee people. We kept running up against being told that we could not discriminate. It was very difficult, because two committees were involved—my committee, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and the civil liberties committee. Most of the time, because we were a bigger committee, we managed to outvote the civil liberties people, but there were one or two places where they had unique responsibility and, unfortunately, things such as discrimination were theirs, not ours.
I am telling this story because, if we want to solve this problem—if we say, “Okay, now we’ve had Brexit, we don’t need to stick to the rules that were made in the EU”—what can we do? Can we actually do what FATF said and discriminate within the UK against people who are in the UK but foreign? Where does that leave us with our discrimination laws? I cannot solve that, but I wonder whether the Minister knows the answer—because if the answer is that we are not hidebound and can do what FATF said, let us do that and put the focus where it should be.
It is very difficult to do a risk-based approach. I am all for it, and I think that the banks should do more of it. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has explained, it is costly. In fact, these things are outsourced; you fill in all the forms, somebody somewhere else ticks the boxes and the bank jolly well does not know its client any better. Then two or three years later, they ask you for all the same forms again, and they do not notice if you have done it exactly the same.
When the anti-money laundering regulations first came out, we seemed to get up to speed in the UK very quickly, and we started getting all this rubbish very quickly. I got the Belgian versions, because I still had Belgian bank accounts. I got a nice little form with tick-boxes on, so I photocopied that and started sending it to some UK banks, asking them why they could not do the same thing, although it did not get me anywhere. Recently, all the EU banks have stepped up, and my son has had a lot of trouble with the Irish banks, because he was working in Ireland—and he had even more trouble once he was no longer working in Ireland and came back to the UK, even though he has Irish nationality. He has had to close his accounts, because he just could not operate them.
So there are some issues here that need to be handled. I thought, going through this and trying to remember the discussions we had, that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, got the closest by saying that if they are already having some check, such as through the tax authority, then that is a proper and non-discriminatory way to take people out of it. It is hard to think of anything better than that, other than just taking everybody out.
It is true that these regulations were really meant for catching politicians in dodgy countries who had access to ways to bypass the normal systems and checks for moving large sums of money between countries—for pilfering it. It is very difficult to talk about who they might have been without having carefully prepared your notes—although I know we have parliamentary privilege. They were not meant to affect ordinary people. Under the FATFA provisions, it was never meant to be ordinary people or ordinary politicians in generally law-abiding countries, shall we say, where politicians are not given extraordinary access to start siphoning off money from the central bank and suchlike. I do not think there is anyone in our central bank who can do that—perhaps the chief cashier; I have not thought about that—but that is who they were meant for.
Like others, I do not have confidence that our regulators will necessarily break cover and do something dramatically new if we ask them to revise this. It will be a problem that they are entrenched in the rules they have and the thinking of the other regulators who they keep meeting when they go places. It needs something very clear in legislation—something like the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, if we can check out the point about discrimination. It is very difficult for us, as PEPs, to vote on things such as this, but it is causing a lot of distress to a lot of people. It is potentially devastating when you cannot complete on your house purchase and such things, and when things are happening randomly. It needs to be attended to. I really do not see why the Government cannot put their foot down and say to the banks and regulators that this must be done in a way that truly reflects who the targets are.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Moylan and those spoken to by my noble friend Lady Noakes. All noble Lords have spoken very well, and there is clearly consensus here. The specific issue here has trundled on for 10 years. I remember that when I served as treasurer of the 1922 Committee, this was an issue taken up by both the then chairman and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, by Sir Charles Walker. I naively believed that we had resolved this issue by about 2017-18; obviously, that is not what happened.
This is about the limits of a permissive regulatory regime. It is clear that the Treasury and the regulatory bodies involved have not taken a blind bit of notice of the cross-party support in Parliament. This is not a niche issue that affects just us. In my case, I was affected because I was told by my mortgage provider that I was not going to be permitted to make mortgage payments, let alone make any withdrawals from a bank account. But this is also an issue of the civil liberties of our family members and extended family members. On that basis, we must take a very tough stance.
I come back to the particular point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about what we have the ability to do now that we are outside the EU—although my noble friend Lord Kirkhope is right that we must not recapitulate the arguments about Brexit. The noble Baroness’s point was astute, in that there is no proper risk analysis and risk assessment of all of these individual cases. A generic policy is applied across all individuals.
Frankly, let us be honest: the UK is one of the most open and transparent political systems in the western world. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right that people are not attracted to public service if the fallback position is, “You’re a liar, a cheat, a crook and a thief if you go into public service”. It is important that, after 10 years, we make that appropriate point.
If we do not adopt my noble friend Lord Moylan’s rather benign amendment, a future Government may well take a much more draconian approach to this, both for the regulators and for the individual financial institutions. On that basis, they have a vested interest in sorting this situation out because, when the Financial Action Task Force proposals were published in 2012, they were not about asking people like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to produce a premium bond certificate from 1957—I scarcely believe that it was 1957; I thought it might be a lot later.
This is an opportunity, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister makes, or at least commits to, those changes. This is not the first time that I have been compared to a brothel keeper—although that is normally in the other House—but my noble friend Lord Moylan makes a good point. This is an opportunity to right this wrong. This is not about us and it is not a niche issue: it is about civil liberties, decency, honesty, openness and transparency. We need action from Ministers on this.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, after so many very good speeches, I will be short. My personal experiences vary wildly. I remember a four or five-page document for a credit card, and I remember the bank that most of my money is in ringing me up and saying, “What’s this extraordinarily large amount of money that has just come into your account?” I said, “You’re not going to believe this, but it is my son paying me back a loan”, which he had. I heard nothing more from the bank. That gives an insight into the disproportionate ways in which various institutions react to this, and much of the problem is in that behaviour.
Let us not get away from the problem: money laundering is serious. If you believe all of the thoughtful reports on it, it is serious in our City. It is absolutely valid that we take it very seriously. I understand from the professionals who regulate us that it is very subtle: a lot of it is done with seemingly innocent accounts moving relatively modest amounts of money in a highly managed way. It is a profession that is, sadly and unfortunately, probably absorbing some good brains in an evil trade.
One has to accept that getting the regulations right is very challenging. I take the general view I hear today that the regulations need further improvement. Clearly, that has to go in law. Therefore, I urge those who have put forward amendments to try to address the problem and put together a common amendment that may attract support across this House and the other place. Of course, it would be much better if the Minister came forward with her own solution.
We have to think about the other agents here: the banks and financial institutions. Sadly, they seem to work like many large institutions do. They take views about spending money and about their duties; frankly, all too often their duties are not to their customers. The moment a piece of complexity is built in, they end up with algorithmic solutions and basic statements that some algorithm has been offended here or there, and they take draconian solutions: they close or block accounts. This is absolutely unreasonable.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a lot of sympathy with noble Lords who feel that they or their families have been subject to unreasonable treatment due to their status as politically exposed persons, or PEPs. As noble Lords have mentioned, I have engaged with noble Lords to understand this issue and I am aware that the difficulties faced can range from seemingly disproportionate requests for information to accounts being blocked, leaving Peers and their family members at risk of being unable to effectively manage their financial affairs.
The Treasury and the FCA will continue to work to address this issue and to ensure that those subject to these rules are treated fairly and proportionately. Before discussing that work further, I will set out the importance of the PEPs regime to UK security and the fight against economic crime.
Enhanced due diligence by banks is a key component of the UK’s anti-money laundering and anti-corruption measures, and ensures that any suspicious activity is identified and reported to law enforcement. Given the potential for the positions of influence held by those subject to the PEPs regime to make them targets for serious and organised criminals and hostile state actors, law enforcement agencies have strongly favoured maintaining these requirements on domestic PEPs. The enhanced due diligence measures are a crucial part of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime and contribute to a coherent, systemwide approach to tackling economic crime, providing law enforcement with valuable and actionable intelligence to help protect the UK’s political system from hostile state actors, for instance.
However, the Government of course recognise that domestic PEPs often represent a lower risk than overseas PEPs. This is already explicit in FCA guidance, which states that domestic PEPs should be treated as lower risk by financial institutions unless other risk factors are present. The FCA remains committed to monitoring banks’ compliance with its guidance on PEPs, and will take action where it identifies systemic issues. The FCA did so last year, resulting in one financial institution apologising to all PEP customers after its failure to adhere to FCA guidance.
In last year’s review of the money laundering regulations, the Government committed to an assessment of the risk profile of domestic PEPs and made it clear that we would consider removing the requirement for mandatory enhanced due diligence if they were found to be sufficiently low risk. The Government’s assessment of the risk profile of domestic PEPs has concluded. As part of that work, they engaged with law enforcement and other operational partners to develop their under-standing of the risk posed by domestic PEPs. In light of that review, the Government consider that the existing requirements remain appropriate.
However, given the concerns raised, the Government will continue to work with the FCA to ensure that banks and other financial institutions appropriately and proportionately implement the guidance set out by the FCA regarding the treatment of domestic PEPs, that it is taken forward in a way that is proportionate to their individual risk and that adjustments are made to enhanced due diligence measures as necessary. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the Treasury continues to engage with the FCA on this issue and stress the importance of taking a proportionate, risk-based approach to the application of enhanced measures on domestic PEPs.
I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendment 215 from my noble friend Lord Moylan would remove those politically exposed persons who are tax residents from the regime entirely. As I have set out, including domestic PEPs in the regime is important because of the risks presented by their positions of influence. Such a proposal would weaken the UK’s protection from money laundering and corruption and leave us non-compliant with international standards. International standards for domestic PEPs, as my noble friend set out, are set by the Financial Action Task Force. They require countries to implement a legal framework that compels regulated firms to identify whether their customers are domestic PEPs and make an assessment of which due diligence measures to apply based on the risk presented.
Amendment 215 would remove the requirement for financial institutions to identify and treat those resident in the UK for tax purposes as PEPs, making the UK non-compliant with those international standards. The UK is a leading member of the Financial Action Task Force and was recognised in its mutual evaluation report in 2018 as having the most effective anti-money laundering regime of well over 100 countries assessed to date. The UK remains committed to ensuring that its anti-money laundering regime is compliant with these international standards. While I appreciate that, in drafting their amendments, noble Lords may have sought to remain compliant with those standards, I am afraid it is not possible to remove domestic PEPs from identification altogether and remain compliant.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Why is it therefore possible to exclude councillors, as the guidance does, but not Peers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
That is a question of who is classed as a domestic PEP, not of the need to have a regime in place to identify domestic PEPs and then look at what enhanced due diligence measures should be applied to them.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that we could therefore exclude all Members of Parliament?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not think that would be consistent with the Financial Action Task Force guidance that is interpreted at a UK level.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am sorry, but the Minister said that we are a leading member of the Financial Action Task Force. It has been enabled to take councillors out; it is very hard to imagine that Members of this House could not be.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I know the answer to this. It is because the FCA said in 2017 that a council was not a parliament or similar body. Those words appear in the task force recommendation. By declaring that a council was not a parliament or a similar body, members of councils immediately fell out of the regulatory scope by virtue of the guidance as it was changed at that time.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
This may not be something that the Minister can answer straightaway, but she has just finished by saying that the law enforcement agencies still wanted to keep the provisions. It would be good if she could tell me which and why, and on the basis of what evidence. How many parliamentarians have been done for money laundering, for example, and how many have featured seriously in inquiries? If that information is not to hand, I should be very happy to have it explained in detail in writing. I am still a bit perplexed, because my understanding of FATF was the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: that is to do with foreign politicians, not our domestic politicians, or has FATF been updated? Oh, the noble Lord has it on his iPad.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is the website with the 2021 version of the recommendations.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
So I cannot reconcile what the Minister has just told us with what is in FATF. If it needs detailed and arduous explanation, I am quite happy to have it in writing, but on the face of it, it is irreconcilable.
Earl Attlee (Con)
Further to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, can the Minister point to any illegal activity on the part of a parliamentary PEP that has been detected as result of the money laundering regulations?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, to deal with the question of the risk assessment undertaken as part of this work, as I have already said, the Government have engaged closely with law enforcement and the intelligence community to inform our understanding of the risk in this area. It is a difficult area, and it is not particularly appropriate to go into detail on the contents of the risk assessment, given the sensitive nature of the information. As I also set out, the context is that there is potential for those in positions of influence to make domestic PEPs targets for influencing behaviour by serious and organised criminals and hostile state actors. The potential links between domestic PEPs and criminal activity vary, including abuse of political position for personal gain or links to overseas corruption.
I very much understand the desire by those directed by the regulation to hear more about that risk assessment. It was a question that I anticipated and to which I sought to get as full an answer as possible for the Committee. I am under constraints, but I shall none the less take away the requests from noble Lords to see whether there is any more I can do to provide more information on that point.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I follow up the inquiry of my noble friend Lord Attlee about statistics—whether parliamentarians have actually fallen foul—and take it one stage further. With regard to the particularly appalling way in which family members are implicated here, do we have statistics on how many family members of parliamentarians have fallen foul? Surely, they are implicated simply because they are related to someone who is classified as a PEP. We have mentioned human rights, but this provision cannot be fair or proper and should surely be removed.
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I said, I shall take away the point about what further I can say about the work on the risk assessment. The focus has been on looking at risk, and my understanding is that, in considering that, the question of close associates or family members—I believe that is the terminology in the regulations—has also been considered.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am sorry about this, but the Minister will not be surprised, because we have had 10 years of this issue. There was a review last year, which she reported on in the House, which said that no change was needed, which is extraordinary. She referred to the case where we all got an apology, but that was only because we kept on standing up and asking for it, otherwise it would never have happened.
The important thing that I wanted to raise is that this somehow is going further than anti-money laundering—it is about general corruption. Some of us have been debating the National Security Bill, where it is being dealt with in another way. I do not think that the Minister has been following that Bill, but I can understand that she has not because she has been involved with this one. We now have the FIRS scheme, which will be set up when the Bill becomes an Act and which is about the other things—the approach to politicians by malign forces trying to corrupt us, or whatever. So can we take out corruption and that sort of thing, because the National Security Bill will deal with that? This is simply to be simply about anti-money laundering—in other words, dirty money.
A lot of what the Minister has said goes beyond that, and the fact that she cannot tell us means that the spooks—who tell us that they do not want it, by the way—want it for some other cause. That is not the purpose of the provisions on anti-money laundering; it is about dirty money. Perhaps the Minister could talk to the Home Office and Tom Tugendhat about how much is covered now on the approach to any of us as politicians by malign forces, because this is separate.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, although I have not been following the detail of that Bill, I am aware of the provisions in it. As part of looking at this question, one question asked is, in our broader ecosystem of the checks and balances that we have on our politicians and people defined as PEPs—the other requirements of disclosure that they are held to and the other tools that we have at our disposal—how they influence the risk assessment has been done. I reassure noble Lords that that question has been asked. I should also reassure noble Lords that I am seeing the Security Minister tomorrow to discuss economic crime, but also that issue. We are seeking wherever possible to ensure that there is join-up across government in our assessment of the risks and the tools available to deal with them, ensuring that where we have measures in place they remain proportionate. That is something that I continue to engage with, with the Security Minister and others across government.
I shall just try to answer the point on the Financial Action Task Force, the difference between domestic and foreign PEPs, and the requirements within that, as I understand it. I commit to following up in writing if it remains unclear or if anything I say is not correct. The requirement for automatic enhanced due diligence applies to foreign PEPs. However, within the FATF guidance on recommendations 12 and 22—I think that this is particularly around 12—there is still the need to take steps to identify whether someone is a domestic politically exposed person and then review the relevant risk factors. So they need to determine whether a customer or beneficial owner is a domestic PEP, then determine the risk of the business relationship in that context—and then, in low-risk cases, there are no further steps to determine whether a customer is a PEP. In other words, there is still a requirement to identify whether someone is a domestic PEP or not and to look at the risk around that.
Where there is a difference, in my understanding, from the Financial Action Task Force requirements, is that for foreign PEPs you need to apply automatic enhanced due diligence. Under the EU regulations, that also applied to domestic PEPs—and we therefore ensured that automatic enhanced due diligence applied to domestic as well as foreign PEPs was a system in our regulations. The review we did last year into all of our anti-money laundering regulations did not conclude that on this matter no further action was to be taken but that we needed to look at the risk profile and risks associated with domestic PEPs before determining whether those requirements of automatic enhanced due diligence remained appropriate, now that we had the ability to vary our money laundering regulations, having left the EU. So that was a further piece of work that needed to be done after the review was published last summer of our money laundering regulations overall. That further piece of work has been undertaken, and I have undertaken to write to noble Lords with further details if I can provide them on that risk assessment, but that concluded that it was appropriate to maintain automatic enhanced due diligence for domestic PEPs.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Did this review involve the FCA? When the FCA reissued its guidance in 2017 it was very clear about domestic PEPs being low risk, but it was constrained by the regulations, which said that you had to do enhanced due diligence. It was within that context. There seems to have been a shift between the FCA’s apparent position on the risk profile of UK PEPs and what my noble friend the Minister is now saying that she is being told by the security services, which will always try to find things that can go wrong. It is quite easy to construct a case that we are potentially capable of being corrupted by whoever and involved in money laundering, but they are not involved in the money laundering processes; the FCA is. I am getting a bit confused about how robust this risk assessment is in the context of money laundering.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe that it aimed to get relevant information from all those involved and take a holistic view. I appreciate and agree that we need to ensure that, when these measures are put in place, they are proportionate to the risk faced, so it is entirely right to interrogate that risk assessment. I also appreciate that it is a slightly frustrating process when the sensitive nature of some of these issues means that we cannot always go into all the details noble Lords want at this time. I have tried to explain the context as to why domestic PEPs are viewed as having sufficiently high risk so that enhanced due diligence should still apply. I have the FCA guidance in my pack but I will not go through it, but it is also true to say—this is another point that I checked—that although the risk is sufficient to have enhanced due diligence measures, it is lower for domestic PEPs than for foreign PEPs. That assessment still applies.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The Minister is doing a very good job on a very sticky wicket. I am not surprised. Notwithstanding what she said about risk assessments and how that has to be, of necessity, a discretionary issue, the problem we are identifying, which the Government should address if they come forward with an amendment at Report, is the opaque nature of identifying these individuals and the offence against natural justice, because when people have accounts closed they are often not told why, who made the decision, on what basis and using what methodology. That is a serious issue and, after 10 years, one that the Government should address, if necessary by a government amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely take that point. It comes back to the appropriate and proportionate enforcement of these regulations. I know that that is something noble Lords have raised previously, but we need to continue to work to ensure that it takes place.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
This goes back to when the Minister mentioned the FATF provisions. I thought she mentioned the risks in business relationships. All the stuff we get as PEPs is our personal stuff; it is nothing to do with business relationships. I have not been interrogated about anything to do with the London Stock Exchange, of which I am a non-executive director; I am interrogated about my father’s will and that kind of stuff.
Again, I am happy—in fact I would almost prefer—for the Minister to write the replies because it is hard to put together quoted bits and pieces, even when we get them back in Hansard. It seems that the whole risk assessment business is being set aside at the behest of the security agencies, which just like the idea that they have another captive load of people and that they may be able to track something with money—which I doubt, because these forms go to an outsourced place, they are filed, and nobody ever looks at them. There is no “know your client” going on. They may look at one or two, but I do not see how it adds up at all, even taking that security aspect into account, because if anybody was really a security threat, there are other ways of vetting.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am confused. I always encourage people to find out what is happening in this House by telling them to look at the speeches and follow Hansard, but now I am dreading anyone watching this because we have a government Minister implying that the security services at looking at us, particularly our private financial affairs, because we are high risk. Why? I do not think that is true. I want to denounce the notion that because you are in the House of Lords you are more likely to be doing something such as that.
I do not think the Minister can answer my second point, but I think we would all feel that it is a generalised accusation rather than specifically going after individuals who might be doing things that are wrong based on evidence, which nobody here objects to. Never mind the families; I have got to the point now where it is not just the families. I am sitting here feeling embarrassed, thinking, “Oh god, somebody is basically saying that the security forces think that we are all up to no good”. If the public find that out, it is said by a Minister and it is the general atmosphere, that is not good, is it? I usually put my speeches up on social media; I am not putting this one on. I do not want anyone to know about this conversation, because it will discredit the reputation of this House far more than anything else.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I have already set out for the Committee, and I repeat now, the reasons why UK domestic PEPs may be at greater risk of money laundering. For example, in the general sense, the positions of influence that we have can put us at greater risk. I have also tried to set out—and will set out in writing for noble Lords—the approach that we are taking to look at risk in this area. I will share any further details that I am able to.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Following on from what has just been said, I would quite like the Minister to rephrase what she said: that we are at greater risk of money laundering. I cannot let that stand on the record.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I can let stand that we might, in some instances, be at greater risk of being targeted for various things, and I hope that we also have a greater capacity for repelling such actions, given the experience of people in the House and having done the sorts of things that we have done throughout our lives. I am not prepared to accept that kind of statement with any acquiescence whatever on my behalf or, by the sound of it, on behalf of colleagues here.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am very happy to clarify for the Committee and anyone who may be reading our proceedings, that we, due to our positions of influence, are at greater risk of being targeted by those who may seek to engage in money laundering.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I say to the Committee that if someone tried to target me in any inappropriate way, I would report it to the appropriate authorities immediately.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sure that many of us in this Committee would do so—
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sure we all would. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked me to set out in writing the position of the Financial Action Task Force in terms of the requirements for foreign and domestic PEPs. I will also set out in writing the position on the risk assessment that has been undertaken, so that everyone has it and it is not just in the toing and froing of the exchanges in this Committee. I will clearly set out for the Committee the Government’s position on this.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
This is a risk of money laundering, not anything else. What wider implications should be taken into account? The FCA knows about money laundering and its risks. How could there be wider considerations than money laundering?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Others are involved in looking at the risks of money laundering in counterterrorist and proliferation financing, which I believe are subject to these regulations.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
As far as financial institutions are concerned, all of those are dealt with by the FCA, not the security services or any other shadowy agencies that seem to be involved in this latest risk assessment, so I am struggling to see what wider issues could possibly have been taken into account.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government believe that the decision about the scope of the money laundering regulations is best taken by, and should remain with, the Government, rather than being delegated to the FCA.
I turn to Amendment 224 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. This would require the FCA to consult with consumers with regard to its functions relating to PEPs. In the discussion—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The noble Baroness does not need to respond on this; it was a placeholder.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Okay—I was going to talk about the engagement that we have conducted so far and will continue.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard touched on my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s Amendment 234, but I am not sure whether anyone spoke to it specifically. In my response, I addressed the Committee’s desire to focus its attention on the statutory changes, and I am not sure we had a detailed discussion on the other proposals put forward here.
Noble Lords have made their position on the issue very clear. I hope that, to some extent, they have also heard the rationale for the Government’s approach and would agree with the desire to be in line with international standards in any action that we take in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said at the start of his remarks, we should bear in mind the context of the Government’s efforts, very much supported by this House—we are often pushed to go further by this House—in tackling issues of economic crime, which include money laundering. We have to recognise that London and the UK being such a centre for financial services, and the great benefits that that brings, also brings greater risks. It is right that we make sure that we have a regime that manages those risks as effectively as possible.
I shall write to noble Lords on the matters that I have mentioned, and any other matters in looking at this debate again, on which I can provide further clarity. I am sure that I will engage with noble Lords further on this issue ahead of Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Would the Minister also engage with the banks and financial institutions to see whether they can improve their performance in being reasonable?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that. This Government are committed to do that with the regulator. I understand this Committee’s desire to look at legislative change, but I have also heard from the Committee that the guidance is clear on the lower risks of PEPs, and the challenge really lies in the effective implementation of that guidance. We should not take our eye off that work. It is something that the Government are absolutely committed to doing.
I know that noble Lords have raised the challenges of engaging with the FOS on this issue, but I remind them of that route. I have also said to noble Lords, as the FCA has said, that in the list of contacts that we have provided to parliamentarians with issues with their status as politically exposed persons, the FCA will monitor any of those points of contact in terms of complaints to look more systematically at whether there are issues in individual institutions so that further action can be taken on that basis. The Treasury will continue to engage with the FCA on how we can ensure that that takes place.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I think that we have already mentioned why the FOS is so inappropriate. To expect a judge to take a complaint to the FOS is frankly out of order. It is no way for this issue to be raised. It is a very small number—but it is not appropriate to ask very senior judiciary to go via FOS, if their children are being affected. That is really not the right way forward.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I appreciate that it will not be the right route of recourse in many circumstances, but I do not agree that it is never the right form of recourse for people. It is important for people to know that that route is there. For particular cases, it may be appropriate. The noble Baroness has set out why, in many other cases, that is not the form of recourse that people want, which is why we have also set out other points of contact and ways in which to try to resolve these issues, which also act as a data point for the FCA as the regulator to look at issues in particular banks or institutions that are not applying the guidance appropriately.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very valuable debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in it and, if I do not thank them individually, I hope that they will forgive me, given the length of the debate so far. It is unusual, at the end of such a long debate, to be able to summarise the arguments made in one or two sentences—but I can, because everybody, in effect, said the same thing. That is that we want to see change, and the majority of us want to see legislative change.
Having said that I am not going to refer to individuals, there are two speeches to which I will briefly refer, because they were important. The first was the winding-up speech from the Labour Party Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. He spoke very briefly, but his words were very pregnant and important as we approach Report.
The second, which I will deal with at greater length, was the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who acutely put her finger on a key issue that must be addressed if we are to achieve the legislative change that we want to see. That is about the definition that we choose. When I spoke earlier, I said that there must be a way in which to distinguish satisfactorily between domestic and foreign. In doing this, I will not use the term “non-discriminatory”, because that has legal implications, but we want to do it in a way that is fair and is seen to be fair by everybody who might be affected. At least a couple of suggestions have been made, and they both have merits. This is something to which we need to return as we approach Report, to make sure that we are comfortable with it—but I thought that the noble Baroness put her finger on that very acutely.
Normally, at this stage in a speech of reply, I would turn to a lengthy and careful analysis of the remarks made by the Minister, but she has been subject to a lengthy and careful analysis by practically everybody else in the course of her winding-up speech. So perhaps I will spare her that, and congratulate and thank her for taking, with such good grace, the questions and points that were put to her.
However, I shall refer to two points, the first being the security services. Frankly, I have never come across a case where the police or security services have given up a right to scrutiny that they already have. There is always some excuse for why it is necessary. I find that unconvincing—and the reasons are not, per se, on the grounds that it is the security services, but because of the arguments made here. It is astonishing that there is a special list of people in scope of suspicion of money laundering and terrorism, who happen to be the list in Regulation 35(14), when all of us could supply—even a five year-old could supply—a list of people much more likely to be in scope, who are not being subject to the same scrutiny.
On my second point, I do not think that I am in the wrong here, and suspect that my noble friend has not quite got it right, but am happy to be corrected. What are our international obligations to the FATF, insofar as we have legal obligations to it in a legal sense, given that it is not a legal body?
From this little iPad, I read out and referred very carefully to the current version of recommendation 12. It quite clearly says “foreign”; it places no obligation on the parties to the agreement to do anything about domestic PEPs. Clearly—this is where there may be a degree of confusion—in deciding who is a foreign PEP, you have to make a decision, if you like, that they are not a domestic PEP. Naturally, a sift is therefore required to get to the point of identifying that this is a foreign PEP, but I suspect that too much has been built on that, and there is some suggestion that that sift—are they foreign or are they domestic?—involves some obligation to scrutinise them. However, it simply is not there, so I referred in the course of my noble friend’s speech to the interpretative notes, and there is an interpretative note to recommendation 12, but it deals entirely with life assurance policies.
I think I also heard my noble friend say that recommendation 22 was relevant. That may have been a mishearing on my part but, looking at recommendation 22, it deals almost entirely with casinos, real estate managers and trusts. I do not know why they are all in the same recommendation, but there we are.
House of Lords
Northern Ireland and Great Britain: Regional Connectivity
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rogan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they are having with airlines about strengthening regional connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain following the collapse of Flybe.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rogan and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is currently very strong and has largely recovered to 2019 levels. This includes several competing services between Belfast and London, the public service obligation from Derry/Londonderry to London, and routes from Northern Ireland to several cities throughout Great Britain.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a fervent supporter of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does not a strong union require good, efficient and reliable air services between Northern Ireland and the rest of our country, not least in order to assist in the great work being done by the Northern Ireland tourist board in promoting the cultural and environmental glories of the Province, which are not as well-known and widely appreciated as they should be? I know my noble friend understands the anxiety created in Northern Ireland and elsewhere by the sudden collapse of Flybe at the end of January. Will she and the Government do everything possible to help regional airlines increase flights and keep fares down as far as possible for all those travelling to and from this most important part of our country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend. I have been to Northern Ireland as a tourist, and it is truly fabulous. On the recent collapse of Flybe, in November 2022 Flybe was transporting only 5.9% of passengers, so I am delighted to say that other airlines have now stepped up and by the end of April we expect that all Flybe routes will be picked up by other carriers.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Is the Minister aware that Aer Lingus has pulled out of the Belfast-London route and that there are regular cancellations by British Airways, particularly of the early flights on Monday morning? The reduction in the number of flights from Belfast to London and back is a significant problem.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will have to take that back to the department because I am not aware of a significant reduction in the number of flights; indeed, I expect them to be back to where they were by the end of April. I looked at the prices a couple of weeks ago, and it was possible to book an easyJet flight on a Monday morning for £22, which I feel is very reasonable. I know that BA has had a few cancellations recently, but I met with it this morning and we discussed how to reduce those as we head into the summer.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
As someone who uses that air connection weekly, I remind the Minister that there was a £5.7 million investment in connectivity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain during the Covid lockdown in May 2020 and since then, Flybe and the Belfast-London, London-Belfast Aer Lingus flights have ceased to operate. What discussions will she have with other airlines on filling the slots, and with Aer Lingus about reinstating its flights between Belfast and London and London and Belfast using Emerald Airlines, which undertakes carrier flights for it to other cities in Britain?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Aer Lingus flights had to cease because of the wet-leasing arrangements it was using, which it carried on for much longer than the Government would normally allow. However, I am delighted to say that Aer Lingus’s partner in IAG, British Airways, picked up the services so there is no loss in connectivity. Of course, we will warmly welcome Aer Lingus back to that route if it is able to sort out the UK-registered aircraft it would need to operate the route.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, Flybe failed in 2020 and 2023, which highlights the need to maintain consumer confidence. To do that, customers must be reassured that they have the right to the highest levels of financial protection and full refunds when things go wrong. Last year, the Department for Transport consulted on proposals to reduce consumer rights for domestic flights. Do the Government intend to pursue these plans? In view of the Windsor Framework, will flights between Great Britain and Northern Ireland remain subject to EU rules on compensation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government did indeed consult on a wide range of issues relating to consumers and aviation. We are still considering the response to that consultation and we will publish it in due course.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that speeding up Heathrow expansion would provide more opportunities for Northern Ireland companies and open further links to global business, and that new links and flights would encourage competition and provide Northern Ireland with better and cheaper connections to the rest of the UK and the world?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Any expansion at Heathrow is of course a matter for the airport itself; it is a private company and will be making the decision as to whether to expand. However, there are many London airports. I was at Luton only last week, where a brand new train service operates directly into the airport, which means that Luton will be 30 minutes away from central London. There is a lot of opportunity around London and, of course, we would like regional airlines to make the most of it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place today, and after the HS2 Question on Friday, I expect the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is too. The collapse of Flybe in January was devastating news for staff as well as the wider supply chain and those employed in industries reliant on its transport links. What steps are the Government taking to encourage further investment in Northern Ireland? Are they working with other operators to unlock new opportunities? What further work has been done to reduce the inequalities that domestic airlines face when paying double air passenger duty?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government announced a reduction in domestic air passenger duty. That comes into force from April 2023—next month—and will be a 50% cut in domestic air passenger duty. As I explained, we work with many of the regional airlines to consider regional connectivity. We will be looking at what we can do around slots but, as I said, services to Northern Ireland in particular are pretty much back to where they were in 2019.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, in drawing attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests, may I ask my noble friend, when she looks at the case for regional connectivity—be it with Northern Ireland or Scotland—to ensure that the Government have a very strong bias towards protecting those vital slots in some of our larger airports?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend will be well aware that the Government have limited levers when it comes to slots. However, there are some things that we can do. Slots are allocated by an independent slots co-ordinator. We set out in Flightpath to the Future that we would consult on some elements of slots reform. We still intend to that and, in doing so, we will consider very carefully regional connectivity and how we can ensure that slots are available.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I want to take my noble friend back to the question of slots. There is a lot of concern that when an airline fails the slots are often sold off at an enormous price, which excludes other, smaller airlines from taking up the routes that that airline has had to leave behind. Will she confirm that the Government are interested in that and will do everything they can to deter that practice?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not able to confirm that we will do everything we can to deter that practice because, of course, historic rights to slots are an asset and when an airline fails, those slots can be transferred for a sum to another party and that money can be used to pay creditors. What I can commit to my noble friend is that, for example, the Flybe slots are part of a competition remedy and cover specific routes, which means that any operator can apply to the slots co-ordinator to take up those slots for those specific routes.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not seem to be able to get an answer from any other Minister to my question regarding the Belfast to London and Belfast to EU route, so perhaps the noble Baroness can answer it. Can she explain why, given that you can get duty free from Dublin to London, you cannot get it from Belfast to London? Indeed, nor can you get it from Belfast to the EU, because the EU does not allow it. Will she come back to me with a real answer on this—even if it is one the Government do not want to admit to?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure I am going to be able to help the noble Baroness any more than other Ministers have, as it is beyond my departmental brief. However, I will pass her concerns on to the Treasury.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, while this Question is on the collapse of Flybe, I ask the Minister to pass on congratulations to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on HMG finding a buyer, with no risk whatever to the taxpayer, for Silicon Valley Bank, which collapsed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that the Government acted incredibly swiftly in a very difficult situation, and we were all very pleased with the outcome.
Playing Fields
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decreasing numbers of accessible and affordable playing fields.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and refer to my entry in the register regarding my position as honorary president of the London Playing Fields Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that every community has the facilities it needs so that sport and physical activity are accessible to all. We are investing £300 million in developing thousands of state-of-the-art community football pitches and multiuse sports facilities across the UK. We have committed £30 million a year for three years to school sport facilities in England, and over £20 million with the Lawn Tennis Association to renovate park tennis courts across England, Scotland and Wales.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister. That all sounds very good, but does he agree that playing fields are more than just green spaces and can help to improve people’s lives physically, mentally and indeed socially? Unfortunately, the temptation at the moment is for councils to get capital receipts from selling off playing fields for more desperately needed housing. That is happening now all over the country. Will the Government accept that real protection will come only when local councils have a specific statutory responsibility for sport and leisure, including playing fields?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that sport facilities are important, not just to people’s physical health but to their mental health and well-being. That is why we are investing the sums that we are—£300 million—in ensuring that communities across the UK have them in their areas. At least 50% of the funding will go to the most deprived areas across the United Kingdom, and we work closely with local communities, including local authorities, in ensuring that the provision is there.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be aware that in many areas there are privately owned sports facilities, either private clubs or sometimes public schools. What are the Government doing to encourage those privately owned sport facilities and playing fields to be shared more widely with people in the community?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We applaud those schools that make their facilities open to the community, and our Opening Schools Facilities programme is providing up to £57 million to allow selected schools across England to keep their facilities open for longer for after-school activities. That is targeted especially at girls, disadvantaged children and people with special educational needs. We want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to take part in sport and physical activity.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Vauxhall Motors Football Club, where 40,000 children from the age of five play in only one football season. It has been very difficult to watch so many council and school playing fields be sold off so that they can pay their bills, for whatever reason. I suggest to the Minister one or two things that could be done. First, we need to talk to Sport England to stop it objecting to all-weather pitches being laid because of its mental blockage about saying that they must be grass. Secondly, does he agree that the Football Foundation and the Premier League should put even more money into grass-roots football for 4G pitches, so that communities like mine can really enjoy football or rugby throughout the whole of the year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
In the context of the fan-led review, we have talked through wanting to see funding flow more equitably throughout the football pyramid, and the work that we have taken forward in the White Paper will follow that up. On the question of grass or artificial sports facilities, £43 million of the £300 million I mentioned has already been delivered, which will improve 177 facilities across the UK including 80 artificial-grass pitches and over 20 grass-pitch improvements, so we are looking after pitches of all types.
Lord Addington (LD)
The Minister says that the Government are improving the number of pitches and putting more money in. Do they have an idea of how many pitches and open spaces are required to get the best health benefits out of the exercise programme? If not, why not?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The programme is targeted and, as I say, at least 50% of the funding will go to the most deprived areas across the United Kingdom to make sure that we are inspiring people and giving them the facilities in the areas that they need. We work with a range of bodies to do that.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I want to press the Minister a little further on the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, particularly on public and private schools opening their facilities. Those schools have some of the very best sports facilities in the country, and the lack of access to good opportunities further exacerbates inequalities between those children from disadvantaged homes and those who are better off and able to afford an education at those schools. What is the department doing to press those schools to partner more effectively with their local communities?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We work through the Department for Education to encourage schools to make their facilities available to the wider community. Last week we announced a significant package of over £600 million to boost school sport in the state sector, including confirmation of funding for the PE and school sport premium and the School Games Organisers network until the end of summer term 2025, so we are making sure that we are working with state schools as well.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Labour welcomes the fact that the Government have conceded to the Lionesses’ campaign for girls to have the right to play football in school. However, given the continued loss of playing fields, how will the Government ensure that playing fields are available for the next generation of both male and female footballers to get the start and the facilities that they deserve?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The £300 million which I mentioned is making sure that there are changing rooms, facilities, and new artificial and grass-pitch improvements; it is also being targeted toward smaller capital projects such as floodlights and equipment. We are making sure that we are targeting it at disadvantaged groups of people, as well as groups who are underrepresented in sport, which of course includes women and girls. I am delighted to say that the first of the stadia around the country that are being named after some of our victorious Lionesses has been announced: the Jill Scott pitch in Jarrow in Tyne and Wear.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What are the Government doing to discourage the sale of school playing fields without any provision for their replacement? I also applaud the Government for doing all that they can to encourage further partnerships between independent and maintained schools, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, referred. There are now many thousands of them and they are growing all the time.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are working through the programmes that I have mentioned—the PE and school sport premium, the School Games Organisers network, and the Opening School Facilities programme—to encourage school sporting facilities to be made available to the widest possible group of people.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the questions so far have focused quite significantly on football, and to a lesser extent on other sports that require to be played on playing fields. Could the Minister say a bit more about what the Government are doing to support swimming facilities, which have major health benefits, and are among the more expensive facilities to maintain, particularly for local authorities? Furthermore, how are the Government investing to make sure that they are not lost?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point to other sports. In regard to the £300 million I referred to, 40% of projects will support a sport other than football. We know that, like many organisations and businesses, swimming pools are hit particularly hard by the rising cost of energy. My right honourable friend the Sports Minister has had a number of discussions with the sector to hear about the impact of rising energy bills on swimming pools, which we are of course feeding into colleagues at His Majesty’s Treasury, particularly with a view to the Budget this week.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, notwithstanding the answers that the Minister gave to the noble Lords, Lords Lexden and Lord Kennedy, is he aware that in the last few years over 100 schools have been forced to sell off their playing fields, affecting something like 75,000 pupils? Does he not believe that more should be done to provide funds to schools so that they are not forced to sell off these valuable assets?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in part, that falls to colleagues at the Department for Education, but the noble Lord is right to point to the importance of school facilities. Through the programmes that I have mentioned we have support for schools to make sure that facilities are shared with the wider community, which of course underlines their importance and gets more people using them. The investment that we are making in England reflects the need identified through local football facility plans, which ensure that we engage communities in the facilities that they need in their area.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, after the events of the weekend, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the key thing is that public access to playing fields and what goes on on them should be both direct and unimpeded, and need not be mediated through the views of opinionated and overpaid pundits?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we work with a variety of people in sport to ensure that funding is available to those who need it, to inspire future generations of boys and girls to take part in whatever sport or physical activity they wish.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the loss of these facilities is clearly unfortunate and, as has been said, there is an issue of mental health. Can the Minister explain to me why my mental health seems to have been affected by the rugby football match between France and England that has just taken place?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord underlines the emotional journey that supporters go on when cheering on the teams in their preferred sport, but also the great delight that they bring to the many people who spectate.
Pension Schemes: Guidance
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the report by Pensions For Purpose One year on—TCFD reporting for pension funds, published on 1 February, whether they intend to produce guidance for pension schemes in relation to their fiduciary duties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, by October 2022 occupational pension schemes with assets above £1 billion fell into scope of DWP’s requirements to report in line with the task force on climate-related financial disclosures, the so-called TCFD recommendations. The department published guidance alongside the requirements to help pension schemes improve the quality of governance and manage climate risk. DWP committed to review the requirements in late 2023 and will consider whether pension schemes require additional guidance in relation to their fiduciary duties.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and declare my interests as set out in the register. The Pensions for Purpose report highlighted a dilemma, in which some say that considering the real-world impacts of pension fund investments, including green or net-zero assets, infrastructure and housing, could be portrayed as trading off risk-adjusted returns against doing good. But does my noble friend agree that this is a false dichotomy? A failure to consider the climate and nature impacts of investments is likely to increase long-term risks and reduce returns, as opposed to pension funds that typically look at short-term performance measures. Can my noble friend ask relevant Ministers in the Treasury whether they will consider accepting relevant amendments that have been laid to the Financial Services and Markets Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, I will not be drawn on that by my noble friend, but the comments that she makes are broadly correct. It is very important that pension schemes, particularly those for purpose, encourage investments that align with the environment and society, and that includes climate change. I believe that the report, One Year On, outlines some pointers, insights or challenges. For example, most funds are using their investment consultants, while some are not yet using or including carbon offsets in their TCFD reports, but nothing in the findings so far is unfamiliar to DWP. We know there is work to do to improve the reports and build an element of expertise across the industries more generally.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the report. The question is whether the advice can effectively come from the Government against the background—I hope the Minister will agree—that it is the members’ money that is intended to provide them with a retirement income and should be used in accordance with their wishes and views. Can the Minister confirm that that is his view of how money in pension funds should be used?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I think it is important that the right advice is given. I start by saying that this is pretty ground-breaking, because the UK is the first country in the world to make occupational pension schemes consider, assess and report on the financial risks of climate change. In terms of what I would call “the push”, we have consulted with the pensions industry and certainly think it is right that guidance is given. For example, my department has introduced guidance alongside the TCFD requirements to help pension schemes understand how to identify, manage and assess climate-related risks and opportunities.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, actually, I think we were second after New Zealand; we were the first in the G20. The Financial Conduct Authority recently surveyed TCFD returns and found weaknesses in two areas: data or metrics, and targets. These are key areas. How will the Government try to put that right? Secondly, will the Government move forward, as I think they have said they will, with external assurance—in other words, audit—of those returns, to make sure that we banish greenwashing in this area?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. He has pointed out a few issues that were in the initial outlines. He mentioned data, which is an issue. Metrics and the use of implied temperature rises—for example, carbon offsetting and scenario planning—are definitely challenges that are being worked on domestically and internationally. As I said, we are the first country in the world to do this. It is good work, which needs to be built on.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I hope that those who are members have received the annual report and will recognise the performance of our fund, which grew from 104.3% in April 2020 to 130% in April 2022. However, that is not really the key point. My key point is that a fair number of pensions—though not our pension—have suffered from LDI and the chaos in the financial markets in September last year. Against that background, I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that all those who are affected have more than enough on their plate at this time tackling those challenges, without having any further advice from anywhere else.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, I do not really agree with the general points my noble friend has made. The main thing is that the regulator has a particularly strong role here, and it plans to publish its findings on what we are doing soon to provide schemes with examples of good practice. The regulator has found so far that most reports were published on time. This is to do with the publishing of reports. Almost all were substantial documents showing trustee engagement. In terms of my noble friend’s point about LDI, he will know that much progress has been made, led largely by the independent Bank of England working closely with the Treasury.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest in the register as a trustee. The report raises key questions about fiduciary duty. In summary, we need clearer guidance from the Government on three key issues: the extent to which environmental and social factors form a core component of investors’ fiduciary duties; the fact that pension scheme fiduciary duties are not a substitute for what government should do; and the fact that government desire for more pension fund investment in UK productive investment has to align with pension trustee fiduciary duties. Can the Minister confirm that, when issuing more guidance on the fiduciary issue, they will address these particular three issues where the contours of fiduciary duty need clarity?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As I have said before, it is the case that more progress needs to be made, and the noble Baroness has much experience in this field. Let us start with climate change, which poses major financial risk to pension schemes and savers’ returns, with almost £2 trillion in assets under management. I reassure her that pension schemes in scope of the DWP’s requirements, as I think she will know, must produce the annual TCFD report, which is based on four key pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. That might be five, but I think it is four.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Has this afternoon’s discussion not illustrated that there is a lack of clarity about how fiduciary duties are interpreted in terms of the long-term risks and possibilities of climate change-related investments? Therefore, would the Minister reconsider having a conversation with his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about the amendments on this point to the Financial Services and Markets Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can certainly pass the message on to my noble friend. On fiduciary duty, the noble Baroness will know that trustees have a duty to act overall in the best interests of members. This has been traditionally interpreted as covering risk-related returns as well. We made clear in our 2022 stewardship guidance, perhaps as an assurance, that trustees should be considering whether climate change risk is financially likely to be a material risk.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the report has said that, since the law was changed to require pension funds to do climate reporting as a way to nudge the companies and assets in which they invest to do better, two broad problems have emerged. First, the data out there are not consistent in timeframes or formats, or across asset classes or managers. Secondly, the regulatory regime seems to focus more on positioning pension funds than on the climate transition plans of the companies; as the report puts it,
“the world needs greening, not the pension fund”.
So will the Government look again at this?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Not only will we be looking again, but this is an iterative process. As I have said, we are yet to come back on the report, One Year On, but we will come back soon. I also reiterate the fact that we are the lead in the world; I will have to check the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. For example, since our department introduced TCFDs, over 70% of occupational pension schemes—a value of £1.4 trillion—are now subject to climate disclosure, and over 80% of scheme members, some 20 million people, will be able to access their pension schemes’ disclosures on climate risks and see how they are being managed. That is being published for the first time.
EU Settlement Scheme
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the High Court judgment of 21 December 2022, what plans they have to allow EU citizens who hold pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (1) to keep their rights under the Withdrawal Agreement when that status expires, and (2) to automatically obtain permanent residence rights without making a second application to that scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
We have informed the High Court that we do not wish to pursue an appeal against the judgment. This avoids continuing uncertainty for those affected. We are working to implement the judgment as swiftly as possible, and we will provide a further update in due course.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is nearly three months since the High Court found that the Government’s interpretation of the withdrawal agreement was wrong in law in the way it constructed the EU settlement scheme for EEA citizens to get a permanent residence right. I suggest that the Government need to undertake some consultations with parties and groups with relevant expertise, such as the3million and the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements, to ensure that any changes now uphold—rather than undermine, as in the past—the rights under the withdrawal agreement. Are the Government undertaking such consultation? Can the Minister clarify what “in due course” really means?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm that work is proceeding to implement the judgment. As the noble Baroness will have noticed, the High Court accepted, in paragraphs 188 and 191 of its judgment, that
“before and after the conclusion of the WA”—
the withdrawal agreement—officials in the European Commission
“understood, and … accepted, the United Kingdom’s intention to require”
pre-settled status-holders
“to apply for settled status”.
In the High Court’s view, this was embarrassing for the Commission, but it did not alter the fact, as was contended by the Commission, that the text of the withdrawal agreement did not require such a further application for pre-settled status, and therefore the High Court found as it did. The Government will certainly implement its findings.
I add that the EU settlement scheme has been a great success, with over 7 million applications received and 6.9 million applications concluded as of 31 December 2022.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the High Court judgment was very much in line with the recommendations and spirit of the multiple reports on citizens’ rights of the European Union Committee and the European Affairs Committee. In the reset of the scheme, will the Government make provision for another of our strong recommendations, made multiple times in these many reports, for the option of physical proof of status?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Earl rightly observes, the High Court judgment upheld both limbs of the IMA challenge: first, that the withdrawal agreement residence right of a holder of pre-settled status does not expire for failure to make a second application to the EUSS; and, secondly, that a pre-settled status holder acquires the right to permanent residence under the withdrawal agreement automatically once the conditions for it are met. The intention has always been to provide digital proof of status, and that remains the department’s view.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, some people will always blame Britain and never Brussels. One of the reasons that this case came to court is because we have the independent monitoring authority, run by Sir Ashley Fox, a former colleague of mine and of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. It has a budget of £5.5 million and 50 staff and has been working assiduously to ensure that EU nationals in the UK enjoy their full rights under the treaty. There is no equivalent body. It is supposedly the Commission that does it on other the side with a couple of people there.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Romania has exactly the same scheme as we do. The Commission has not begun enforcement proceedings. Will my noble friend the Minister press for a measure of symmetry in the treatment of UK nationals in the European Union?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend and can reassure him that the department works very closely with our colleagues in Brussels in relation to the protection of the rights of UK nationals within the European Union.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a positive move to implement the High Court judgment may help in bilateral representations where British citizens find themselves disadvantaged by the application of the immigration laws in certain EU countries where residence was not hitherto a problem?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that clearly it helps that the Home Office works very closely with those in the Commission in relation to the respective rights of citizens in each other’s countries.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the remedial action which he referred to in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will be completed and enforced by the date which the one that was struck down would have come in this autumn? Will he give an absolute undertaking that that will be remedied by then? Does he recognise that it might be more sensible if the Government paid a little more attention to the IMA, which was actually set up to give advice on how the withdrawal should be enforced, rather than forcing it to take them to court?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can certainly confirm that it is our intention to abide by the judgment. We work very closely with the IMA and will continue to do so.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, has not the Prime Minister, two weeks ago over the Northern Ireland protocol and last week with a highly successful visit to France, shown the tone that we should now adopt towards our European friends and allies and former partners in the EU?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, indeed. It is in that spirit of co-operation that the Government have determined that the appropriate method of resolving this case is to accept the present position—notwithstanding that permission to appeal was granted—to accept the judgment of the court and to make arrangements so that the scheme matches the findings of the court.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the High Court’s decision affects about 2.6 million people granted pre-settled status. Will the Government now ensure that the plan to be put in place will be quick and that settled EU citizens do not risk having their right to live here put in any jeopardy? Can the Minister say what he means by “in due course”?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that we will certainly not put in jeopardy any such residence rights. I am afraid that I am unable to confirm at this stage what “in due course” might mean, but I hope to return to the House fairly shortly to confirm the position.
Business of the House
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Business of the House
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 6 March.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 6 March.
Local Authority (Housing Allocation) Bill [HL]
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Local Authority (Housing Allocation) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Local Authority (Housing Allocation) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
National Security Bill
Monday 13th 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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 115-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (10 Mar 2023)
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the National Security Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 14: Foreign interference: meaning of “interference effect”
Amendment 1
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(aa) a Northern Ireland Minister, the First Minister in Northern Ireland, the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, a person appointed as a junior Minister under section 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Northern Ireland department or the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly,(ab) the Scottish Ministers or the First Minister for Scotland,(ac) the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales or the Counsel General to the Welsh Government, or”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to clause 14 clarify the persons whose decisions are caught by clause 14(1)(d), and are needed to avoid giving a meaning to the terms “Scottish Ministers”, “Welsh Ministers” and “Northern Ireland Minister” that is different to the meaning of those terms given in the devolution Acts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, as I set out at Second Reading, the first responsibility of any Government is to ensure the safety of their citizens. National security is at the forefront of this Government’s agenda, and that is why the passing of this Bill is so important. It gives us a new toolkit to tackle those state actors who threaten the safety and security of the United Kingdom. By listening carefully, and working closely with your Lordships through the passage of this Bill, we have created legislation which is stronger, more targeted and shows the importance of the scrutiny that this House provides.
We have made a range of changes to this Bill since its introduction, such as significantly tightening Part 1 in response to concerns relating to journalistic freedoms. We have amended the “ought reasonably to know” test to put it beyond doubt that individuals would not be caught if they acted unwittingly or without genuine knowledge as to the effect of their conduct. Further, we have focused the political tier of the foreign influence registration scheme more explicitly on foreign powers, providing us all with more information about the scale and nature of foreign political influence in the United Kingdom. We have also, under Clause 30, created a targeted defence available to UKIC and the Armed Forces for the extraterritorial offences under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 in specific circumstances, replacing the previous approach of disapplying those offences.
I also note that the Government will bring back the sensible amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to restrict the defence to intelligence activity of the Armed Forces, during Commons consideration of these amendments. We have extended the oversight provisions which were included in Part 2 on introduction of the Bill to cover Part 1 as well. We have also amended Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, so that the statutory oversight for those powers will now be the responsibility of the new independent reviewer of national security legislation, ensuring that the oversight of all state threats provisions is in one place. The Government recognise the importance of independent scrutiny, and I know noble Lords welcome the inclusion of a new reviewer for the Bill.
I shall now speak briefly to the minor and technical amendments we have tabled today. Together, these amendments clarify definitions related to decisions of the devolved Administrations in Clauses 14(4)(a) and 71(3)(b) for the offence of foreign interference and the political influence tier of FIRS. These amendments will also clarify which officeholders in Scotland and Wales to whom a communication is sent are caught by Schedule 14 as set out in Clause 71(2)(a). I want to provide some context to these changes. We took the opportunity on Report in the Lords to clarify the drafting so as to ensure our policy intention in relation to government decisions was clear on the face of the legislation. We replaced the phrase
“a decision of the government of the UK”
through Amendments 50 and 118, with
“a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), a United Kingdom government department”.
In doing so, we identified that the definitions did not fully reflect the decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations and their Ministers, but we wanted to make sure we got this drafting right, so we have worked closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations before tabling these amendments. Amendments 1 to 8 achieve the same effect as those tabled on Report mentioned above.
Amendments 1 and 4 relate to drafting changes for Clauses 14 and 71 respectively. They contain revised definitions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure parity for all Governments within the United Kingdom. Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 are consequential amendments flowing from Amendments 1 and 4. Amendments 7 and 8 relate to the definitions in Schedule 14, which covers those officeholders to whom communication is caught under Clause 71(2)(a). It is vital that the UK is able to promote transparency within the political lobbying arena and tackle those who seek to interfere in our democracy at every level and in every part of the United Kingdom. That is why these amendments are so important, and I ask noble Lords to support their inclusion in the Bill.
Finally, in terms of tabled amendments, there is also a change to the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the changes made on Report to the foreign influence registration scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I briefly thank the Minister. I have heard from the stiftungs that we intervened on behalf of, and they thank the Minister for the movement that has happened and look forward to working closely with us in the future. I think it is as well to place these thanks on the public record.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I still feel quite grumpy about the Bill, but I accept that the Government have moved a little. I very much hope that, when it gets back to the other place, Members there will perhaps see fit to introduce stronger protections for journalists. I understand that something has gone into the Public Order Bill, but I think something should have been in this Bill as well.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, we on these Benches are often critical of the Government—of either colour, I understand—so it is perhaps appropriate to record my appreciation, at least, to the Minister and indeed to the Security Minister, for the patience with which they listened to us, but also for the imagination with which they reacted, not simply producing cosmetic tweaks that resulted in dogs being called off, but being prepared to go back, particularly on the political tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, to first principles and to think it out again, with the consequence, I suspect, that we are now left with something of real value, rather than the bureaucratic nightmare with which we were threatened when the Bill left the Commons.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 14(4).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 14(4).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(ii) a Northern Ireland Minister, the First Minister in Northern Ireland, the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, a person appointed as a junior Minister under section 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Northern Ireland department or the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly,(iii) the Scottish Ministers or the First Minister for Scotland, or(iv) the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales or the Counsel General to the Welsh Government,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to clause 71 clarify the persons whose decisions are caught by clause 71(2)(b), and are needed to avoid giving a meaning to the terms “Scottish Ministers”, “Welsh Ministers” and “Northern Ireland Minister” that is different to the meaning of those terms given in the devolution Acts.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(3).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(3).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which office-holders in Northern Ireland, to whom a communication is sent, are caught by Schedule 14, and is consequential (in part) on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(5).
“3 The First Minister for Scotland, a Minister appointed under section 47 of the Scotland Act 1998 or a junior Scottish Minister.4 The First Minister for Wales, a Welsh Minister appointed under section 48 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government or a Deputy Welsh Minister appointed under section 50 of that Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which office-holders in Scotland and Wales, to whom a communication is sent, are caught by Schedule 14, and is consequential (in part) on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 71(5).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment to the long title is consequential on amendments made to Part 4 of the Bill on Report.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to all noble Lords across the House for their interest in this Bill and for their valuable contributions and co-operation so far. Debate has been consistently informative and constructive. I am extremely grateful for the diligent approach that noble Lords from across the House have taken to ensuring that this vital legislation has received full scrutiny ahead of returning to the other place.
I am particularly grateful for the positive engagement and support of various noble Lords. From the Benches opposite, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord West; from the Cross Benches, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and the noble Lords, Lord Evans, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile; from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Marks; and I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Leigh. I hope all noble Lords will join me in thanking the Bill team, policy teams and legal teams in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice for their hard work in getting the Bill to its current position. They worked phenomenally hard, particularly in relation to FIRS. It is always invidious to single out anyone in particular, but I would very much like to thank the following: Emer Smith from my private office, and Laura Weight, Jack Joseph, Sebastian Graves Read, Grace Bennett, Joe Marshall, Grace Lucas, James Dix and, last but by no means least, Louise Holliday from the Bill team.
I also place on record my thanks to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, both for their contributions to this Bill’s development and for their enduring work in keeping us all safe every day. It is vital that they have the tools they need to fulfil such a challenging task. The measures in the Bill seek to ensure they are well equipped to tackle the wide range of modern threats that we face in the UK today. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his constructive engagement, along with his colleagues, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and others, including his Bill team. The Bill has had significant changes made to it, showing the way this Chamber can improve legislation. That can happen only when a Minister and the Government listen. All of us, I think, appreciate the way the Minister has engaged and made significant changes to the Bill to improve it. We are all grateful to him for that.
I also pay due respect to the contributions of many noble Lords across the House. I pay my respect to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who we have just heard from on the previous group of amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who I am pleased to see in his place. I think the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Pannick, have been significant and have helped to improve the Bill.
The Minister paid tribute to the intelligence and security services, as we all do, because we all have an interest in the security of our nation. We should note that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, have attended virtually the whole of the proceedings on this Bill. That says everything about the contributions they have made, but also it also sends a signal to the intelligence and security services to know that two former directors-general have spent all their time contributing to the Bill and advising people both in the Chamber and outside of it. That is of huge significance, not only to this Chamber but to our country. They deserve recognition for that.
I also thank my noble friends Lord West and Lady Hayter for their contributions throughout the Bill, which have helped our thinking as well. I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his—as I often say now—calming support to my more excitable personality. That helps me enormously in more ways than you can imagine. I also thank—I know they are not here—the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Marks, for their input, which helped to improve the Bill.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I must apologise that my noble friend Lord Purvis cannot be here with us today. He was coming down from the Borders, but he was unfortunately grounded by the winds at UK airports, so I am just standing in to pass on his thanks to the House.
At Second Reading, my colleagues raised concerns that, in many areas, this important Bill was not workable and, in others, seriously undermined civil liberties. However, we would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who in Committee listened, acted and then brought forward a series of government amendments to address them. My noble friend Lord Marks is also appreciative of the openness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, at the Ministry of Justice. The Bill leaves this House a better one than when it arrived, and it is a testament to the cross-party working that went into it. Of course, some issues remain, and we will continue to press on them.
My noble friend Lord Purvis would also like to thank all Members of the House who have participated, including the opposition team and the officials’ Bill team, for all their support and work during this Bill. On his behalf, I thank our own team, led by Elizabeth Plummer, who marshalled all our work supremely.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I saw my role in this Bill as representing the research sector to some extent, and I am very conscious—as I am sure the Minister is—of the delicate balance there is between the desirability of close international collaboration and sometimes having to collaborate with those who come from authoritarian countries that are not entirely friendly to us. The representatives of the research sector—the Royal Society and others—look forward to talking with the department about the guidance, which we hope will strike exactly the right balance in this delicate area between what needs to be done and not imposing deliberate bureaucracy.
I am sure that the Minister is aware from what we have seen in Georgia over the last two weeks—where there have been very serious riots against the Government caused by a foreign agents Bill, which is seen as a Russian attempt to gag the Government and the people of Georgia and to block their contact with the western world—that this is a delicate area. It is extremely difficult to get the right balance, and we hope that we have achieved in this House a much better balance than when the Bill was originally drafted.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Chamber will indulge me. I forgot to thank Ben Wood, who is our adviser. I apologise to him for that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
While the House is indulging, I also forgot to thank my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies of Gower, so I would like to place that on record. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy at the Ministry of Justice.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (13 Mar 2023)
Lord Foster of Bath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that any constituent council has, as part of a CCA, the same number of appointed elected members as any other constituent council.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 70 I am extremely conscious that it is a probing amendment to look at one aspect of the Government’s thinking on the creation and operation of CCAs. However, in many ways it is also a paving amendment for many of the other amendments in this group. Clause 8 confers on the Secretary of State, subject to the consent of the constituent parts of the proposed CCA, numerous powers in relation to it, ranging from membership and voting powers to the appointment and function of an executive of the CCA. It also covers the overview and scrutiny arrangements as well as the appointment of a mayor, where relevant, and of non-constituent and associate members. So it is very wide-ranging and to some extent, the amendments in this group touch on many of those issues.
It is important to begin by making it clear that, for we on these Benches, at least one issue is really important. Given their crucial role, not least in planning and economic development, we believe that district councils should be full members of any CCA. We have already moved amendments to that effect, as have other noble Lords, and we will continue to do so at later stages of the Bill. I note that, in Amendment 81 in this group, my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are also proposing a role for parish councils.
We have also been clear that the voting membership of a decision-making body such as a CCA should comprise only those who have been elected to it or one of the constituent organisations that makes it up. In simple terms, we believe that those who have to abide by a law or decision should have some say in deciding who makes those decisions; I certainly believe that that should be true of a second Chamber of this Parliament. For those reasons and many others, as my noble friend Lady Scott will no doubt discuss in a few minutes, we oppose the appointment of non-constituent and associate members to a CCA. We certainly feel, as expressed in Amendments 155 and 156 from my noble friend Lord Shipley, that if they are put in place, these unelected CCA members should not have a vote.
Even if we reach agreement on who should be constituent members of a CCA, there remains the crucial question of what the voting arrangements should be. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, I appreciate the concern that if, for example, district councils are allowed to become constituent members of a CCA, they could, because of their number, always outvote the other constituent members and, in effect, have a veto. It is therefore important that we are clear about how the voting arrangements will be made. Incidentally, I entirely accept that my probing Amendment 70 could lead to that very problem of district councils having a veto.
The Minister has already made it clear that the Government intend to allow CCAs to determine their own arrangements where possible. We broadly agree with this approach, but surely we need to be clear whether that freedom will extend totally to, for example, voting arrangements, without any restrictions on local decision-making. After all, subsection (2)(b) of Clause 8, which refers to the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations, states that regulations may—so it is possible for the Secretary of State to do this—cover
“the voting powers of members of the CCA (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.
Like my noble friend Lord Stunell, who will go into more detail on this at a later stage, we are concerned that, for example, setting aside a requirement that the CCA need not be constructed in accordance with the balance of political representation among the constituent members could lead to serious problems with its voting on the issues on which it makes decisions. Not limiting the number of associate members—who could, as we have heard, be given a vote—as per the current arrangement could also have a significant impact on the voting decisions of the CCA.
I am absolutely clear that while we support the Government’s principal intention of ensuring that decisions on these matters are made by the CCA itself, we need to be very clear what freedoms it will really have and what the implications of Clause 8(2)(b) really mean. No doubt, that clarity will come when the Minister winds up. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 81, which is the first of a number of amendments I have tabled that relate to the powers and duties of town and parish councils. In doing so, I declare an interest as the president of the National Association of Local Councils. These councils are well understood, well established and are a serious part of the fabric of local government. In some cases that is by virtue of size—they spend significant amounts of money—but in others it is about the role they play as, if you like, a convener of local interests, creating that sense of place which we know is so important in any venture that we might call levelling up.
When you talk to Governments of any persuasion and their Ministers, they always say nice things about this sector. They always say that it is very important and does great work, but when the legislation is drafted and the cheques are written, it always feels as though it is at the back of the queue. This is an example of new structures being created that, arguably, are to some extent devolutionary, but there is no mechanism for onward devolution to the town and parish council sector. So, this amendment simply argues that when it comes to the overview and scrutiny arrangements for the combined county authorities, there ought, as of right, to be a requirement for some involvement of this sector, perhaps through the county associations. Having this tier of local government represented would actually strengthen the overview and scrutiny function overall, and it would certainly strengthen the sector.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I rise to support Amendment 70, which was eloquently articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and to illustrate the problem of district councils that sit in boundary positions between county councils and, in some cases, regions. I live in Bassetlaw, and in Bassetlaw District Council the health authority extends into South Yorkshire. Therefore, representation in terms of the hospital trust comes from one district council, and, in terms of local governance, from the county of Nottinghamshire.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 81, spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. In doing so, I draw attention to my vice-presidency of the National Association of Local Councils, which I had the privilege of serving as president for many years, and my current joint presidency of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.
It is regrettable that, notwithstanding the status of neighbourhood plans as a material consideration in local planning structures, principal authorities often seem to be obliged to disregard them, despite having considerable agency in the production of these plans. I refer to the calling of referenda or, as sometimes seems equally likely, delaying of the calling, which I can only assume has sound reasons. It creates great problems, given that there is substantial commitment of time and no small amount of public money to the neighbourhood planning process.
As we move into other areas that will involve multiple local authorities, such as biodiversity net gain and water neutrality, I can see that it is perfectly legitimate for these to be dealt with at what you might call a superior level. But it remains absolutely essential that communities still have a voice, a view and a role in that particular decision-making format. If the Secretary of State’s comments mean anything when he refers to strengthening the role of communities, as I understood him to say some while back, it must be something other than lip service—something other than parishes and town councils being somehow left behind. When I say that neighbourhood plans are being disregarded, I think of the neighbouring parish to the parish in which I live, where precisely this has happened.
It is very important to understand the structure of town and parish councils, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, with their knowledgeable, highly engaged and often very effective interventions in local planning processes through their structure of county and district associations as well as the individual parishes. They should not be underrated. They have access to resources you would not believe. I have come across parishes in which top planning consultants happen to be residents. These people are highly engaged, highly knowledgeable and should be listened to. Parishes have moved along massively in the past 20 or 30 years. They really are the only structure that represents the community at this level. When you think about it, there is no other authority that extends down to that level of where people really live and do things in their work/life balance. If people feel disregarded, as do many residents in my part of West Sussex, it bodes ill for engagement, cohesion and, ultimately, the efficacy of national policies. I would not want that to go unstated in the context of the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendments 155 and 156 in my name. These are probing amendments because I think it is very important that the Government explain their intentions. Amendment 155 provides that non-constituent members of the combined authority are not able to vote, given their status, and Amendment 156 provides that associate members of a combined authority are not able to vote, given their status. On a previous day in Committee we addressed this issue, in part. However, the Government need to undertake some mature reflection about what is proposed here.
Giving a vote to somebody who is not a full member of a combined authority is unwise. My amendments provide that there should be no vote for anybody who is not a full member of the authority. The principle is that full members are voting members, and voting members are full members, but you cannot have full voting members when they are not full constituent members, as opposed to associate members, of the authority.
The voting structure between counties and districts as explained in the Bill would provide a route for resolving any impasse that might arise if votes were allocated on the basis of population. Of course, a county would have exactly 50% of the votes. If all the district councils voted against the county—one hopes it does not come to that—there would have to be some kind of system for a casting vote. The mayor would seem to be the way forward.
After reflecting on what we have been saying on previous days in Committee, to me it seems that district councils, which are responsible for planning and economic development matters, ought to be full members of a CCA. That seems to me to be the principle. It should not be at the discretion of the CCA, which does not have a district council member, to simply award a vote to that district council member when other district council members may not have a vote because, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on the previous day in Committee, when giving a vote to one non-constituent member or to an associate member, it does not follow that other associate or non-constituent members would have a vote.
So this is a probing amendment. It is complicated; I understand that. When in due course we reach Report, I just hope that the Government will be prepared to examine the structure they have proposed here. I have come to the conclusion that they should permit district councils within a CCA area to become full members. At that point, those full members would have a right to a full vote under their own terms of membership. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond to that, so that we can get a better feel of what we need to do on Report to bring in further clarification on this matter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we have a couple of amendments in this group, one in my name and one in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. First, Amendment 73 in my noble friend’s name would mean that a non-constituent member ceases to be a member when they form part of a different CCA.
We are aware that the Local Government Association has expressed concerns about this amendment. It has said that local areas should be able to “look both ways”—in other words, be a non-constituent member of more than one authority—if they have close economic or cultural ties with more than one combined authority or devolution deal area. It has also expressed concerns about the fact that it would set a precedent, contrary to the current plans for the city of York, which is currently a non-constituent member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority but would become a member of the new York and North Yorkshire mayoral combined authority.
I want to explain the thinking behind why we tabled this amendment, which is, of course, a probing amendment. It is of course understandable that local authority non-constituent members may wish to be part of more than one CCA. However, we believe, first, that district councils should be constituent, not non-constituent, members of a CCA, to ensure that they can play a full part in decision-making for their area—as other noble Lords have just said—and that this would include any budgetary and spatial development issues, and, secondly, that therefore they could then be a non-constituent member only in a CCA that was not their primary CCA.
We believe it must surely be the case that membership of a CCA is implicitly determined by the geography of an area. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State to have a pattern of overlapping CCAs across the country, will this not complicate the structure of local government rather than simplify and declutter the picture, which the Government have said they want to achieve?
Further to this, if we then have overlapping areas that are both combined mayoral authorities, to which mayor do the people of an area represented on more than one CCA relate? Can the Minister in his response clarify whether the population of that area get a vote in both mayoral elections, which of the mayors is responsible for delivering the economic development and/or regeneration of their area, and who is accountable?
This clause is predicated on the assumption that district council members are simply co-opted, junior partners in CCAs with no voting rights and only a passing interest in sitting in on meetings that they are not actively participating in. As has been said in debates on earlier amendments, we feel that this is, frankly, an insult to district councils.
As I said, my noble friend’s amendment is intended to probe why the Government appear to have set their face so firmly against the inclusion of district councils. Instead, we believe they should be at the heart of decision-making in CCAs since, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, they have powers over planning and economic development, not to mention that they are the councils with the highest percentage of public support. We strongly believe that they should be able to be full members.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments, which probes and challenges the membership of the CCA, and even existing combined authorities. It seems to me that there are three major principles that the amendments in this group are exploring; the first concerns whether the Government are determined to continue with democratic local government. There are proposals in the Bill for non-constituent members, which may be groups of businesses, rotary or chambers of trade, or trade unions, that are not elected locally, to be able to influence the spending of substantial sums of public money in their areas.
For me, the whole purpose of democracy is that those elected are those who are going to be accountable for decisions made about public funds—that seems to me to be a fundamental principle of local government. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Bill seem to be moving away from that basic principle by giving combined county authorities the ability to appoint associate members, who represent nobody but themselves, and indeed non-constituent members, who may not be members of an elected body such as a district, town or parish council. I would like to hear from the Minister the Government’s view on this and why these proposals are in the Bill.
The second principle is that of local. It seems that the Government, as perhaps were previous Governments, are intent on taking the “local” out of local government. The move to dismantle two tiers of local government and make them into unitaries moves the elected representatives away from their local area, because their wards are much larger in size. That leads me to support very much the proposals in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market about the involvement of town and parish councils within this system of combined authorities. It also leads me to support, the Committee will not be surprised to hear, the voices that have been heard across the Chamber on the important role of district councils within this system. They are the ones which, along with town and parish councils, are at the local level and they understand the economies and cultures of their areas. Those voices must be expressed in a higher or more remote tier of government.
The third principle that has been expressed today is proportionality. What we cannot allow—because, again, it is undemocratic to do so—is to move away from the convention of proportionality. We cannot accept that voices from other political backgrounds will not be given a chance to express those views within a combined authority.
I look forward to what the Minister is going to say about membership, voting arrangements and proportionality, and about the role of district, town and parish councils, because for me this is absolutely fundamental to any proposal for devolution. Devolution is a nonsense if it just results in another remote body that bears no relationship to its local area. If people cannot express their concerns or propose ideas, it is just another way of doing things to people rather than involving them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the other concerns is that such members cannot then be voted out if people do not agree with them being there?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
That is my fundamental principle. Anyone who makes decisions about public money has to be voted for; they have to be an elected member. The whole point is that they are then accountable for the decisions they make and can, quite rightly, be kicked out of office if local people do not agree with what they have done. That is the point and if you have non-elected members of these combined authorities who cannot be ejected from office for the decisions they have made, we are no longer a democratic country.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords have explained, this group of amendments considers various aspects of the membership of combined county authorities and combined authorities, and the voting rights of members.
Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, seeks to require equal membership for all the members of a combined county authority, removing the flexibility that the Bill currently provides. I listened carefully to the noble Lord but I have to come back to a point that I made in an earlier debate: it is vital that the primary legislation on combined county authority membership retains this flexibility and enables the local area to make the decision about membership.
The practice within the existing combined authority model illustrates why. It is very common for the constituent councils of the existing combined authority model to have equal membership, but this is not always the case. For example, in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, each constituent council nominates one member of the authority and collectively they agree another three members so as to achieve political balance. This would not be possible if the legislation was amended as proposed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am finding some of this slightly confusing, so I wonder whether the noble Earl could clarify something. Is he confirming, first, that district councils can be constituent members, and not just non-constituent members? Secondly, did he just say that all district councils will be able to be members? I would just like clarification.
Earl Howe (Con)
It may be helpful if I cover the issue of district councils in a moment when I come to Amendments 155 and 156. I will do my best when I do so.
Amendment 127A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the requirements in relation to public consultations on proposals to change a combined county authority. We are in complete agreement that public consultation on a proposal to change a combined county authority is important. However, the amendment questions an important part of the safeguard that Clause 46 has in place to ensure that such a consultation is sufficient.
I will explain. As the provision is currently written, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation on changing a combined county authority unless three factors are met: first, that a proposal has been prepared under Clause 45; secondly, that a public consultation on the proposal has been carried out and a summary of it submitted to the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, that the Secretary of State considers that no further consultation is necessary—namely, that the consultation which has been carried out is sufficient. The amendment, as I take it, probes the process involved in the third factor. I tried my best to cover that in the letter I sent to all noble Lords who spoke in our previous Committee session.
In essence, the issue here is that the Secretary of State, in deciding whether a prior consultation has been sufficient or insufficient, has to look at several things: what the consultation consisted of; whether it followed the Cabinet Office guidance for public consultations sufficiently well; and, in that regard, whether it covered the necessary groups of people that it should cover, which is one of the principles set out in the Cabinet Office rules. So the public consultation would involve not only residents but key stakeholders, such as district councils, local businesses, public sector bodies, and voluntary and community sector organisations. A summary of those responses has to be presented to the Secretary of State when the proposal is submitted, together with any amendments that the proposing councils wish to make to the proposal in the light of the consultation. So the consideration the Secretary of State has to undertake is a combination of making sure that the principles laid down for consultations have been followed and looking at the evidence that has been presented. I hope that is of help to the noble Baroness.
I turn now to Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which have similar effects, as he explained. Amendment 155 would remove the ability of a combined authority to resolve to allow non-constituent members voting rights on certain matters. Amendment 156 would apply the same restriction to a combined authority’s associate members. Both non-constituent and associate members are non-voting members by default, but we have enabled the combined authority to give them voting rights on most matters, should they wish to do so. For example, a combined authority may have provided for there to be a non-constituent member of a neighbouring council to enable their input on matters which may have cross-boundary effects.
I listened with care, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who expressed some severe reservations about this idea. However, it is entirely possible that a combined authority may have provided for an associate member—for example, a local business leader—to enable their input on matters which may have an impact on businesses in the combined authority’s area.
The combined authority may wish to maximise this input by allowing both non-constituent and associate members to vote on such relevant matters. The process for doing this would be set out in the combined authority’s local constitution, with the decision being made by the authority. As I have alluded to, there is a good example of this. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, expressed the view that district councils should be allowed a seat at the table and a vote. The Government have allowed for this to happen, albeit not in the way that the noble Lord has suggested, but as a non-constituent member.
We will be coming to a later group, consisting partly of Amendment 125A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when we can perhaps discuss the issue of district councils in a little more depth. But it is also one of the topics that I suggest to noble Lords we cover in the round-table discussion which I proposed in our last Committee session, and which is now in the course of being arranged.
I should add that, very importantly, the decision by a combined authority to give any non-constituent members and/or associate members voting rights could be scrutinised by the authority’s overview and scrutiny committee to ensure due process is being followed. I suggest to the noble Lord that what we are proposing will not be without checks and balances.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The Minister has given one example of a constituent council—a council outside the area of the CCA becoming a constituent council because there are cross-boundary issues. But that is the only one I have heard him come up with, and I had assumed there would many other examples of why this structure is being created.
I also have concerns about the associate member category. The Minister said, and I hope I understood him correctly, that a business leader in the area might be co-opted as an associate member, who would then be given a vote. Do the Government think that wise, in terms of public perception? I suspect that the public might have some doubts. I do not understand why giving them the vote is so important. I can understand a business leader advising as an associate, or simply being in attendance, which is a common category in meetings, but not actually having a vote.
I will not extend this debate, but I hope that when we have the round-table discussion we can get to the bottom of the reasons for votes being given to those who are not full members of the combined authority.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sure that we can cover those issues in more depth at the round table. I think it is worth bearing in mind that if the local councils themselves have any doubts or reservations about the appropriateness of giving voting rights to an individual, they do not have to go down that road. It would be only by agreement that this would happen. They would see a value and a purpose in granting such rights.
Lord Bach (Lab)
What could the value be in an outsider—someone who is not elected as part of the authority—having a vote? Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of it being valuable for them to vote. Their advice, of course, would be important and the traditions of local government are that that advice would be listened to. But I think a vote is the thing that some of us find difficult to accept.
Earl Howe (Con)
I gave one example, which was a district council that might have particular interests; another might be a university. An integrated care partnership might have major interests in what was being debated or decided. There could be circumstances where a vote by a representative of such organisations could be seen as the right thing to do in the circumstances. Again, I think this is worth my following up in subsequent discussions. I sense that there is considerable uncertainty and hesitation about this provision.
In summary, the Government’s view is that the course proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would undermine a combined authority’s ability to work in collaboration with local stakeholders, in the fullest sense, and experts who can contribute positively to the working of the combined authority and collectively ensure the best outcomes for the area and its residents. I hope that my explanatory comments are helpful, as far as they go, although I am conscious that they will not have satisfied noble Lords entirely. For the time being, I hope too that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 70.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the whole House is inordinately grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for genuinely listening to what people say and seeking to provide responses to our questions. Nevertheless, he has just acknowledged how complicated this Bill is and how much murk still remains to be resolved. We are therefore particularly grateful that he acknowledges that these issues can be raised again not only at a later stage but in the round table that he now assures us has moved some way towards being formed.
I do not want to dwell on all the points raised, but I pick up very briefly on the contributions by my noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Both have been doughty campaigners for parish councils and the crucial role they often play in our communities, not least, in many cases, in driving forward neighbourhood plans but, as my noble friend pointed out, through their convening powers. It would be helpful to hear in more detail the Minister’s thoughts on where exactly he sees them fitting into the structure.
The key thing that has yet again been raised today, even though it is not directly related to any of the amendments in this group, is the passionate belief in many parts of your Lordships’ House that district councils have a crucial role to play. It was great to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mann, a passionate supporter of Bassetlaw District Council, promoting the contributions that all district councils can make.
We will have an opportunity to raise these issues again in considering other groups. However, while the Minister has said time and again that he is great believer in devolution of power and getting rid of central diktat—I applaud that approach—I say carefully to him that, unless we get the mechanisms right and are clear about exactly what the Government will or will not permit through the various regulations, there is a real danger that we could move from central diktat to party-political diktat in a particular area.
Much confusion still remains. The noble Earl, in his letter to many of us, said that the enfranchisement arrangements for other categories of membership would be determined through a unanimous decision-making system whereby all constituent parts would have a clear vote. However, Clause 10(2), for example, does not say that there has to be unanimity on such decisions. We can deal with issues such as this at a later stage, and my noble friend Lord Stunell certainly intends to probe the Minister in more detail. Given that we have these further opportunities, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“(d) to make its reports public whenever the overview and scrutiny committee believes publication to be in the public interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the CCA cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 79, 82, 83, and 84. All these amendments relate to audit and scrutiny, and issues that I think are extremely important if the public are to have confidence in the combined county structure, but those principles, of course, apply to any structure in local government and to any combined authority structure.
Amendment 77 would ensure that the combined county authority cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee. This is a probing amendment, for the Minister to explain that indeed it is possible, as I propose in Amendment 77, that an overview and scrutiny committee can
“make its reports public whenever the overview and scrutiny committee believes publication to be in the public interest”.
I simply seek the Minister’s confirmation that is actually what is intended, because I do not think it is actually in the Bill—maybe the words are there and I have simply missed them.
Amendment 79 in my name would prevent a CCA restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason. I think this is really important because an overview and scrutiny committee must have independence to operate without undue influence by the parent committee. Therefore, my amendment simply says that a CCA cannot unreasonably withhold permission for some work of the overview and scrutiny committee taking place.
Amendment 82 relates to whether recent members of a political party can qualify as “an appropriate person”. Amendment 83 is on the same subject or principle. It seems to me that the Bill actually permits someone to be appointed as “an appropriate person” the day after they have resigned from a political party. I have proposed five years: if you are really going to be “an appropriate person”, surely you can be appropriate only if you are not recently associated with an individual political party—five years is a probing proposal; some other period might be relevant. I feel very strongly that you cannot have people appointed as an appropriate person who have very recently been a member, perhaps a prominent member, of any political party. I hope the Minister will be able to put my concerns at rest.
Amendment 84 would enhance public confidence in the audit process by increasing the number of independent people on the audit committees. At the moment, the Government have put one person in the Bill. I think one person is inadequate. What if there were one person and that person’s only contribution to a meeting was to apologise for their absence? I have proposed three people: then if somebody is not present at a meeting, at least somebody is more likely to be present. The general public are now increasingly aware of some of the problems around the audit process in local government: I think that six local councils are now in special measures under the Treasury.
One of the reasons the public have concern is that they are being asked, in some places, to pay much higher levels of council tax to make up for losses that the council has created. The audit function—as opposed to just the overview and scrutiny function—really does matter. To have only one person appointed as an independent person seems to me to be insufficient. Given the concerns that can arise so very quickly about investments and the administration of current expenditure that may go wrong, audit committees play a very important role in giving the public confidence that the taxes they pay are being properly spent. I hope very much the Minister can indicate that the Government understand why just a single independent member of an audit committee is not sufficient. I hope she will confirm that there will be at least two independent people—though I would prefer three, it could be that there should be four or five—for that is the basis of audit. It is and should be run on the basis of independence. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest in farming as set out in the register.
I rise to speak on Amendment 80, and I will continue with my theme I brought up on Amendment 33 in Clause 2 about rural proofing. The levelling-up Bill is an opportunity to correct the systemic failings in the Government’s rural policy development. Defra is often seen as being responsible for rural policy but does not actually have the remit to change economic and social policies in the countryside other than on the environment, farming, fishing and forestry. The cross-departmental objectives set out in this Bill should now enable serious rural policy-making to level up that part of our community in both social and economic terms.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the combined county authorities are structured in a manner that enables them to review or scrutinise decisions which have rural implications, with relevant and experienced knowledge at their disposal. A lack of awareness and understanding of the special challenges facing rural communities is very much exemplified in the development and implementation of the rural England prosperity fund. Local authorities’ strategies for using this fund to exploit the potential of the rural economy are not clear, and their engagement with rural businesses has been scant. By ensuring that the overview and scrutiny committees of combined county authorities have the power to appoint rural sub-committees, a better understanding of the needs of rural challenges—from housing to education to transport to connectivity—will be embedded at the grass roots. This would lead to better local authority engagement with rural households and businesses, enhancing their understanding of the workings of the rural economy and rural livelihoods. Please can the Minister give her support to this amendment in the interests of confirming that and enabling rural issues to be properly considered in wider policy-making.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am a serving district and county councillor and a vice-president of the District Councils’ Network.
I will speak to our Amendments 78 and 85 and will comment also on some of the other amendments in this group. Many in this House who have connections with local government will be very aware of the significant issues in relation to formal audit over the last three years. This has been the result of a number of issues in the private sector audit regime that we now have, including the increasing complexity of local authority accounts and the resultant demands on training, the recruitment and retention of staff, and rapidly increasing fees, to name just a few factors that have been experienced by the private audit sector. In fact, it was estimated last year that only 9% of local authorities had been able to have their 2021 audits completed on time.
Audit is really vital, as the noble Lord said just now. It provides public reassurance and confidence for both members and officers, and more particularly for the public. It is disappointing that the Bill does nothing to address that issue. However, the amendments in this section are aimed at ensuring that scrutiny within the CCA is as powerful and independent as it can be, which should, in turn, mean that audit is effective and can develop a high level of confidence among members and the public.
Turning first to our Amendment 78, this is needed because of the proposals in the Bill that effectively exclude district councillors from being voting members of the CCA itself. I appreciate that we have some work to do to clarify that point. The fundamental impact of the decisions taken by the CCA must, therefore, be able to be scrutinised effectively by members with a detailed local knowledge of their area. As chairs of overview and scrutiny review the decisions of their own councils’ executive committees on a regular basis, they will have a good working knowledge of the strategic planning for their areas, and therefore will be able to assess the likely impact of decisions taken by the CCA.
There is a precedent for this. For example, in the policing panels, which scrutinise the work and budgets of police and crime commissioners, all districts in a PCC’s area are entitled to be present. It is not intended that this amendment would prevent other members being appointed to an overview and scrutiny committee—for example independent members, as referred to in Amendment 84, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
I turn now to our Amendment 85. This relates to the sharing of best practice on scrutiny, and there is some very good advice and support on scrutiny available from the Centre for Public Scrutiny. It will be vital to the successful operation of the CCA that best practice from around the country is shared among the committees. We appreciate that this is not necessarily the role of the Secretary of State, but it could be made clear in guidance to overview and scrutiny committees that they should give consideration regularly to how they operate and how they assimilate best practice.
I will now comment, if I may, on some of the amendments tabled by other noble Lords. We support Amendment 77, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which is designed to strengthen the role of overview and scrutiny in relation to CCAs. The Labour Party has long been advocating that local public accounts committees could be a way of pulling together local scrutiny of the impact of both national and local policy-making and decision-making on local areas. This would be a first step towards ensuring that overview and scrutiny committees have a level of independence from the CCA. The membership of these committees also needs to be carefully considered.
Turning to Amendment 79, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the fact that overview and scrutiny committees must be able to carry out their work without influence, and I totally support that. The overview and scrutiny committees must be completely unfettered from any interference from the CCA, including such devices as setting out workplans for them or prohibiting them from scrutinising any aspect of work undertaken by the CCA. Neither should the CCA be able to determine the process used by the overview and scrutiny committees. For example, if the committees wish to call witnesses, including members of the CCA, they should be able to do so. We would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification that it is the intention that overview and scrutiny committees are entitled to carry out their scrutiny of the CCA in any way that they determine will achieve effective scrutiny.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raise some important issues around the way in which rural issues—such as housing, education, transport, rural economies and so on—often differ from those that are the main consideration of a CCA. We should support the freedom of a CCA to create any sub-committee that is relevant to the work that it undertakes. If it helps to have a rural sub-committee specifically listed to ensure that rural issues are considered by a CCA, that is no bad thing. This is particularly useful where the CCA covers an area that is largely urban but contains smaller rural areas, as it will ensure that issues relevant to rurality are properly considered and reported back to the CCA. A report from one of our own Lords committees, on rural communities, showed that, on the whole, local enterprise partnerships are not great at delivering for rural areas, so the need for that sort of committee of a CCA is well evidenced.
Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is a belt-and-braces amendment, if noble Lords will forgive the expression, to ensure that, should a Member have recently crossed the Floor from one political party to another—meaning that they would have had very recent contact with the mayor, their decision-making processes and strategy—they are not then placed in a position to be able to scrutinise the mayor’s actions. It truly is belt and braces because, in my experience, people who change their political party do so because of disenchantment with where they have been, so it is possible that they may be the best critics of the mayor and their administration. However, this amendment would ensure that there could be no deliberate manipulation of the scrutiny function.
Similar to Amendment 82, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would mean that, if there is no party with an outright majority on the CCA, the chair of overview and scrutiny should not be a member of either of the parties that may hold the majority together. Depending on local circumstances, this might be difficult if, for example, a third or fourth party is very much in the minority and may not be able to put forward a chair. In those circumstances, it might be necessary to make provision for an independent chair; the fact that we need to continue to discuss this means that there are issues here that continue to need resolution.
The LGA has made some extensive comments on Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is worth recording what it has said about having independent co-opted members on audit committees; it is certainly in favour of it. It states:
“Having multiple co-optees enables them to have complementary skills (eg finance, risk management, governance) … The constitutional rules should still require the majority of audit committee members to be elected members. This is for two reasons”—
which are fairly obvious to me but perhaps they are not always so obvious. They are that
“audit committees are fulfilling a role delegated by elected members … who are jointly and severally ‘those charged with governance’, and … elected members represent the community and are in a unique position not enjoyed by independent co-optees to understand what the concerns of local people are in relation to assurance”.
So, although we would support the increase in transparency provided by an increased number of independent members participating in an audit committee for all the reasons that the LGA and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have highlighted, we question the need to have a specific number when the Bill already states that “at least” one member of an audit committee is an independent member. Perhaps it should be for the CCA to determine its preference for the number of independent members, based on the particular skills base that it feels it needs to carry out the audit role. In time, we feel that good practice would be developed by CCA audit committees as they understand what particular skills are needed in relation to CCA audit work; we are sure that they would be supported by national bodies such as the LGA in sharing good practice.
Another important issue arises here: the question of remuneration, which the LGA has raised. Independent members of a CCA audit committee are likely to be necessarily highly skilled individuals in, for example, finance, risk management and/or governance. While one could expect that they will give a certain proportion of their time for community benefit, it seems unreasonable to expect that they would carry out this role without any remuneration at all. Although the cost of the remuneration of independent members is likely to be minimal in the context of the overall budget of the CCA, consideration should be given to this at the initiation of the CCA so that the roles can be properly defined and recruited. The availability of the necessary skills in any particular area can be decided only in practice.
I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a member of Kirklees Council and one who has served on its audit committee for a number of years. Scrutiny and audit are close to my heart. My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised some important issues about scrutiny—about the importance of an appropriate person not being seen as a political nominee, because that would undermine the whole purpose of scrutiny, taking an independent view of the decision-making process in the combined authority.
The second thing, which has not yet been explored, is that scrutiny can be post decision-making and pre decision-making. In strategic decisions made by a combined county authority or a combined authority, the primary duty of a scrutiny committee ought to be pre-decision scrutiny, because that is one way of ensuring a very detailed look at what is proposed—through a semi-independent committee one step removed from the decision-makers in the combined authority. I look forward to what the Minister will say on that and whether emphasis could be put on pre-decision scrutiny, particularly in this role.
The audit function has been illustrated by my noble friend Lord Shipley, who pointed out the number of councils that are failing in their financial status because auditors fail to pick up what is going on there. There are two elements of audit, though, which, again, have not been explored today or indeed in the Bill. One is internal audit, which ought to be primarily the duty of elected members, and the other is external audit, where the appointed external auditors of every council have a very important role at looking at where deficiencies might occur and where decisions being made by the council pose a substantial risk to its future. I totally support the views expressed by all Members who have spoken so far about the importance of having independent experts on those committees from a financial, audit or risk sector to support and advise the committee, but in the end, it is the decision of the elected members. It is them who have to carry the can, quite rightly: if they make poor decisions and fail to expose issues of concern in their councils, they too must be held accountable. I look forward to what the Minister will say on those issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to scrutiny of combined county authorities. I think that we all agree that effective scrutiny of a combined county authority, as with any other local authority, is a key aspect in providing the strong accountability that we all wish to see. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is absolutely right: it is about not just scrutiny after the event but overview before the event as well, as any good local authority would be doing at the time. I also say this to her: the Bill makes provision for payments of allowances to local authority members who sit on overview and scrutiny, and audit, committees.
Noble Lords will be aware that Schedule 1 provides the underpinning processes for holding a combined county authority to account. Through Amendment 77 the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, wishes to put provisions in the Bill requiring a combined county authority to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee if that committee believes that publication of that report is in the public interest.
I reassure the noble Lord that Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 provides powers to require the publication of reports of a committee or sub-committee of a principal council, including overview and scrutiny committees. Schedule 4 to the Bill amends Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 to apply these provisions to combined county authorities. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord that further amendments in this area are not necessary.
Amendment 78 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. We absolutely agree on the importance of overview and audit, as I have said. We recognise that it could be appropriate for representatives from district councils within a combined county authority’s area to be members of a CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee. However, our approach is that this issue of representation is best decided locally. The Bill provides for combined county authorities to invite representatives of district councils, along with other appropriate persons, to be members of their overview and scrutiny committees. The powers are already available to achieve what she seeks.
I recognise that the noble Baroness is perhaps seeking to place a requirement on combined county authorities to ensure that chairs of overview and scrutiny committees of district councils in the CCA areas have to be members of the CCA overview and scrutiny committees. As we have said many times, we prefer a localist approach of enabling those in the area the ability to form their scrutiny committees, rather than dictating this from central government.
Amendment 79 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to prevent a combined county authority restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason. The provisions in this schedule mirror exactly for the combined county authorities the overview and scrutiny arrangements in place for combined authorities. It is important to ensure consistency in approach to robust accountability across all those authorities that have functions and funding conferred to them from the Government.
As with combined authorities and local authorities, combined county authorities are public bodies required by public law to act reasonably in making decisions. It is only right that each combined county authority should be able to decide its own overview and scrutiny committee operational arrangements which best match its local circumstances. This is what this provision in the schedule does.
These operational arrangements will be set out in a combined county authority’s local constitution, to which it and all its members are bound. As such, there is no requirement for this amendment. A CCA cannot withhold an overview and scrutiny committee’s powers. Without such proposals in place that have been consented to by all parties, overview and scrutiny committees will not be able to undertake their role effectively.
Amendment 80 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who I thank for being the voice of rural committees, which are extremely important. This amendment seeks to give combined county authorities’ overview and scrutiny committees the ability to establish a rural sub-committee. I see that is very important for many county authorities, and I can confirm that the existing provisions enable a combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee to do this, should it wish. Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 allows a CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee to appoint one or more sub-committees, and they could, of course, be rural sub-committees.
Amendments 82 and 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, are about the chairs of overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees. Schedule 1 sets out that a chair of a combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee has to be of a different political party than the mayor in the case of a mayoral CCA and of a different political party to the majority of members in the case of a non-mayoral CCA or an independent person. These amendments seek to provide an additional criterion that the chair cannot have been a member of the same political party as either the mayor or majority of members for a non-mayoral combined county authority for a period of five years prior to appointment.
While we agree with the noble Lord that overview and scrutiny committees are an important part of the accountability process, we believe this amendment to be an unnecessary extra hurdle. Potential chairs’ credentials should be treated on the basis of their current political membership, or lack of it in the case of an independent chair. This is a consistent approach throughout local government. There are no requirements to look back over previously political membership, and we do not think there should be one in these new arrangements.
Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, looks to increase the minimum number of independent members of a combined county authority’s audit committee to three. The Government believe that devolution should be locally led, as I have said many times, and recognise that greater functions and funding must come with strong accountability. The Government’s policy approach is to allow each combined county authority the flexibility to decide its own operational arrangements for its audit committee to best match the arrangements to local circumstances. Currently, this allows CCAs to decide how many independent persons should be appointed to an audit committee, providing that there is at least one independent member.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, brought up the issue of who will be the members of audit committees. The regulations that will establish combined county authorities will set out audit committee arrangements. They will provide that, where practical, the membership of an audit committee reflects the political balance of the constituent councils of the combined county authority. Membership may not include any officer from the combined county authority or the combined county authority’s constituent councils. We await that further information on membership. The amendment that the noble Lord seeks to introduce would take away some of this flexibility, which might not best fit the local circumstances of the combined county authority.
Finally in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, tabled Amendment 85, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate the sharing of best practice between overview and scrutiny and audit committees of combined county authorities. We recognise that sharing best practice makes an important contribution to the delivery of effective scrutiny functions across the local government sector as a whole. However, we believe that this works best where best practice sharing is locally led rather being a diktat from above.
When they are established, combined county authorities will become part of a broader local government framework and will receive support in developing and improving scrutiny functions. The existing combined authorities are already working together to share best practice between their organisations, including considering effective scrutiny. This includes via the M10 network, which is led by the combined authorities but which government engages with regularly.
Combined authorities are also supported in their work on scrutiny by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny, which looks at specific challenges across all local government, including combined authorities, and works with them to enhance the effectiveness of their scrutiny. Once established, combined county authorities will also be able to operate and share best practice in a similar way to those authorities already in place. I hope the noble Baroness agrees that—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope the Minister will excuse me. I find that response about the sharing of best practice a little confusing. What we were trying to understand was how the work across the CCA picture nationally would be shared. I am not clear how that will work across the piece—across the country. There will, clearly, be the development of good practice in audit and scrutiny. Is it intended that that will sit within a framework such as, for example, the Local Government Association? Where will it sit, and how will those authorities be able to share what they are doing properly and effectively?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
For a start, they will still be members of the Local Government Association, I assume, as will their members; so there is that route. As we have said, the combined authorities already in existence are already joining together themselves and sharing good practice. I would imagine that the CCAs and further combined authorities will also be doing that sort of sharing of best practice. The department will obviously keep a close eye on a new structure, work with those local authorities and be able to share any good practice from that as well. As usually happens with change, everybody wants to get together to see how it is going. I can give your Lordships an example of when I took a local authority to a unitary authority, and other authorities were going to unitary authorities at the same time. We all joined together and shared best practice. It did not have to be imposed on us; we did it as a matter of course. I think local government is good at doing that and will continue to do so into these new ways of working.
I hope the noble Baroness will agree that, as the work currently undertaken elsewhere should be locally led, there is no need to place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate the sharing of best practice between combined county authorities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I think the issues raised across the Committee on this group have been understood by the Government, including the concern that audit and scrutiny are seen by the general public to have been properly and appropriately carried out; that is a joint objective that we have. I would now, simply, like to read Hansard tomorrow and see exactly what has been said by everybody. We may have something further that we want to address on Report but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(4) A CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This means that a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the current local authority funding gap running at over £7 billion a year and much of the supposed increase trumpeted by the Government having to come from the pockets of already hard-pressed council tax payers, it is somewhat disappointing, as I have said before in this Chamber, that the Bill seems largely to overlook the underlying issues of the underfunding of local government generally and the fact that funding is not distributed fairly according to need.
That is key to the Bill, because those financial issues represent a barrier to the Government achieving their ambitions of levelling up. Indeed, the current rounds of bidding to get funding for levelling up only further add to the problem, because the authorities with the resources to put together the shiny bids that appear to be favoured are not always the ones with the most need. In that respect the Government are, at worst, turning the whole concept of levelling up upside down, and, at best, are applying sticking plasters to the gaping wounds of underfunding in our communities.
As a local government leader for 17 years, I can say from first-hand experience that the drastic savings that have been imposed on local authorities since 2010 mean that what has been achieved is all the more impressive. All major projects coming before any council are subject to detailed analysis of how the outcomes will be measured and monitored. That includes environmental, legal and equalities impacts and, especially, financial costs. At a time when even our Conservative County Council are announcing that it has exhausted all options in meeting its budget deficit, I hope the Minister will reflect on how we can better enable local councils to level up our areas. We are proposing a number of amendments in an attempt to address this deficit, and the amendments in this group would be the start of that process.
On Amendment 87, with a local government regime that is already incredibly regressive—from the benefit from council tax being skewed to those areas that are already better off to the many recently introduced funding pots which, as I said, enable those authorities with the resources to prepare the best bids regardless of the needs of the area—it is vital that there is a process to ensure the accountability and integrity of funding directed to CCAs. The publication of an annual statement would enable clear scrutiny to take place, both between and within CCA areas. It would also have the effect of making the funding of CCAs far more transparent for public purposes, as it would enable the CCA and the Government to demonstrate what funding had been allocated.
The second part of the amendment would take that transparency one step further, in that it asks for the annual statement to have a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate whether the funding allocated to the CCA is achieving the stated aims. Again, that would provide a good opportunity for internal scrutiny via the overview and scrutiny committee, which we discussed earlier this afternoon, and for the public to be assured that the funding provided to the CCA was achieving the aims of levelling up and the strategic objectives that the CCA had set for itself.
The national benefit of these statements would be that, once consolidated, they would provide a national picture of funding, the way that funding was allocated and why, and the benefits that were being delivered through that funding. I would like to think that the discipline of reporting on an annual basis would also ensure that, where bidding pots still got allocated—much as I might prefer funding to be done in a different way—there would be clear criteria for and assessment of those bids, with measurable outcomes, so that these could be reported in the annual statement.
On Amendment 123, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, while the clause in the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to requiring the mayor to maintain a fund in relation to receipts arising from, and liabilities incurred in, the exercise of general functions, and about the preparation of an annual budget, it is not clear whether that power for the Secretary of State extends to subsequently scrutinising that budget and fund in Parliament. Our contention is that local government, including any CCAs set up under this Bill, is already subject to extensive scrutiny through the overview and scrutiny committees internally, and externally through the audit process. So we would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on whether there is to be a further layer of scrutiny set up in relation to CCA budgets.
Amendment 172, submitted in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talks about this fair funding review—and I feel fairly strongly about this. The fair funding review has been under discussion for at least five years to my knowledge, and probably longer than that. It was delayed again in October 2022. The methodology we currently have for allocations is both flawed and completely out of date. For example, it takes traffic flows from 2011, unemployment data which is 10 years old, highways data which is 20 years old, and census data—and, as we all know, the census is undertaken only every 10 years and so is nearly always too out of date for allocating funding via that formula. Additionally, we all know about the failure to reset property values, which means that we are using property values from 1991.
Average council tax as a share of disposable income in London is the lowest in the UK. That does not mean that there are not areas of deprivation in London, of course—some of the most deprived areas in the country are there—but it is just over half of that in Yorkshire and the Humber, and in the north-east. So, in a dynamic economy and at a time of a cost of living crisis, this outdated and flawed approach, which penalises and exacerbates economic equalities, will not do—it is the exact opposite of levelling up. Our amendment is there to suggest that we need to get on with this fair funding review and get it enacted quickly, because we have got no chance of levelling anything up unless we get this fair funding review completed.
There have been comments from the LGA, which supports the fact that the fair funding review needs to be done. It makes a very good point that there needs to be enough time to allow formal consultation with local authorities, but I cannot believe that, after five years of working on this, that could not be done fairly quickly. When the review does happen, it needs to consider both the data and formulae used to distribute funding, and the Government need to ensure that overall local government funding is sufficient when the new-needs formulae are introduced. That will ensure that no council sees its funding reduced and that there are transitional arrangements for any business rates reset. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I think that these are three very important amendments, and my name appears on Amendment 172. It goes without saying that the fair funding review has been undertaken for too long and that it is reasonable that within one year of this Bill being enacted the publication of the fair funding review should happen. I also think that the other amendments are very important, but Amendment 87 really matters because it says that
“a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions”.
In other words, is the right amount of money being given to undertake the tasks which the CCA is due to undertake?
All of this relates to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Scriven and myself that relates to fiscal policy. There is an issue that we need to debate about fiscal policy and the powers of CCAs—we have the concept now of “trailblazer authorities” and I think the trend is a good one. Nevertheless, I want to be reassured that Ministers understand that local authorities cannot be expected to undertake things, and nor can CCAs, unless the local authorities or CCAs are able to fund them. For that reason, all three amendments in this group seem to me to be particularly important.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present on the first group that the Committee discussed today, courtesy of Avanti trains. We now have three very important amendments, which go to the heart of whether levelling up can be achieved. It cannot be achieved unless there is a massive input of finances to local authorities and to CCAs in order to achieve it.
We all know how the system works at the moment. When this place signs off on an Act of Parliament which places new duties and responsibilities on local authorities, government Ministers are always quick to say, “This will all be covered by the new burdens doctrine”. That means that the new cost will be assessed in Whitehall, by some process which is more or less invisible to the general public, and a number will be added to the amount of grant which is then allocated by Whitehall to local authorities. Putting it more accurately, the original amount will be subdivided so that the new burdens are one fraction of it and the reduced grant overall, because of the economic situation, is the other. In other words, there is no extra money at all because the envelope of money has been predetermined by the Treasury and is simply divided one way or another.
Perhaps the key point in what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said was about the need for much more transparency on that funding relationship between central government and its decision-makers in Whitehall and the recipients of their decisions—the CCAs and local authorities. These three amendments are ways of establishing a process which would begin to deliver that. I very much hope that, in replying, the noble Earl will be able to give us some comfort that the message has been heard.
I say to the Government Front Bench that, if we could have some assurance that the new burdens doctrine was going to mean a genuine increase of funds for additional processes, we would have much more confidence that the levelling-up process could deliver, rather than simply reapportioning a few crumbs on the side of the plate from one place to another. It is about that process of funding the Government’s ambitions on levelling up; we really need to have some certainty that they have that process clearly in focus and in mind. We shall otherwise pass in due course, no doubt, a Bill that we all know will not provide a route for funding the initiatives which are absolutely essential if it is to succeed.
Turning quickly to the three amendments in front of us, I have characterised the first as a fair funding audit of local authorities which, it seems to me, would reveal at the local level some of the issues that I have just described. Increasingly large burdens are being placed on local authorities and combined authorities to achieve certain outcomes, but the Government are withholding money which would allow the authorities to deliver those.
Amendment 123 is asking about parliamentary oversight. I shall be very interested to hear how the Minister chooses to answer that. There is a great pressure—this was the topic we were talking about on the previous group—on auditing the performance of local authorities when they spend and allocate money, and when they undertake their risk assessments, but there is less investigation of how the Government are handling their side of that equation. Maybe there is indeed scope for enhanced visibility and transparency and parliamentary oversight of that process.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the budgets and funding of combined county authorities and the scrutiny of them. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of a combined county authority’s funding, including in relation to any new functions.
The Government fully recognise the importance of transparency with regard to allocations of funding and regular reporting on the impact of wider and deeper devolution. That is why we introduced a measure to that effect in the Cities and Local Devolution Act 2016. This provision requires the Government to produce an annual report on progress with devolution that covers the areas suggested by the noble Baroness’s amendment; namely, funding and regular progress reporting on devolution of additional public functions. Combined authorities and local authorities are already covered by this provision. We laid a consequential amendment, government Amendment 152, on 9 February that will bring combined county authorities into its scope. I hope that is helpful to the noble Baroness.
It is also worth noting that combined county authorities will be subject to the same accounting and audit provisions as combined authorities and individual local authorities. Government Amendment 151, laid on 9 February, extends the provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to combined county authorities. These provisions include the requirement for them to have locally audited annual accounts available for public inspection on request. Taken together, these measures will ensure that combined county authorities operate in a transparent manner and are held to account for successful delivery in the same way that other institutions in England with devolved powers already are. The Government therefore feel that there are effective, proportionate reporting mechanisms already in place for combined county authorities that will cover what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve.
I read Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as probing whether Parliament will be able to scrutinise CCA budgets. I agree with what the noble Baroness said: combined county authority mayors and their budgets should be subject to scrutiny. Where I differ from her is that I believe that it should be a local matter. If it is to be worth the name, devolution should combine strong, empowered local leaders with stronger accountability and transparency. A directly elected leader, such as a mayor, with a fixed term and a clear mandate makes it much easier for local communities to make judgments based on local performance and local delivery, rather than the ebb and flow of national politics.
All combined county authorities will be required to have at least one overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. These will be instrumental in holding the authority and the mayor to account for their decisions and activities. The Government will be publishing a new devolution accountability framework to ensure that all devolution deals lead to local leaders and institutions that are transparent and accountable, work closely with local businesses, seek the best value for taxpayers’ money and maintain strong ethical standards. Requiring combined county authorities to lay their budgets before Parliament would be excessive and would also place CCAs on a different footing from combined authorities and all other local government institutions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I said when I moved the amendment that our contention was that local government, including any CCAs, is already subject to extensive scrutiny, so we agree with that. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify that no further layer of scrutiny will be applied to CCA budgets. Was that the content of the his response?
Earl Howe (Con)
In broad terms, yes. But if I can elaborate on that, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Amendment 172, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to insert a new clause following Clause 76. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the fair funding review. I take this to mean the most recent government consultation on fairer funding for local government, which is the 2018-19 review of relative needs and resources.
The review of relative needs and resources was undertaken in 2018-19. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this assessment is now out of date. It does not take into account more up-to-date census and demographic data. The events of the past five years, including, notably, the Covid-19 pandemic, mean that the world has moved on. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness that there would be little benefit to publication in its outdated form.
The Government have already set out, in the local government finance policy statement on 12 December, that we would not be implementing the relative review of needs and resources in this spending review period. Instead, that policy statement sets out details of the funding policy that will be maintained for a second year into 2024-25. In making this decision, the Government were clear that now is the time for stability for the sector, not reform, given the turbulence of the Covid-19 pandemic and the more recent economic issues relating to high inflation.
I emphasise that the Government remain committed to improving the local government finance landscape in the next Parliament and beyond. The department is keen to work closely with local partners and to take stock of the challenges and opportunities that they face to build on the work of the review of relative needs and resources and to ensure that plans for reform are contemporary, robust and informed by local insight. Again, this is set out in the local government finance policy statement, published in December. This is an important issue and one that we should certainly discuss in the coming months.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will understand the Government’s reasoning on this, and that she will not feel the need to press this amendment when it is reached.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful for the responses from the Minister. As was said earlier in the debate, we know that he always listens to the points being put forward, and I thank him for that.
On Amendment 87, which proposes that the CCA can request the publication of fair funding for new functions, I think that it is fair to say that local authorities cannot be expected to undertake bureaucratic burdens such as those. However, we want to see the records of reporting on CCAs, in particular around the cost-benefit analysis of what is being achieved by a CCA.
In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I say that there is a significant difference between the funding we see for initiatives and the funding for core services. There has been a great deal of the former and not so much of the latter in recent years. What happens, as we constantly see in local government, is that core services are undermined, and it hollows out the ability of local authorities to deliver the initiatives. I agree with the noble Lord that, whenever we raise these issues, we always get told that there will be new-burdens funding for things. In effect, while we occasionally see some money coming forward, we get things such as the new homes bonus. That is a good example, because the bonus was simply top-sliced from the rest of local government funding, so, in effect, they did not give us any new money at all; they just gave us our own money back. There are also things such as the Government setting rent policy for local authorities, telling us how much rent we can charge our tenants and placing additional burdens on housing authorities, and then saying, “No, you can’t have any new-burdens funding, because you should have been doing all that in the first place”. So there are problems around the whole issue of the new-burdens regime, and we need a genuine increase in funds in local government.
The points from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on how local government is financed, by whom, and how the resources are allocated and so on, were very well made. I would like to see the Government be brave enough to get on with this fair funding review. From the Minister’s response, I feel that it has been pushed into the long grass again. It was set up in 2018; we all understand that the pandemic had an impact on it, and perhaps during the pandemic was not the time to go into a full review of local government funding. It was delayed again in October 2022. Hearing that it has now been moved to the next Parliament is a concern, because this is urgent now. In 2023, we really cannot go much further forward with the system we have, which does not respond to local economic needs or local data, is very slow to respond, and, in many cases, is using data that is between 10 and 20 years old—that is not helping at all with the levelling-up agenda.
I spoke earlier about the difference between initiatives funding and core funding. It is all very well putting money into areas for local initiatives—often that is capital, and we have heard that the Secretary of State has now been stopped from signing off any further capital initiatives, so even that might not happen at the moment—but, if you do not keep the core funding going as well, and make sure that it is rising by inflation at the same time, it will be much more difficult to deliver any levelling-up initiatives whatever. So the amendments are important in making the point that we need to ensure that local government finances are duly and properly taken into consideration in the Bill. As I said earlier, it is disappointing that it is not there in a stronger way and we will look at the government amendments on the reporting on CCA funding to satisfy ourselves that they are right.
In the meantime, I am happy not to press the amendments. However, I hope that the Government are taking the point that we take very seriously this issue of local government finance and its rightful place in the levelling-up agenda; we may come back to it later in the debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Reports on transfer of NHS responsibilities to local government(1) A Minister of the Crown must prepare reports on proposals for the transfer of NHS functions to local authorities, combined metropolitan authorities, combined county authorities, and mayors as established under sections 15 to 20 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (combined and local authorities). (2) The first report in relation to subsection (1) must be made within 12 months of the passing of this Act.(3) Subsequent reports in relation to subsection (1) must be made at 24-month intervals following publication of the first report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in this location in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath are probing amendments designed to explore the Government’s commitment to transferring NHS responsibilities to local government as envisaged in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, which ranges very far and wide; at points, it is difficult to know what connects one with another. However, I suppose that they all have something to do with functions to be devolved to local government, which I guess is good enough.
I have tabled three amendments in the group and have added my name to the Clause 59 stand part debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach. My first two amendments, Amendments 89 and 90, are very much probing amendments designed to get a feel from the Government as to whether they have any intention of extending the “Devo Manchester” arrangements in relation to the NHS to other parts of the country. I have long believed that local government should have a greater role in the National Health Service. When the NHS was set up in 1948, there had been a huge debate in the Attlee Government as to whether the new NHS should be part of local government or not. In fact, there was a great argument between Nye Bevan and Herbert Morrison. Herbert Morrison, who had been the leader of the London County Council, which had been the largest hospital authority in the world before the war, argued for local government, while Bevan said that he thought that it would be a second-rate, patchy service. He obviously won the argument, although, by the early 1950s, he had changed his mind. Of course, when he introduced the NHS Bill—in this Chamber, of course—he talked about the NHS being a national service, but he stated that most of the decisions would be made locally through hospital management committees. He also made the memorable quote that when a bucket of slops is kicked over in Merthyr Tydfil, its echoes should sound in the Palace of Westminster. I suppose he was expressing the great tension about the NHS, which is that, for all the efforts to try to run it locally, the centre has continually sucked up powers and has attempted the impossible: to run this massive service through a Whitehall system of targets and other methods to try to bring the service into line.
There have been various attempts to break out from that. I was part of a ministerial team led by Alan Milburn that brought in foundation trusts as an attempt, on the providers’ side, to get much greater local ownership. The problem was that, once Alan Milburn left office, there was no one else to champion the concept, because at heart the Department of Health was very unwilling to let go. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley—whom I always tempt into these debates if I can—tried another approach with the establishment of NHS England as a quasi-independent body, again to try to take some of the decision-making away from Ministers and Whitehall. However, I suggest that, post the noble Lord, the appetite for it among his successors was pretty limited.
So we are left with a service that is under great pressure at the moment. We see Ministers scrambling around announcing plan after plan to try to recover it, and, frankly, that is not the way—I almost said, “That ain’t the way to run a railway”, but perhaps that is not quite right for those of us who travel by Avanti on a frequent basis, as the noble Lord said. When George Osborne reached an agreement with Manchester City Council—without, I think, NHS England knowing anything about it—that Greater Manchester would be given powers, in essence, to co-ordinate the running of the NHS in Greater Manchester, I thought that it had great potential.
Rather like for many initiatives, once Mr Osborne moved on it seems that the appetite in Whitehall for developing this idea fell by the wayside. I really wanted to use my first two amendments to probe the Government on whether they can confirm that, in fact, there is no intention to replicate what is happening in Manchester and that they now see integrated care systems as the way forward. If that is the case, the point I make to the Minister is that all the indicators are that local government is being treated as a very junior partner within those integrated care systems.
I want to pray in aid some very good work by the County Councils Network, which will not be so pleased with me when we come back to the issue of district councils in a few weeks’ time. I pay great tribute to its work looking at current experience of working with the NHS. It found some great examples of partnerships but the conclusion of its work is that integrated care systems
“simply do not feel like a paradigm shift towards delivering truly local priorities based on local engagement, and the question remains as to whether they are ‘joint’ endeavours or NHS bodies with some local government participation.”
Noble Lords who took part in debates on the then Health and Care Bill will remember that we spent many happy hours debating these very points and were assured by the Government that they saw local government as full partners within the integrated care systems. But the reality is that particularly the integrated care boards which commission NHS services are seen to operate primarily to tackle immediate NHS issues rather than address local priorities. The County Councils Network concludes across three themes of its research that:
“Accountability structures for ICBs … lead to NHSE and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and not to local organisations”—
surprise, surprise—that
“Regular directives from ‘the centre’ … require senior ICB leadership to focus on immediate NHS operational issues”,
another surprise; and that there is also
“a ‘command and control’ culture that jars with collaboration and local political leadership”.
That also is a great surprise.
The County Councils Network makes a number of suggestions for improving the involvement of local government. Essentially, it argues that the department of health and NHS England
“need to fundamentally review the levels of centrally mandated activity and targets in policies and funding requirements, particularly in shared policy areas, to ensure that they are consistent with the principle of locally driven strategies.”
I hope the Minister will respond positively to it. If, as I suspect, the Government are not prepared to go down the “Devo Manchester” route, despite some encouraging signs about what it is beginning to achieve, then I think they have to show—as this is essentially a local government Bill—that local government is going to have a greater involvement in the NHS and healthcare in the future. Anyone looking at the challenges we face in health at the moment and the inequalities surely must conclude that, unless we get to grips with chronic ill health and the need to promote a much stronger preventive approach, this will not happen without full participation of local government. That is the only way we can possibly get through the crisis that our health service faces.
Let me move on to a different issue. I come to Clause 58 where, it seems to me, the Government are essentially saying, “You can have devolution, but only on our terms and by adopting this model of directly elected mayors”. I have just heard the Minister comment on this, but why the obsession with directly elected mayors, I do not know. Clause 58 typifies this. At the moment, Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 provides for public authority functions to be conferred on to a combined authority subject to various requirements about authorities locally consenting. Such functions can then be exercisable by the combined authority or by the mayor personally.
But Clause 58 now amends the current provisions whereby all the local authorities covered by the function to be transferred have to agree. Under this clause, the mayor of a combined authority may make a request to the Secretary of State to make such an order. The mayor is required to consult the constituent councils of the combined authority before making the request and requires the mayor to include within such a request to the Secretary of State a statement that all the constituent councils agree to the making of this order or, if this statement cannot be made, the mayor’s rationale for proceeding. My reading is that, despite a constituent authority not giving consent, the Secretary of State can simply agree to the mayor’s request and override objections from constituent authorities. To me, that is a fundamental change from the current provision. It allows a mayor to act in an extremely high-handed way and is something that we should be very wary of.
For an example of high-handedness, Clause 59 really takes the biscuit. I suppose we should call it the Andy Street clause because it has been put in only because he was very miffed that his proposal to take on the functions of the police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands was turned down by the local authorities in that region, as they have every right to do. At the last elections in the West Midlands, Mr Street was elected mayor and a Labour candidate was elected police and crime commissioner. That was a democratic wish of people in the West Midlands, and for the mayor to come along and say, “Forget that. I want to be the police commissioner”, and the Government to come along with this clause and say they going to take the power to do that, is utterly unacceptable. I hope very much, when it comes to it, we will be able to take this wretched clause out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 91 to which I have added my name, and to Amendment 469 in the names of my noble friend Lady Pinnock and myself. I also want to express general support for the amendments in this very disparate group.
On Amendment 91, some noble Lords will be aware that I am also at the moment participating in debates on the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill and the retained EU law Bill. There are some overlapping issues, and one is the role of trade unions and the interaction between the powers of the UK Government and the powers of employers, including, of course, local government as employers.
Last week on the strikes Bill, I raised the issue of the powers of devolved Administrations. The Minister was unable to give assurances that the UK Government—who, by the way, on issues that are devolved are just the English Government—will not simply override the devolved Administrations. Applying that logic to this Bill, which purports to increase devolution within English local government, it is reasonable for us to ask what the status of trade unions within local government will be and whether the UK Government will seek to override English local authorities in the same way as they intend to override devolved Administrations. The lessons are similar in both Bills.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the clerks who made up this group—it is an astonishing achievement to have managed to get so many completely separate issues all in one group. I am afraid that I am going to make life more difficult for the Front-Benchers, particularly for the noble Baroness the Minister, by moving from one subject to another—but here we are; I will do my best.
I ought to remind the Committee that I am a former police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland. I have a clause stand part notice in my name for Clause 59, which we will not reach for many sessions, probably. I thank noble Lords who have added their names to that notice. My noble friend Lord Hunt, at the end of his speech, talked about Clause 59; I very much hope that the Government will listen. Even if my words are fairly harsh, they are not addressed at Ministers here; obviously it is not their responsibility, as such, but the Government’s responsibility that we are landed with Clause 59, which really is not a worthy clause in a Bill of this kind. It should never have been in this Bill; it is a mean, short clause in a large, important Bill and it has absolutely nothing to do with levelling up or grand plans for the future of our country.
It is for one reason only, as has been stated: merely to ensure that one mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority—Conservative, as it happens—can become the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands police force area whenever he really wants to. All he has to do is ask the Government, who are his own party, of course. He does not have to consult with anybody, unlike under Clause 58—for which there is also a stand part notice—where consultation is at least mandatory. In effect, he just has to wake up one morning and say to himself, “Oh, I fancy being police and crime commissioner today; I’ll have a word with a Minister”. Then, without much ado, he will be. In fact, he has, to use modern parlance, fancied it for a long time. Unfortunately, for him, there is a combination of the present law, which demands democratic consent from the combined authority members and from the constituent authorities—the councils that make up the combined authority—and, annoyingly for the mayor, the electorate who have voted on four separate occasions for a Labour police and crime commissioner. “How dare they”, says the mayor, and the Government follow suit by putting in this clause.
First, the present law sought to be amended by Clause 59—namely, the need for majority support from the combined authority and support from all the councils that make up the combined authority, the constituent authorities—was put into the 2009 Act by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. For the Government of the day, and for all of us, it represented a sensible, democratic and consensual approach. Of course a mayor can become police and crime commissioner, if he or she has general support—as has happened in Manchester and West Yorkshire. However, it did stop a mayor from grabbing that position without local support. In the West Midlands, that support is not forthcoming. Now, seven years on—only seven years—the same Government wish to change all that and give the mayor a free ride, effectively.
Secondly, the electorate in the West Midlands has voted every time, as it happens, for a Labour police and crime commissioner, most recently in May 2021, on the very same day that they voted for a Conservative mayor. There is no suggestion that the two position holders, the mayor and the police and crime commissioner, have not worked well together. Both were elected, so I ask the Minister, what is the argument for change? What is the argument to nullify the result of an election, effectively, if it does not happen to suit one party?
This clause is there only, I submit, for the West Midlands mayor. Ironically, if he becomes police and crime commissioner, he will no doubt appoint a deputy who will do most of the work but will not have been elected by anybody. Police and crime commissioners, whether we like them or loathe them, were actually set up by the Government of the day to do a particular job for their public. One of the selling points by the Government when this controversial Bill was put before Parliament was that it would be the public who would elect police and crime commissioners, and that gave them some mandate. This clause represents a real lessening of democracy. It is usually only authoritarian regimes that make laws to abolish the results of democratic elections that they do not happen to like or do not suit them. Surely, we are better than that.
At Second Reading, the Minister did not have time to deal with the points I am making now. In no way is that a criticism: she had much too much to do, given the number of speakers and different points that were made at Second Reading. Now we are in Committee, I would be grateful if she would be kind enough to listen to the following questions and give me answers. First, what is the purpose of this clause if it is not to nullify the results of an election held 22 months ago? Secondly, what is wrong with the principle of having broad consent for change, which was the Government’s policy right up to now? Thirdly, why is there no consultation for the mayor before he makes his application? He does not need to consult under the new provision. Lastly, should the Government not think again about how undemocratic, chilling and unnecessary this clause looks? Its departure from the Bill would, I believe, be well received by all people of good will who believe in local democracy and think it rather shocking that an election result can be overturned merely because the party that lost it does not like it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the probing Amendments 89 and 90, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the role of local government and the NHS. I speak as somebody who has been an NHS manager—I think I said previously that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was in the higher echelons of NHS management when I was a mere trainee. I have also been a local government council leader and recently I have been an NHS non-executive director.
There were clear issues as we went through the Health and Care Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, it seems like we are having the same discussion. It is not that we want to say, “We told you so”, but the structures that have been set up and the cultures and behaviours of the two organisations mean that they are incompatible with what we all want to achieve, which is a localised and systematic approach to dealing with people who go through the NHS and care system to improve health and reduce health inequalities between areas.
The NHS, by structure, looks up. It looks up to NHS England and the department. The way that the funding goes means that the levers that the Secretary of State or the senior directors of NHS England can pull will mean that NHS staff, in terms of managers and leaders, will look up and will respond to a top-down approach. The culture within the NHS is top-down, top-down, top-down. Local authorities, and particularly local councillors, look out. They look out to their area: that is who they serve, that is who, predominantly, gives them their marching orders—not somebody above them from a national organisation and a central ministerial area of government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, because time presses, my name is attached to the stand part debates on Clauses 58 and 59. I do not seek to repeat what has been said already about those two clauses, but I hope the Minister will give clear evidence for the need for both clauses, because I am unconvinced that they are necessary. I will make a further point in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said a moment ago: that the whole principle behind police and crime commissioners was that they were directly elected. If the ballot box is the main means for a police and crime commissioner to be appointed to their job, I do not think that that system can be meddled with in the way that the Government appear to want to meddle with it.
Indeed, to develop what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, of course a mayor with PCC powers can appoint a deputy mayor to have the PCC powers on behalf of the mayor. Actually, when we read the Bill very carefully—indeed, we debated this in earlier stages of consideration of the Bill—the deputy can also pass powers on to “any other person”. There are some restrictions in the Bill as to what that might mean, but the fact is that the words “any other person” simply take away the power of the electorate to make a decision as to who is the police and crime commissioner. For that reason, I support the propositions on Clauses 58 and 59 not standing part.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is another really important group of amendments to do with the extent of devolution: what are the limits that the Government are putting on that? The only areas we have explored, very important though they are, are the National Health Service, policing, transport services—buses, in particular—and general functions. I have great sympathy with all the amendments in this group, particularly those introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asking where the National Health Service fits in with the notion of devolution to local areas.
As the noble Lord explored, currently the NHS does not fit in. A move was made in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority for the mayor to take the provision of health and care services—which we have not referred to so far—under his powers. That was accepted but has not made much progress. One of the biggest challenges, as has been said time and again in this Chamber in debates relating to other Bills, is the absolute importance of connecting the National Health Service and the social care system. Enabling devolution of NHS services to a mayoral combined authority would enable social care and NHS services to be properly linked. The result of no progress being made in this area is before our eyes; we have too many older people staying in hospital for too long, which harms their health, and they are not discharged into the social care service because the two are not linked. The Government have failed to do this time and again. Well, okay, devolve it—pass it on to local mayoral authorities so that we can see what progress they can make. I repeat every sympathy, and support what has been said. I do hope it will be pursued at later stages of consideration of this Bill because it is so important for the health and well-being of the people we serve.
I will also wholeheartedly support the Clauses 58 and 59 stand part notices, for the reasons that have been said. I will give the example of West Yorkshire, where it was determined that the police and crime commissioner role would be combined with that of our elected mayor. Now we no longer have an elected police and crime commissioner because that role is unelected; they are appointed by the West Yorkshire mayor. That was her right; I am not saying she has done anything wrong. But who is now called to account for failings in policing in West Yorkshire? There have been a number of examples across the country where police and crime commissioners have, for various reasons, been found wanting and have been held accountable for their actions. How does that work in a combined mayoral authority where the mayor appoints the police and crime commissioner? Does the mayor have to be held accountable for the decisions and actions of their appointed deputy? That is the only way that accountability can take place. The attempt by the Government to undermine an elected process is undemocratic. How do the Government think that local people will feel about the very important role of holding policing in the West Midlands to account when an elected police and crime commissioner there is somehow unelected? Those two big issues are very important. It is about whether we are talking about devolution to local areas or still talking about centralised systems where there is delegation to combined authorities—which leads nicely to buses.
I cannot add to my noble friend Lady Randerson’s description of what has happened to the bus services and how important they are to any hope of levelling up for many parts of the country. As she said, if you cannot get a bus in order to access employment then, for many people, it is financially impossible to do other than stay at home. Mayoral authorities need to be given the powers to control bus services, as bus services should be encompassed in mayoral authorities. In giving another local example, I should point out that it was done before the mayoral authority was set up. Nevertheless, it comes from the centre of West Yorkshire where, in my own area, we have a number of small villages where the bus services were poor and people could not get about. Fortunately, there was not only one bus a week—like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has, I think—but services were poor throughout the day. We managed to get a subsidy for what I call a small hopper bus—a 15-seater—to go around the various parts of the Spen Valley area and pick up older people, take them into town to do their shopping, collect them and go back again. After a bit, because it was so popular, it has become a self-financing bus service. With local initiatives comes success because local areas know what would probably work for their patches. That is why enabling mayoral combined authorities to have control over bus services is so vital.
Any notion of levelling up will not work without the aspect of transport. There has been too much focus on rail services, which are very important but do not feature in a lot of people’s options for transport. I repeat that my noble friend Lady Randerson made a powerful case for ensuring that mayoral combined authorities can run bus services. Without that, many people—especially in rural areas, but not only in rural areas—will find that they cannot access the services and jobs they need to if levelling up is to be anything other than a slogan.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said, this has certainly been a mixed bag of amendments, but clearly they all look at the extent of devolution, the powers and the different functions involved. We have two probing amendments in this group. First, in Clause 19, my Amendment 91 probes
“whether the Government will cooperate with trade unions representing employees of CCAs.”
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her support and for her excellent speech on this matter. At the moment, Clause 19—“Integrated Transport Authority and Passenger Transport Executive”—does not consider the people who work for the CCAs. We believe they should be able to be part of any decision-making process. This is also why we believe it is important for the Government to co-operate with trade union representatives.
Lord Stunell (LD)
Has the noble Baroness given any consideration to one of the provisions here about the statement that the mayor must make on consent by the constituent councils? I think she said that it would be only if they gave their unanimous consent but, on page 51 of the Bill, subsection (4)(b) says that,
“if the mayor is unable to make that statement, the reasons why the mayor considers the order should be made even though not all of the constituent councils agree to it being made”.
So it is not even the case that all constituent councils are engaged; indeed, it does not even say that it should be a majority. It would appear that the mayor has absolute discretion to make a statement, regardless of constituent councils’ support.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely; the noble Lord is completely correct. I was trying to get across that there should be unanimous consent for anything as serious as that matter; I thank the noble Lord for drawing attention to it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments covers a number of matters relating to combined county authorities, combined authorities and local authorities, including NHS functions, the conferral of additional functions on combined authority mayors, the fair funding review, trade union liaison and bus services.
I start with Amendments 89 and 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Together, they would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on proposals for the devolution of health functions to authorities and subsequent reports at 24-month intervals. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord and other noble Lords that the existing provisions for reporting on the conferral of health functions on to a local authority, combined authority or combined county authority are sufficient. The regulations that would confer health functions on to a local area would be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum setting out why the functions are to be conferred. The regulations also require parliamentary approval, giving Parliament the opportunity to consider the impact of such a conferral of functions. Also, under Section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, the Secretary of State has to publish an annual report about devolution, including listing any functions—including health functions—devolved to areas in the preceding 12 months.
The noble Lord’s explanatory statements say that these amendments are intended to probe our
“commitment to transferring NHS responsibilities to local government”.
To clarify, our devolution legislation is enabling legislation. Where an area is interested in the conferral of health functions on to a combined authority, local authority or combined county authority, it is possible to do this via secondary legislation. To date, the only area that has taken up this opportunity is the Greater Manchester combined authority, as we have debated; however, in principle, other devolution bids can include these same requests.
Section 18 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 sets out which health functions can and cannot be devolved. As noble Lords have mentioned, the kinds of functions that can be devolved include the joint local commissioning of health services. In contrast, the kinds of functions that cannot be devolved include, as noble Lords might expect, health service regulatory functions vested in national regulatory bodies responsible for such functions. Let me be clear: the devolution of health functions does not alter the Secretary of State’s core duties in relation to the NHS. As this Government have consistently made clear, they are and remain a priority for us.
Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Government to co-operate with trade unions representing employees of combined county authorities that have responsibilities for transport. I support the noble Baroness’s sentiment here that it is important that we engage with trade unions representing transport employees of CCAs. It will, however, be the combined county authority itself as the employer that will be involved in recognising and collectively bargaining with any trade union representing staff at that workplace.
The Secretary of State will not be party to that relationship. Therefore, placing an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to co-operate with a trade union representing those staff risks undermining the relationship between the combined county authority, as the employer, and the trade union. I do not think that this would be appropriate; it is for local agreement. More generally, the Secretary of State consults with a large number of groups, including trade unions, on issues that affect local transport in combined county authority areas.
I shall move on to the Clause 58 stand part debate. Turning to the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Shipley and Lord Bach, and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Clause 58 introduces a new process enabling mayors of combined authorities to take on new public authority functions via a request to the Secretary of State to deepen devolution, in order to remove barriers and give our local leaders more powers to drive the economic, social and environmental improvements locally that their residents, businesses and areas need. It is, however, deliberately limited in scope.
The provision relates only to the transfer of other public authority functions; namely, those currently carried out and funded by organisations other than local authorities such as government departments or their agencies. It makes no change to the consent regime for the transfer of local authority functions, as set out in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, because we fully recognise that local agreement is key to successfully transferring such functions either to be delivered across a wider geographical area by a combined authority or, in some circumstances, to be exercised by the mayor individually.
We have also included an additional safeguard on the use of this provision to make sure that the voice of local authorities is still heard. In making any request for new functions to the Secretary of State, mayors will need to set out the views of their constituent councils and then provide a rationale for proceeding, if any of them disagree. More broadly, this clause also retains the long-established principle that we have had for all combined authority legislation that deepens devolution through new powers; that is, that it must be subject to what has often been referred to as to the triple-lock of consents. It must be consented to locally—in this case, by the mayor with the input from the constituent councils—agreed by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament. I hope my explanation provides noble Lords with further information such that they could reconsider their opposition to this clause.
On Clause 59, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bach, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Shipley, and many others, the levelling up White Paper, which was consulted on widely, included reference to mayors of combined authorities taking on police and crime commissioner functions where policing boundaries were coterminous with those of the combined authority. It also committed the Government to taking steps to remove the barriers to more combined authority mayors taking on PCC functions. Clause 59 amends the existing provision by removing the requirements of consent from the combined authority and its constituent councils to the transfer of the PCC functions to be exercised by the mayor. This will enable the Secretary of State to make an order providing for a combined authority mayor to take on PCC functions for the combined authority’s area, subject to mayoral consent only.
PCC functions can be exercised only by the mayor. Combined authorities and their constituent councils have no role in the exercise of PCC functions. Therefore, the clause makes it clear that only mayoral consent is required for a transfer. These changes are designed to enable more mayors to take on PCC functions where this has been agreed; for example, within a devolution deal, in line with our White Paper commitment. The transfer of PCC functions to a combined authority mayor would not only preserve the democratic accountability established by the PCC model but can also offer wider levers to prevent crime. Powerful local mayors—
Lord Bach (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I thank her for what she has said so far, but I want to ask her why there is no need for consultation of any kind under Clause 59. She praised the consultation that was necessary under Clause 58 and made it part of her argument. Why is there none in Clause 59?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that is because, as I said, the role of the PCC does not impinge on the roles of the constituency councils. It is purely a role for the mayor. When you are looking at things to do with health, you are probably including the care roles of many councils.
Lord Bach (Lab)
Each district council has to have a community safety committee, which is made up of district councillors, others and the local police—it is very much involved in policing. As has been said earlier, and used as an argument by the Government, every police and crime panel must have someone from each district council in the police force area. There is a clear link between the constituent councils. Given that link is so important, how can the Minister really argue that on Clause 58 consultation is necessary but on Clause 59 it has nothing to do with the districts or the county?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did not say it has nothing to do with the districts or the county—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise to the Minister. I just thought I would add to the questions now and not interrupt further.
Is this an admission by the Government that the current system of independently elected police and crime commissioners has not been effective? I cannot think of any other reason why the two separate roles should be combined unless it is felt that the separate role of the police and crime commissioner has not been as effective as the Government wished.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
In the interests of making life easier for the noble Baroness, perhaps I could add my question. What assessment have the Government done of the crossover of funding between local authorities and police services for community safety work and partnerships? That is a frequent model. When the noble Baroness says that the police and crime commissioner role has no impact on local authorities, surely, that funding flow is relevant.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did not say that the councils do not have any concerns or interest in the role of the PCC. Of course, they do, as we have heard, with community safety committees et cetera. What I said was that the councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC. That is the job of the local police. Therefore, there is no crossover in that way.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know where that information has come from about councils not delivering community safety-related services. It is just not the case. We look at anti-social behaviour; we look at domestic abuse. In my own local authority, we have a very big and effective domestic abuse service, and we work with our colleagues in the police. We have issues related to local area policing. We set our priorities with our local policing teams and deliver services jointly to address those priorities. I could go on—I know the noble Baroness will know some of this from her own experience in local government. It is just not the case that local government does not deliver community safety services in the same way that we deliver health prevention services and so on.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think we are going to disagree on this, and there is a fine line. I also want to answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that I did not answer at Second Reading, for which I apologise—I am conscious of that—but because the amount of information I have is not sufficient to answer them today, I will write to him and talk to Home Office colleagues as well, because I think it is important we get their views. I will also write more about the responsibilities of the PCC and the local authorities, because it is important that we get this right and that noble Lords understand the reasons why we are doing this.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am struggling with this logic. The combined authority mayor can appoint a deputy to be responsible for police and crime, but the elected mayor will take the accountability if things go wrong. Why, then, can we not have an elected police and crime commissioner? That is the logic of what the Minister is saying.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is not the logic. It is an opportunity for the directly elected mayor to be able to join up all these issues within their geographic area and deliver more joined-up services by working with others.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Do the Government therefore suggest that, at a local level, a council leader could appoint their own cabinet rather than taking from elected councillors? That is the logic of what the Minister is saying.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is not the logic. It takes the whole issue too far. Cabinet members will come from the elected members. That is required in the legislation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The one thing that this has not answered is the issue of the politics, looking at the West Midlands. Does the Minister not think that, if a mayor can appoint a deputy mayor to take over the PCC functions and the existing PCC is then not there, that deputy should be of the same political persuasion as the elected PCC? The people voted for someone from that party, that part of the spectrum. Should it not be specified if that is the direction that the Government are going in?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I do not think so. I will make it very clear: these amendments are nothing to do with the West Midlands. These amendments were in the White Paper a number of years ago and were fully consulted on. I will take the noble Baroness’s point, but that is not what normally happens. You would normally have one of your team as a deputy mayor responsible for one thing or another, as you do in London. In this case, it could be for police and crime. I do not know what West Yorkshire will do.
I would also add that Parliament’s approval is needed for a combined authority to take on any new function. PCC functions can be conferred on a combined authority mayor by secondary legislation only, which needs parliamentary approval before it can be made.
Finally in this group is Amendment 469, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson. This would confer new powers on local authorities to run their own bus services, which we believe is premature. The national bus strategy states that the Government would review whether it remains right that local authorities cannot set up new bus companies. Any consideration of change to the operation of the local bus market needs to be conducted in an orderly manner, with all views and potential impacts, positive and negative, considered. We therefore intend to wait until the review of the bus strategy comes out.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Following the Minister’s earlier remarks about the mayor being able to appoint a deputy to be responsible for policing, I was wondering: are there powers for them to appoint a deputy to be responsible for buses?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know about buses, but I imagine that there may be the ability for a mayor to appoint somebody to be responsible for transport in a large area. I will check that, but I am sure that it is within their powers. It is probably a very good thing to have in large geographical area, as the mayor cannot do everything in detail there. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have a question on the issue of buses. We have seen millions of bus miles removed from the system altogether. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has very carefully and thoroughly articulated why they are so essential. It is really important that we get this bus strategy as quickly as possible so that we can start to get a sense of how local authorities can play a part in restoring some of the bus services that we have lost. Can the Minister give us any idea of how quickly that will come about? It would seem that the Bill is an ideal opportunity to put that into place. Otherwise, we will have to go through the same discussions again in a few months, a year or two years’ time to give local authorities that power. Why not use the Bill as the ideal opportunity to reinstate what we used to have back in the day? I remember a very good bus service in my own area before the powers were taken away from councils.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
This is the responsibility of the Department for Transport. I will be in touch with the relevant Minister to explain the Committee’s deep concern about the issue of bus services and say that an early solution to this would be considered appropriate by the Committee. I will also find out how long it will be before we get this strategy in place. I will write that at the end of the letter, which will go to all noble Lords in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. The Minister made an interesting comment at the end when she said that basically a lot of the services we are talking about are the responsibility of other government departments. That seems to me to go to the heart of one of the problems of this legislation: is it not about devolution at all. If it were really about devolution, the Government would have a concerted approach to widespread devolution, which of course would involve bus services. It is a ludicrous proposition that under this grand new devolution and regeneration system you cannot run your own buses.
On health, what the Minister said was helpful up to a point in that she said there is no legal impediment to what is happening in Greater Manchester being extended, but I do not see any drive whatever. What I see is her own department taking a depressingly narrow view of what local government should do instead of embracing the whole government machinery to say, “We are serious about this.”
The clarification on Clause 58 was very helpful, and I am very grateful to the Minister. On Clause 59, I am pretty speechless. I spoke for the Opposition when the concept of police commissioners was coming through. We opposed it. Frankly, I still have great reservations about the system. My noble friend was an excellent example but, my goodness me, the evidence of poor behaviour by some police and crime commissioners is legion. None the less, we were promised directly elected police commissioners, that the public would decide who was going to be the police commissioner and there would then be accountability through the ballot box, but it seems that this is not to apply now in a number of places. From what the Minister said, it seems that the principle of coterminosity applies to many parts of the country in terms of future mayors and police commissioner areas.
I shall make two points. You cannot exclude local authorities. They form the police and crime panel. They have a direct interest in the precept which is set and have to consult on it. It is a big move to get rid of the police and crime commissioner and simply give it to the mayor—we know the mayor will appoint a deputy and will not really be accountable because the mayor has got other things to do—without consulting the constituent local authorities which play an important role in this whole area, not just in sitting on the police and crime panel. If we are serious about wanting our criminal justice system to be more effective, the local authority has a pivotal role to play in working with the police at local level.
I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to bring this back on Report because I believe we should take out this clause. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report setting out—(a) any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on CCAs,(b) the reasons for those differences, and(c) the extent to which economic, social and environmental well-being factors were considered in coming to decisions to confer different powers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report explaining any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on CCAs.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, all to do with transport. I am sure noble Lords will remember that one of the missions is on transport and that that mission says:
“By 2030, local public transport connectivity across the country will be significantly closer to the standards of London, with improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing”,
and that:
“The success of this mission will be measured through indicators on commuting modal share and average journey time to centres of employment. New connectivity metrics that account for population density with distance travelled will help identify where the standards are being met.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her comprehensive introduction in moving this amendment about transport. I agree with everything she said. One depressing thing last week was a headline from the Government in a Written Statement, which said that they will be investing £40 billion in transport but in fact, when you look at the small print, you see that they are going to cut bits of HS2 for two years. Worse still, they have cut the investment in cycling and walking by more than half, having said that they are going to invest. There is an awfully big difference between what it says on the bit of paper and what happens on the ground.
When it comes to buses, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have to hear from the Minister, but we do have an Oral Question on Thursday, in the name of my noble friend Lord Snape, asking the Government
“what plans they have to support the bus industry in England following the end of the current bus subsidy arrangements.”
If that is not urgent, I have a message from the people who run the community transport service in Northern Ireland, saying that the Northern Ireland Executive have stopped all funding of community transport buses from the end of April. All the staff will be made redundant and there will be no community transport services in Northern Ireland. So much for making it easier for people; I hope that we will get some answers on that.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 92 and 98 but, in truth, I could have put it to every single amendment in this group. The amendments in my name, however, are designed to demonstrate the fundamental importance of transport functions to the effectiveness of the CCAs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has outlined that very comprehensively and ably.
I subscribe to the view that bigger is not necessarily better in many examples of local government, but it is undoubtedly the case that larger local authorities give you the opportunity to plan strategically for public transport and, indeed, for every strand of transport. Without powers to provide a comprehensive and strategic approach to transport, CCAs will be asked to deliver their job with one hand tied behind their backs. They will not be able to do the levelling-up job in any meaningful way.
This series of amendments asks vital questions about the powers over transport infrastructure. Powers without funding are meaningless as a tool for levelling up. The amendments also address the issue of sustainability. That is important in relation to transport, which is responsible for about one-third of our emissions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer Green support for the direction of travel of this whole group of amendments. I was not able to be here for the previous group, but I offer support for Amendment 469 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson, about allowing local authorities to run their own bus services.
I turn to the specific points in some of the amendments in this group. We have already heard the case set out. I agree with pretty well everything that has been said by the previous speakers about the parlous state of local transport in the UK, particularly in England, and the way in which we are so badly trailing other parts of the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about electric buses. I was just looking up the stats. The most recent ones I could find for the EU are from the end of 2021. There were 8,500 electric buses in the EU then, and I have no doubt that that figure has grown significantly. That is based on my own experience of arriving in a number of small European cities and finding that a line of little electric hopper buses, as we might call them, taking people from the bus station to the train station or around the city is just normal—yet for us that would be a rare and amazing pilot scheme.
I shall pick up some specific points. Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would allow residents of the combined county authority to petition their authority and the Government for new transport infrastructure. Creating that democratic framework, explicitly putting it in the Bill, would be useful. We know how much hunger there is in local communities. Mostly they are trying to defend the bus services that they are about to lose, but in many places if people saw the potential for a route towards a new service that everyone knew was needed, the petition would provide a mechanism for that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, Amendment 94 refers to the assessment of the sustainability of transport infrastructure. With 27% of our total emissions coming from transport, and 91% of those from road vehicles, heading towards public transport and indeed active transport—cycling and pedestrian routes—is crucial. To ask the CCAs to put down on paper where they are at and where they are aiming to go is also crucial.
Sustainability also means looking at the issue of resilience. We are in the age of shocks, climate and other, and as I was listening this to this debate I was thinking about the situation at Dawlish and the number of times that we have seen that crucial rail route cut off. That first really came to public attention in 2018, and we have got precisely nowhere on that issue since.
Amendment 97, which we have not yet heard formally introduced, would mean that CCAs could formally designate rail, bus and particularly cycle paths as key routes. If we are going to have the kind of modal shift that we need to see in transport then bus routes and cycle paths are crucial. We need to give CCAs the power to take control over those, see the way forward and make sure that they are secured and treated as important in the same way that we do, far too often, with the main road network.
This is all fine detail and not the kind of stuff that is ever likely to set the headlines ablaze, but it is crucial if this levelling-up Bill is going to go anywhere towards delivering what the Government say is its aim.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, this has been rather a depressing afternoon. We have had a long debate about where money was coming from, and the answer is, “There isn’t any”. Now we are on to a debate about another vital aspect of levelling up: you need the money, but you also need a transport policy that works. Reference has been made to the mission statement. I am becoming increasingly concerned that in every debate we essentially get the same message: the Bill is not about implementing the mission statement, delivering on the five pillars or any of the stuff that was in the White Paper, but about something completely different—and so far it has completely eluded me what the something completely different is. Here we have an opportunity to put a bit of substance in the Bill, which this set of amendments would certainly do.
I appeal to the Government just to join up some of the dots in their own levelling-up White Paper and their own set of mission statements, and to look at this piece of legislation as a way of delivering, or at least of outlining how they intend to deliver, these challenging targets. The mission statements have dates attached to them, yet we have already heard that the financial review is going to be quite a long way ahead—probably in the next Parliament, let us be honest. The transport amendments here would give the new CCAs some powers, chances and opportunities to begin to help the Government to deliver on their mission statement. I cannot say I am hoping, but I must surely have some expectation, that the Government are going to rise to that challenge.
I want to remind the Government that one of these aims is to have a similar level of public transport outside London as there now is in London, by an end date. I will leave aside whether that was a promise that could ever be fulfilled, but it would certainly be easier to achieve if you started now rather than starting in two years’ time or whenever the next big Bill or funding round comes.
In light of that government ambition, the Built Environment Committee, of which I was at that point a member, published a report called Public Transport in Towns and Cities outside London at the end of last year. We took a lot of evidence on what the impact of the pressures of single-pot funding are on transport authorities around the country, and some were much more successful than others. As somebody who lives in the area of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Transport for Greater Manchester, I rejoice in the fact that we usually do pretty well out of all this. But you have only to look across the Pennines to other transport authorities to see some that do not. We took evidence that they have essentially given up bidding because every bid that they have made, which costs money, has been unsuccessful, and they do not get the feedback that they need to improve or find a way through the system. It is single-pot funding which is not delivering levelling up in the way that it should do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned Northern Powerhouse Rail and Transport for the North. Plenty of work is going on pointing out to the Government what they could and should do, and how it could be delivered to achieve outside London that London level of public transport. Yet these opportunities are being missed again and again, so I say to the Government that these amendments are a way of getting that process started.
In Greater Manchester, the mayor—not of my political persuasion but certainly with a strong mandate—has been pushing ahead to get public transport to operate in a co-ordinated and fully functioning way across that city. Successive Conservative Transport Ministers have been deeply sceptical of what Greater Manchester has been trying to achieve, and I have challenged the Government on two or three occasions about whether they were or were not actively supporting the model of Greater Manchester and encouraging others to do so. The evidence that was given by the then Transport Minister to the committee was that the Government are completely neutral about all these funding models, and that it is entirely up to anyone to do what they want—except that the Government prefer that they do not do it the Greater Manchester way. Sometimes the Government seem incapable of learning from the practical experience of what works, and allowing or indeed encouraging others to take advantage of the experience that has been developed on the ground. Obviously we see this in Committee, and will see this all the way through it—“If it is not invented here, it cannot be any good.”
From that point of view, I dare say that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, are doomed to fail today, but I ask the Minister to take a look and go back to the Department for Transport, and whoever else needs to be talked to, picking up the point the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made. Please can the Government, and not just the department, put some guts into the Bill and make it deliver on the missions and objectives that they have set out, that they are so proud to boast about, and which these amendments could facilitate the delivery for?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates, as we have heard, to transport functions and associated arrangements of combined county authorities. Before I address the amendments, I say to the Committee in response to those noble Lords who question the Government’s commitment to levelling up in the area of transport—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but also the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Stunell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Bennett—that the Government are committed to delivering improvements to transport across the north and across the piece. Let there be no doubt about that. We are committed to supporting all forms of transport. Indeed, between 2020-21 and 2022-23 we have invested over £850 million in active travel alone. The Transpennine Route Upgrade is the Government’s biggest single investment in upgrading the country’s existing railway, and is part of our continuing commitment to transforming rail connectivity across the north of the country. I plead with noble Lords to have some faith in the Government’s commitment in this area.
Amendment 92 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on combined county authorities, and the rationale behind them. It is of course important to help interested parties understand differences in conferral of transport functions between CCAs. Once established, the combined county authority will become the local transport authority responsible for managing public transport in the CCA’s area.
The functions conferred on combined county authorities from an integrated transport authority to enable the CCA to be the local transport authority will be a merger of those currently possessed by the CCA’s constituent local authorities, with their agreement and consent. These will be agreed with the local authorities as the combined county authorities are established, and this approach will be consistent across all CCAs. Therefore, as this clause relates only to powers already held locally, there is no need for the Secretary of State to produce such an annual report because there will be consistency across CCAs. The Explanatory Memorandums to the secondary legislation will also provide an explanation of transport powers that the combined county authority will be responsible for.
Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to allow residents in the area of a combined county authority with transport functions to be able to petition their CCA and the Government for new transport infrastructure. We support residents having the ability to push for new transport infrastructure for their area; indeed, this is already possible. The residents of an area with transport functions are already able to petition their local authorities, including for transport infrastructure, and this will be the same for combined county authorities once created. Therefore, creating this additional requirement relating to transport specifically for CCAs is unnecessary.
I come now to Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness to require a combined county authority to publish an assessment within 90 days, if they are transferred certain functions, on whether transport infrastructure in their area is sustainable. An assessment of infrastructure sustainability in a CCA’s area already forms part of a local transport plan. Where a CCA has been given transport functions, it will include this assessment as part of its local transport plan anyway, so we feel there is no need for a separate time-limited assessment.
Amendment 95 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require a combined county authority to undertake an assessment of any company operating a train franchise in its area. There are already contractual reporting arrangements between train operators and the Government, and the train operating companies report their performance publicly on their websites and with key strategic partners, such as CCAs. In line with the Government’s commitment to not create additional bureaucratic burdens, we would not expect to mandate a report on any CCAs. Furthermore, if the CCA feels that it wishes to undertake such an assessment, we would expect it to utilise the existing reporting mechanisms. Given the existing reporting already in place, I hope that she will feel satisfied that the measures are sufficient.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am wondering how this fits in with local government reporting, in the context of Britain’s legally binding net-zero obligations. This brings to my mind a broader question, but I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me later. How do the actions of the CCA fit within the overall framework of delivering net zero?
Earl Howe (Con)
If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will write to her on that, because I do not have an answer that would satisfy her in my brief.
Amendment 96, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require combined county authorities to notify the Secretary of State of any plans to begin a local travel survey within 30 days of being transferred functions under Clause 19. There is no legal requirement surrounding a combined county authority’s use of local travel surveys. Creating a legal requirement on CCAs for the reporting of their use within 30 days to the Secretary of State would, I suggest, place an unnecessary burden on CCAs, relative to the benefit.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that the Department for Transport conducts a national travel survey. We would expect CCAs to conduct further work locally to gather evidence in developing their local transport plans. However, we feel that mandating the use of local surveys in this way would be disproportionate, so I am afraid we do not feel we can accept this amendment.
I turn to Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to confer on a combined county authority a power to designate railways, bus routes and cycle paths as key routes. The purpose of a CCA designating a route as part of its key route network is to enable the mayor to direct local councils in how they should use their powers as the highway authority for that route, if they are not carrying out actions agreed under the local area transport plan. For example, a combined county authority mayor might direct local authorities to build a particular bus lane on part of the key route network, which would have strategic, area-wide benefits for the CCA as a whole.
CCAs will already be able to designate bus and cycle lanes that form part of a highway in their area as part of the key route network under the existing Clause 22. The powers that local authorities have as highway authorities do not extend to railways, so allowing CCAs to designate them as key routes would have no effect on their operation. Given that CCAs will be responsible for the local transport plan for their region, we would expect them to identify their key transport routes and plan how to manage these, including railways.
Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would enable the Secretary of State to confer a power on a combined county authorities to designate their area’s transport infrastructure as in need of regeneration. I would like to reassure her that, once established, combined county authorities, like existing local authorities, will have multiple means through which to petition the Government for improved transport infrastructure for their region. For example, Network Rail is responsible for maintaining the railway and for any renewals to ensure a safe and efficient-running railway. When it comes to enhancements being sought for railway improvements, we follow the rail network enhancements pipeline policy, which sets out how areas can engage with government on rail improvements.
On local roads, the Department for Transport provides local highways maintenance funding through the highways maintenance block and the potholes fund, which provide annual funding for eligible local highways authorities, including future combined county authorities, to locally prioritise investment in local roads and associated infrastructure, such as bridges and lighting columns. The Department for Transport will also maintain regular contact with combined authority areas, which will provide ample opportunity for areas to make the case for transport infrastructure improvements.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about roads and railways, and the control and leadership—if you can call it that—that the Department for Transport has in the pipeline, as he calls it, and everything else. However, I have seen examples of where Network Rail has been unable to paint the railings in one station because it had to go to the Treasury for approval. My noble friend’s amendments are designed to give some local control and accountability, rather than having everything controlled by the Treasury and the Department for Transport, who clearly think that they know best about everything, but some of us have our doubts.
Earl Howe (Con)
Well, I note the noble Lord’s scepticism, which is long-standing, and can only say that I will relay his comments to the appropriate quarter.
I hope that the explanations I have given will be helpful to noble Lords opposite and that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 92. As always, I would of course welcome conversations outside the Chamber if she feels those would be useful.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief as I think everyone is looking forward to the dinner break. I thank the Minister for his very thorough response to my amendments and for his offer at the end. That is extremely helpful and I appreciate it.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for supporting my amendments, which is much appreciated. I will make just one suggestion: if the Government are genuinely committed to levelling up transport in the north, could the next stage of HS2 start from the north and then work down? But at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Carriers’ Liability (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
That this House regrets that the Carriers’ Liability (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/29) and Carriers’ Liability (Clandestine Entrants) (Level of Penalty: Code of Practice) Order 2023 (SI 2023/30) impose a series of unfair penalties on road carriers for the carriage of clandestine illegal immigrants or asylum seekers; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to introduce a coherent and holistic policy for dealing with migrants and asylum seekers regardless of how they seek to enter the United Kingdom.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate on these carriers’ liability amendment instruments, SI 2023/29 and SI 2023/30, which the 27th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn to your Lordships’ attention.
My purpose in raising this was to be able to reflect with the Government and other colleagues on the balance between the very strict and tight regulations which will be applied to the road freight and bus industries, in respect of clandestine or illegal immigrants, and the risk and demand and, as we have seen more recently, the very large number of people who have come across the Channel in small boats. It seems that we have a situation where the penalty very much depends on the mode of entry.
For trucks and buses, whether they are going on ferries or through the Channel Tunnel, the penalty is about £10,000 per entry for the so-called responsible person. It is not quite clear what penalty is payable if people smuggle themselves on freight trains—there are regulations going back many years on that—or whether that applies to trucks on trains. With people in small boats, as we have seen in the press quite a lot recently, it does not seem that anybody gets penalised, because the perpetrators cannot be found. You can see on that basis why the organisers, if there are some, have chosen the small boat route. But if we go back quite a few years, before the small boat revolution—if we can call it that—on the Calais to Dover route, a lot of people were being smuggled on trains and in lorries. One can conclude from this that most of the problems are solved, to the benefit of the people who want to manage these things and take people across, by removing the risk of being caught.
It would be useful therefore if the Minister could start by helping me and maybe other noble Lords with definitions. What does “clandestine” mean? What does “illegal” mean in the case of immigrants? Some of them may be asylum seekers. Does it actually mean everyone apart from visitors? Some people seek asylum and I believe that you have to set foot in the UK before you can. Some people obviously melt away.
However, there are other ways in, for example small boats and other places. The documentation mentions big boats and ships; we have talked about buses and trucks and other vehicles through the Channel Tunnel. But where do they have to come from? In other words, are the same regulations going to apply if you are coming from the Republic of Ireland, either by sea or by air, or going across the frontier into Northern Ireland?
It is not my intention to debate the rights and wrongs of who comes from where, but to try to point out the difference in the way the people organising it and some of those who are suffering are being treated by different modes. The report says that 3,838 people came smuggled in lorries last year, whereas the government website says the total was about 45,000. I would be interested to know how many people were smuggled on rail freight through the tunnel and how many came in, as I mentioned earlier, from the Republic of Ireland. Do these instruments apply there? How many people come across the land frontiers? Equally important for these other modes is how many people are caught and fined in the trucks and buses—maybe we do not know. It would be very good to know why the road freight and bus industries are being singled out for some pretty tight regulations in these SIs.
The Explanatory Memorandum says, in paragraph 10.2 on the consultation:
“Most respondents said the levels of penalty for the existing offence should either be unchanged or should be reduced. Stakeholders also emphasised possible adverse impacts on trade if penalty levels were too high”.
However, the Government are doing the opposite. There was certainly a report which I read, I think last week, about the rather short supply of vegetables from Morocco. The customers were diverting the freight to Belgium and Holland to avoid getting caught in the problems coming into the UK.
I would be interested to know why the Government think that the small number—about 4,000—of people allegedly coming in by truck or bus, compared with the 45,000 who are coming in small boats, justify the present pretty draconian penalties, which will only increase the costs of cross-channel freight. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the usual channels on the Opposition Benches have just had a quick word with me, saying that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be able to contribute to the debate.
On these Benches, we welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has given us to debate the regulations and the code of practice. He has comprehensively and usefully set out his concerns. We are concerned that—first, through these sanctions on drivers, and, secondly, in the new Illegal Migration Bill, which is still being debated in the other place—the Government are failing to target the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people. Their actions never seem to go upstream to get at the smugglers and traffickers. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be focusing on stopping dangerous crossings by whichever means, whether in the back of lorries or on small boats in the channel, by exercising criminal investigations and prosecutions in co-operation with our European partners? Does the Minister agree that providing safe and legal routes to sanctuary is one way of undermining the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and trafficking?
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the need for a “coherent and holistic policy”. That theme is shared by many critics of the Government’s many actions on what they call “illegal” asylum seekers, but what my Benches and I would call “irregular” asylum seekers. The Government are flailing around all the time; they never address the need for safe routes and the need to work in partnership to target the criminal gangs. In addition, can the Minister provide an update on what investment the Government are making in officers, training and technology to prevent irregular entry at Britain’s borders?
On the specifics of the code of practice and the regulations, does the Minister recognise the validity of some of the concerns expressed by the Road Haulage Association on the clandestine vehicle checklist? I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that “clandestine” is not defined. The RHA says that the clandestine vehicle checklist is too vague and requires clarity to be of use to operators. That is in the light of the comment in the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations, that, in response to the consultation:
“Stakeholders welcomed the review of the current vehicle security Code of Practice and supported looking to articulate the required standards more clearly.”
Certainly, in the view of one of the main trade associations, the Road Haulage Association, that aim has not been fulfilled, and I will quote some of the specific points it raises. The first is that
“checking beneath HGVs is not always easy or safe especially if a vehicle has low axles”—
I presume that means, in layman’s terms, that you are expected to crawl underneath an enormous lorry, which sounds not only difficult but potentially unsafe. Then it points out:
“The section that calls for ‘checks inside vehicle for signs of unauthorised access’ is too vague, as it does not list whether trailers should be empty before loading.”
The RHA also says:
“Some checks would also be difficult to carry out with temperature-controlled vehicles as opening them requires a refrigerated environment.”
That seems a fair point. Are drivers expected to carry out checks on a refrigerated vehicle in the middle of a July or August day in France? The fourth point the RHA makes is that
“trailers filled with boxes make it impossible to check the roof for signs of forced entry, due to the impossibility of opening the … doors while on the road.”
Those objections all seem reasonable, understandable and eminently sensible, and I look forward to the Minister addressing them.
Finally, I ask the Minister about the fact that, apparently, the only statutory defence would be duress, as
“it will no longer be a statutory defence to say that an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants was in operation”.
In quite a lot of scenarios for regulated activities, the emphasis is often on whether you have an adequate policy and a system, so that, if something happens that should not have happened, you can show that you had all the preparation, systems and safeguards necessary. But apparently that would not apply in this situation; the only defence would be if the driver could show that they were put under duress, even if they had done everything reasonable in the circumstances. It is a very narrow basis for a defence.
I look forward to the Minister responding to as many of my points as possible.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we in the Labour Party support these statutory instruments because we believe we need stronger action to tackle dangerous lorry crossings, crack down on criminal smuggler gangs and secure the UK’s borders. Given that the maximum penalty levels have not risen since 2002, we believe it is right to look at these levels as we are now.
However, the Government have said that these measures are being put in place to tackle negligence rather than criminality. Given this, what do the Government plan to do to tackle criminal smuggling and trafficking gangs using lorries to transport migrants? How many of the 3,838 incidents during the previous financial year do the Government believe have been caused by negligence rather than criminality? How many incidents do the Government estimate these new penalty levels will prevent? How many convictions have the Government secured in the previous year against criminal gangs organising vehicle crossings of migrants? Some hauliers have said that there is little more they can do to ask their drivers to better secure their vehicles while maintaining health and safety regulations. How will the Government ensure that these fines target those who are being genuinely negligent?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, would it be all right for me to say a few words because the last point on duress interests me? I happened to catch a bit of a programme the other night on the Border Force. They had found some people in the back of a curtain-sided lorry. What is interesting is how they got in there. You would not have been able to detect that if the driver or no one else had been present when they got in. They had very cunningly cut the wire. Once they were in, they put it back together again. It was undetectable. I would have thought it would have been very reasonable for the driver to say that he had absolutely no idea that they were in there. In fact, the Border Force said the same to him and that they were not going to go after him as the people were very cunning.
This is the trouble. There will be certain types of lorry where it will be virtually impossible for the driver to detect that people have got in. I do not think that you should have a single defence, virtually an absolute defence. Life is complicated. You have got to be able to have a reasonable excuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and acknowledge the particular concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The measures in these two instruments form part of the Government’s overall efforts to crack down on illegal migration. I look forward in time to debating the latest part of the work, the new Illegal Migration Bill, which noble Lords have referred to and which, of course, is presently being debated in the other place.
The regulations that are the basis of today’s discussions reform the clandestine entrant civil penalties scheme, which has existed since 1999 under the previous Labour Administration. The scheme has not been reformed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly observed, and the maximum penalty levels have not changed, in over 20 years. The scheme is designed to complement law enforcement activity against criminals. It does this through tackling negligence by people who are not criminals but whose carelessness none the less means that they are responsible for a clandestine entrant gaining access to a vehicle.
Illegal migration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery. A significant number of people who arrive in the UK by tourist and freight transport routes through concealment in vehicles have had their entry illegally facilitated by organised criminal gangs. This method of entry continues and endangers the lives of those involved. In many cases, this is a result of criminal gangs and opportunistic migrants taking advantage of unsecured, or poorly secured, vehicles to smuggle people into the UK clandestinely. To respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised, “clandestine” and other terms are defined in statute in Sections 31A and 32 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. To answer the noble Lord’s second question: yes, this applies to those travelling from the Republic of Ireland.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that we need to stop the dangerous crossings. That is the purpose of the proposed legislation. Sadly, safe and legal routes themselves are no answer as a deterrent. The Government were concerned that the existing clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme was not having the required effect. The data showed that drivers and other responsible persons frequently neglected to take the steps required to secure vehicles and that clandestine entrants continued to use these routes to come to the UK. Action was needed to remedy this.
These measures will disrupt the attempts by organised criminal gangs and opportunistic clandestine migrants to take advantage of unsecured or poorly secured vehicles to enter the United Kingdom illegally. Instead, this may prompt potential clandestine migrants to claim asylum in a safe country and to get quicker access to any help and support that they may require.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we continue to have productive dialogue with the Road Haulage Association, and I can confirm that our officials are speaking at one of its conferences on 22 March.
We have made it clear that, where checks cannot be carried out, they do not have to be carried out. The checklist that we have created covers all eventualities; some of them will not be relevant in particular circumstances.
As the noble Earl rightly observed, duress remains a statutory defence. That was reflected in the original scheme in 1999. We will consider whether drivers and companies carried out adequate checks as part of mitigation, which could see the level of fine reduced. This would cover the circumstances such as those described by the noble Earl.
I am of course grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for these regulations. It is for the reasons that I have already described that the United Kingdom operates a scheme to tackle illegal migration. The scheme means that, when clandestine entrants are found in a vehicle, a penalty can be imposed on any responsible person connected to the vehicle in question. In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: yes, these measures match the risk and demand.
The reforms set out in the regulations are born out of the Government’s concern that the scheme is not having enough of an effect. I say that because, during the financial year 2020-21, there were 3,145 incidents where clandestine entrants were detected concealed in vehicles, despite the Covid-19 pandemic causing a lower volume of traffic. This rose to 3,838 incidents during the financial year 2021-22.
Drivers are not taking all the steps required to secure vehicles, and clandestine entrants are continuing to use these routes to enter the UK. It is for this reason that the Government committed to reviewing and overhauling the scheme as part of their New Plan for Immigration. A public consultation on that plan was held from 24 March to 6 May 2021. The Government, as noble Lords will recall, then introduced changes to the scheme through primary legislation in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The changes in that primary legislation narrowed the statutory defences available to those who had carried a clandestine entrant. In Committee on that Bill, those measures were the subject of an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is not in her place today. That matter was canvassed during the passage of the Bill.
The 2022 Act introduced a new civil penalty for failing adequately to secure a goods vehicle, regardless of whether a clandestine entrant has been found. The final changes brought into effect by these regulations were made following a further public consultation held between 18 July and 12 September 2022. The Government carefully considered representations made by respondents about the possible impact of our proposed reforms, including on trade, supply routes and recruitment. The Government are committed to working with individuals and companies to support growth while delivering a strong and effective border. In short, we think it is appropriate to increase the maximum penalty levels for the existing offence of carrying clandestine entrants, as they have not changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly observed, since 2002. It is also appropriate to set meaningful levels of penalty for the new offence of failing to secure a goods vehicle, to incentivise compliance with our security standards.
Both reforms have been designed with a view to cracking down on repeated instances of negligence, as opposed to unfairly penalising those who have striven to comply with the regulations. For this reason, the reformed scheme has introduced a strikes system for both offences, geared at targeting repeat offenders, with the highest penalty levels being applied only in cases where repeated instances of negligence are evident. Where a person or company is being fined, we have set out in a new statutory code of practice the mitigating circumstances in which they could be eligible for a reduction in the level of their penalty.
The maximum penalty for an individual responsible person for a first incident of carrying a clandestine entrant will be £6,000 per clandestine entrant. This rises to a maximum of £10,000 for a second and any subsequent incidents in the past five years. The maximum penalties in aggregate will be £12,000 and £20,000 for each offence respectively. The maximum penalty for an individual responsible person for a first incident of failing to adequately secure a goods vehicle will be £1,500. This will rise to a maximum of £3,000 for a second incident in the past five years, and to a maximum of £6,000 for a third and any subsequent incidents in the past five years. The maximum penalties in aggregate will be £3,000, £6,000 and £12,000.
A responsible person being fined for carrying a clandestine entrant could be eligible for a reduction of 50% in the level of their penalty if they have complied with the security regulations. A further reduction of 50% could be applied if they are a member of the civil penalty accreditation scheme. In respect of failing adequately to secure a goods vehicle, a responsible person who is not the driver and who was not present during the journey of the vehicle or the detached trailer to the UK could be eligible for a 50% reduction in their penalty if they acted to ensure compliance with the security regulations. I hope these measures go some way to assuage the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, elucidated. A further reduction of 50% could be applied if the responsible person is a member of the civil penalty accreditation scheme.
For both offences, individuals and companies will be able to apply for means testing to be applied when their level of penalty is being determined. The Secretary of State will be able to take into account those and any other factors they think appropriate in finalising the level of penalty to be levied. Indeed, they will retain a discretion not to impose a penalty at all in appropriate cases. The Government want people and companies to avoid being fined, and they can do so by complying with the security standards. We have set these in the new statutory regulations presently before the House. We have promoted adherence to the standards through further engagement with drivers and industry. This includes relaunching the civil penalty accreditation scheme I just mentioned, through which members are eligible for a potential 50% reduction in any fine.
The Government believe that this package of measures strikes the right balance between recognising the impact of penalties on individuals, companies and industry and incentivising compliance with our security standards and protecting border security. We are focused on delivering a fair and effective immigration system and, as I have said, these measures will allow us to strike the right balance in pursuit of that aim. With all that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his fairly comprehensive response and to colleagues who have contributed to this short debate. I am certainly not against updating the penalties, because penalties are necessary, but there are one or two things about this that still concern me. The Minister summarised all the different people who could be involved in receiving penalties, if offences can be proved, and that reflects the different organisations that the logistics industry has these days, which I think we all accept.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (13 Mar 2023)
“(e) as to the holding of by-elections for mayoral vacancies.”Member's explanatory statement
This is to probe the possibility of Mayoral by-elections.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 115, 118 and 119 and Amendments 116, 117 and 125 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock.
In general terms, these amendments have been tabled to probe some of the issues around what appears to be a democratic deficit in both the existing elected mayoral system and the new provisions proposed in the Bill. They also consider how the Secretary of State will deal with the financial consequences of the powers given to him or her in the Bill to transfer functions to the mayor, as well as some further issues around the communication of issues relating to the mayoral system to members of the public in the area that he or she represents.
I know that communication has been covered extensively in our previous debates in Committee—we have heard extensive responses from the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on that subject—so I will be brief. However, if the new CCAs that choose to go down the route of an elected mayor are to be successful, it will be vital that all matters relating to the mayoralty are set out clearly and communicated effectively to the public in the area concerned.
Amendment 103 is intended to probe the possibility of mayoral by-elections. We need clarity in relation to what would happen in the event that a CCA mayor resigned or left office for any reason. Does there need to be specific provision in the Bill to enable a mayoral by-election should this happen? As the current proposal seems to be that the deputy mayor is simply appointed by the mayor, it does not seem appropriate for an unelected deputy mayor to step in and take over until the next cycle of mayoral elections is due. Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that a mayoral by-election should possible if the mayor is unable or unwilling to carry on in their role in a period that is not close to the date in the normal cycle of mayoral elections?
Amendment 115 would insert:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments.”
This amendment has been supported by the Local Government Association, which thinks it gives greater power to combined authority members to hold the mayor, and the mayor’s choice of deputy mayor, to account. We heard a great deal earlier this afternoon about the flaws in the process for appointing deputy mayors. The current system of appointment by the mayor to the role of deputy mayor seems to leave a gaping hole in any democratic process in this respect. Deputy mayors have powerful roles within the executive and administration of the CCA. As we have heard, they could potentially take the role of the current police and crime commissioner. They also receive remuneration from the CCA, which can be at a significant cost to the taxpayer. But this can be done without any provision in the Bill for scrutiny either by the overview and scrutiny committee or by an equivalent body, let alone any external scrutiny, which seems to set those roles apart from both the democratic process, in that they are not elected by the public, and the provisions that would be made in a local authority, for example, for the appointment of a senior member of staff. Would the Minister give consideration to any further provisions and safeguards that could be built into the Bill to ensure that CCA members and the public can hold the mayor to account for the appointment of deputy mayors?
Amendment 116, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming what additional funds will be made available to a mayor when making regulations under Clause 28, so we are back to funding again. This amendment is supported by the LGA. The clause gives the Secretary of State significant powers to transfer responsibilities for certain functions and activities to the mayor and the CCA. In some circumstances, we accept, this may be subject to the normal process of new burdens funding, although that process in itself has its own challenges. We would be more concerned that devolution may be used as an excuse to reduce funding for services, particularly core services. We absolutely support the transfer of powers from central government to local leaders, but of course these powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels. Our amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would confirm what funding was being allocated along with any new powers that are conferred. The LGA agrees with that opinion, saying that
“powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels, and devolution should not be used as an excuse to reducing funding”.
So, on that amendment, we have the support of the LGA.
Amendment 117, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, is on an annual summit of CCA mayors. This is similar to earlier amendments we laid down around the sharing of good practice. It is a probing amendment designed to explore how CCA mayors will share information on the implementation of the new types of combined authorities and best practice. It would give them a forum to enable them to discuss any issues arising from the operation of the CCAs, and liaison and co-operation between them and the Government, and to understand how different models of CCA are working—for example, those that have taken the powers of police and crime commissioners. We appreciate that there may be a role for the LGA. We discussed that earlier this afternoon; we can discuss it further in later stages of the Bill. Other bodies may have an interest in this area in relation to CCAs, but it is certainly not clear from the Bill how joint working, sharing of good practice and achieving an agreed stance where issues arise on policy matters around the structure of CCAs and so on would happen.
Amendment 118 is a probing amendment which would prevent the Secretary of State from conferring only partial police and crime commissioner functions on the mayor. This relates very much to the discussion that we had earlier under other amendments. I hope that it is not related to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt earlier, where a mayor does not agree with decisions made by a PCC of a different political persuasion—or even the same one, if you are in one of those types of political arrangements and they have had a fallout. It seems strange to have provision in the Bill which could lead to the possibility of a patchwork of different policing responsibilities being conferred on CCA mayors. This begs a further question about the role of police and crime commissioners in those circumstances.
This probing amendment seeks to understand the Government’s view on whether they would prefer the default position to be to transfer all the functions of police and crime commissioners to mayors in most circumstances, except where the CCA particularly expresses a wish not to transfer any of those powers, or whether it is to be left to CCAs at local level to determine which functions will be transferred to the mayor. Can the Minister please clarify this point? Policing is just too important in our communities to see it haggled over between different bits of local authorities. I hope we can have a clear line on this.
Amendment 119 is a probing amendment to allow the person appointed deputy mayor to be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Again, we had a very long discussion about this earlier today, but it is certainly not clear in the Bill whether it is the intention that a deputy mayor should never take the function of a deputy mayor for policing and crime. We have raised other amendments, and under those is our concern about the democratic deficit in the appointment of deputy mayors. However, if and only if the issues around accountability for those appointments can be resolved, it would seem perverse for the mayor not to be able to delegate this part of their responsibility. Indeed, in practice, it almost certainly would happen. Can the Minister comment on how this aspect of the Bill might be clarified to make that issue clearer?
Lastly, Amendment 125, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean that a change in the mayoral title must be communicated to residents. We agree with Amendment 124 by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley: a list of possible alternative titles for mayors is really unnecessary, as the CCA already has powers to choose alternative titles if it wishes. My noble friend’s amendment is intended to make sure that, if there is a change to the title, that is communicated to the public—to residents—and that that should be written into the process for any mayoral change of title. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 124 in this group, which relates to Clause 40, “Alternative mayoral titles”. I challenge the notion that a choice of titles is required on the face of the Bill. Powers to decide a title already lie with the CCA, under Clause 40, in line 25 of page 35, and to attempt to define possible titles is an unnecessary addition.
The titles suggested are,
“county commissioner … county governor … elected leader … governor.”
I am not clear where those four titles came from. I guess we could all add some more, but it is confusing since everybody else is using the word “mayor”. I do not understand why another title is necessary. If I look at the word “governor”, I immediately think of a school governor, the governor of a US state or the governor of a prison. I am not sure it helps public understanding of what is proposed with a combined county authority to have a mixture of titles for roles. The public will have great difficulty engaging with them, because the titles could be different in one place from another. The power is there for people on the CCA to decide what title they want but, frankly, if I had my way it would be “mayor” because that has become the term. For the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tees Valley and so on, the word is “mayor” and I am not sure it helps to have suggestions that they could be called “governors” or “county commissioners.” I hope the Minister may be able to look at that and come up with an explanation about why the Government want to confuse things so much.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for raising issues in detail regarding mayoral names—or not—and some aspects of elections and powers, because that points to the fact that although we have a very long Bill with a huge number of clauses, a lot of the detail is insufficient for us to understand completely what the Government seek to do and how they hope these new CCAs and mayors—or not mayors—will operate.
An important issue is in Amendment 103, about what happens if the current mayor stands down for whatever reason. That would be worth knowing for all of us who live in combined authorities.
The second important thing is about the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments. One would hope that a panel of members who are not of the same party as the mayor would interview and scrutinise the appointment of the person, who will have significant powers conferred on them simply because they are a mate of the mayor; that never seems appropriate. There are a number of other probing amendments in this group, including that of my noble friend about “governors”. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but it points to the fact that the Bill has not been as well thought through as it might have been.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to some detailed mayoral matters including by-elections, the scrutiny of mayoral appointments, police and crime commissioner functions, deputy mayoral roles and alternative titles for the mayor. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.
Turning to Amendment 103 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I assure her that there are provisions which will enable a by-election if the position of the mayor of a combined authority becomes vacant. Paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 2 provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the filling of vacancies in the office of the mayor of a combined county authority. This would include provision for a by-election where that is the appropriate mechanism for filling the vacancy.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
If I heard right, the answer to the question of what would happen if the mayoral position were vacant was that the Secretary of State would, by regulation, have the power to decide whether it would be filled by an election or not. What would the “or not” mean? Did I misunderstand that point?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, the noble Baroness did not misunderstand. It is important that we wait for those regulations to come out. There could be a point where the mayor stood down a month before an election; there may be a period of time when there has to be a decision, as you would not have two elections close together. The regulations are what is important here. We will wait to see further detail that is being worked up, but I assure her that it is expected that there would be a by-election.
Lord Stunell (LD)
The Minister has mentioned that we should wait for the regulations. It might be helpful in this instance and several others if it were possible to bring forward some draft regulations to help us understand the direction of thought that the Government are taking. We are all well aware that, by the time regulations are laid before the two Houses, the opportunity for parliamentarians to make informed and useful comments will be very limited. A quick look at the Government’s direction of travel on this and, I may say, many other matters, in the way of draft or outline regulations would be helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is understood. I will take that back and do what I can; I will see what we have already.
On Amendment 115 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I agree with her that the decisions of a mayor of a combined county authority should be—as I said earlier—subject to effective scrutiny, as should those of any leader of any council. Devolution should combine strong, empowered local leaders with strong accountability, but also transparency. The Government will publish a new devolution accountability framework to ensure that all devolution deals lead to local leaders and institutions that are transparent and accountable.
Schedule 1 provides that a combined county authority will be required to have at least one overview and scrutiny committee, as we discussed earlier, which can review and scrutinise decisions made or actions taken by the combined county authority and the mayor. The schedule provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the overview and scrutiny committee, including membership, voting rights, payment of allowances, chair, appointments of scrutiny officers, circumstances in which matters may be referred to the committee, and the obligations on persons to attend and respond to reports that the committee issues. This will ensure a robust framework within which overview and scrutiny committees will operate.
We think that this gives sufficient scope for local scrutiny on decisions taken by the CCA or mayor, such as the appointment of a deputy mayor by the mayor from among the combined county authority’s membership, if that is considered appropriate. I make it clear that the statutory deputy mayor will have to come from the members of the CCA—from those local authorities. It is not the same as a deputy mayor for police and crime, who could come from somewhere else, because they would possibly be required to have different experience and background. I hope that makes sense. It is quite important that we have those two deputies separated.
On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we agree that information on funding should be available, and I can reassure the noble Baroness that that will be the case. Information on the funding available to a combined county authority and mayor will be in the public domain. The deal agreed between the Government and the area sets out both the funding arrangements and the powers to be conferred on the combined county authority and the mayor. The deal document is published and therefore publicly available. There must also be a public consultation locally on the area’s proposal to establish a combined county authority. We expect this to set out how the CCA will work and include the powers to be conferred on the CCA and the mayor and the funding available. The final proposal, which must be accompanied by a summary of the consultation, will constitute the formal submission to the Secretary of State seeking the establishment of the CCA.
In Amendment 117, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, probes whether there should be an annual summit of the CCA mayors. The existing combined authority mayors have themselves established the M10 group to enable them to work together. The Government engage with this group on a regular basis. We expect the M10 and the new combined county authority mayors to consider how best to work together. We think a locally led arrangement is better than a centrally imposed approach, and I expect it will evolve as more areas agree devolution deals.
In tabling Amendment 118 to Schedule 3, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is seeking to prevent a combined county authority taking on part of the police and crime commissioner role. Schedule 3 provides further detail, setting out the matters on which the Secretary of State either may or must make regulations to enable a transfer of police and crime commissioner functions to a combined county authority mayor. It provides the framework and arrangements for the mayor to exercise these PCC functions on a day-to-day basis.
The amendment would limit the ability of the Secretary of State to determine an appropriate limited scope to the conferral of PCC functions to combined county authority mayors. Combined county authority and combined authority mayors should have parity where possible to ensure that all areas of England have the same options. The schedule achieves this consistency by mirroring the scope of regulations that govern the conferral and exercise of police and crime commissioner functions by combined authority mayors, as set out in Schedule 5C to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The amendment would create an inconsistency between the schedule governing the making of regulations related to combined county authority mayors’ exercise of PCC functions compared with its equivalent for combined authority mayors, leading to unnecessary inconsistency in the legislative framework for the PCC model.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am still a bit confused about this. The Bill says that some mayors taking on police and crime commissioner powers can take certain powers to themselves and others can take others, so you end up with a picture around the country where they have different powers in different places. That was my concern, not that there would be an inconsistency between police and crime commissioners and mayors. What I wanted to understand with the amendment was whether, if the powers of the police and crime commissioner are transferred to the mayor, they will all be transferred. We do not want a different picture around the country depending on which powers of the police and crime commissioner have been moved over.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
All the powers will go. There will not be half a PCC left. Does that make sense?
Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to allow the person appointed as statutory deputy mayor of the combined county authority to also be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Schedule 3 prevents this because the deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are two distinct, separate, and weighty roles. The role of the statutory deputy mayor is to step in and act as mayor should the mayor be unable to act or if the office of mayor is vacant for a time, as well as assisting across a whole range of general mayoral functions where applicable.
The deputy mayor of a combined authority is typically also a council leader, and we anticipate this will likely also be the case in combined county authorities. This would mean that this person is already accountable for the decisions and activities of the council they lead, in addition to their combined county authority responsibilities, where they will be accountable collectively, and possibly personally, for some of the CCA decisions, including personally for the mayor’s functions if the mayor cannot act. The role of the deputy mayor for policing and crime is to dedicate constant focus and attention to crime and policing and is usually a full-time role. Clearly, both the roles of deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are significant and we believe that they should remain separate and distinct.
Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow CCA mayors to be called by their choice of alternative title. Clauses 40 and 41 already enable mayoral combined county authorities to resolve or choose to use an alternative title to “mayor” for their directly elected mayor. They can choose from a shortlist of titles listed in the Bill, or a different title not on the list, having regard to other titles used in the area. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from regarding the fact that the title “mayor” is beginning to take on some level of credence within the country, but if you come from a particularly rural county area—I counted last night that where I was leader of a council, we already had 16 mayors—an elected mayor would be confusing for some people. The role of a mayor in some rural areas is seen as a civic role, rather than a leadership role, which is very different.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I say to the Minister that the problem applies in urban areas too; it is not specifically a rural issue. If you look at Merseyside and Liverpool, you will see a mayor, a ceremonial mayor and a combined authority mayor—you have three already. The public work with that, but what I am challenging is whether people being able to choose their own title for their area will not be more confusing, because if you use the word “governor” or a variation on that theme, the question then arises: “What are those powers?”. People at least have some idea what a combined authority mayor is actually about.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
These decisions, as with many, have to be taken locally because local people will understand better than anybody what is right for their area. I have given the Committee my personal views from when we were considering mayors—I just thought it would be confusing.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I approached it from the opposite direction: if indeed it should be a matter for local people to decide because they are best equipped to understand what terminology might be appropriate, why does the Minister feel that it is sensible or suitable to have a defined list from which they must choose, rather than doing exactly as she said by exercising their discretion in relation to their own area and locality?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is not a defined list, as I said. There is a list which I assume probably came from consultation on the White Paper, and things that people have already said they might like to use. They can choose from that shortlist, but they can also have a different title that is not on the list. The choice is theirs.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her detailed responses and the other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned that the detail in the Bill is insufficient on how CCAs operate. That goes to the heart of a lot of these amendments. We have tabled a lot of probing amendments to try to find out some of the detail about how all this is going to work.
In relation to Amendment 103 and the appointment of deputy mayors, in local government we have an appointments committee, as the Minister will know, which oversees the appointment to local authorities of any senior post. When we tabled the amendment, we had not understood that it was going to be essential that the deputy mayor would be one of the councillor members of the CCA. I hope that we have been able to clarify that through the submission of this amendment.
Matters of governance and constitution are essential. I would normally say I understand that we have to wait for regulations, statutory instruments and so on, but as this will be such a major change for our areas, it is important that both the local authorities and the members who will enact this legislation—and the members of the public who are going to live in the new CCA areas—understand in great detail how it is going to work before we go into the new system. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a comment about having some draft regulations in front of us before we get to the end of the Bill. That would be incredibly helpful.
On provisions for by-elections, I understand the Minister’s comments about that being in the schedule. However, it sounds as if it will be a little in the hands of the Secretary of State as to whether to call for an election. That gives me a bit of concern because if a local councillor resigns midterm, you have to hold a by-election if the members of the electorate call for it. Unless it is very close to an upcoming local election, you have to do that between elections. I do not see any problem with having something further in the Bill so that we could understand how that works. It would be the same process, in effect, as for a local councillor.
On Amendment 115, I understand the responses. But would the accountability include the PCC or the mayor as PCC? The Minister mentioned a whole raft of accountabilities that the mayor comes under. Would it include the PCC and the mayoral role as PCC? I would like to understand that a little better. Is the whole policing element of the mayor’s role going to be undertaken a bit under the radar, as it is now, by a local policing committee?
On Amendment 116, the noble Baroness said that the deal agreed sets out the funding arrangements and that it is a public document. It was helpful to have that clarified. Her response to Amendment 117 was that there is an existing body, the M10 group of CCA mayors, and it is helpful to know that the Government expect mayors to participate in some kind of forum.
On Amendment 118, the schedule sets out the functions. Thanks to the responses we have had, we now know that they would be the same options, whether it was going to be a police and crime commissioner or the mayor undertaking those duties. I want to just ask one further question: does that mean that the deputy mayor for crime and policing does not have to be a councillor member of the CCA? Could that person be just appointed from outside the CCA? We would take an interest if that was the case.
On the list of titles, we just disagree. The amendment states quite clearly that we think it should just be left to authorities to determine that; there is no need for a list of titles on the face of the Bill. We have been told over and again that we do not need so much detail in the Bill, but in this case we have a whole list on the face of the Bill that we think is entirely unnecessary.
I am grateful for the points about communication because it is really important that, with a new system like this, the public understand exactly what is happening. If there is to be change to the title that should be communicated. “Communicated” is not as effective as I would like it to be. I would like them to be consulted on it, but communication is better than nothing.
That said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment for now. I stress the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made about having some draft regulations in front of us so that we can understand very clearly exactly what the provisions are. If the noble Baroness could write to us about the issue of the deputy mayor with responsibility for police and crime functions and whether that person is going to be a councillor or not, that would be helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am happy to answer that straight away. That person does not have to be a councillor. The statutory deputy mayor needs to be a councillor and the police and crime one does not.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(4) Until the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Elections Act 2022 (amendment of paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 relating to candidacy rights of EU citizens), sub-paragraph (3) has effect as if for the definition of “qualifying citizen” there were substituted—““qualifying citizen” means a person who is a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union, within the meaning given in section 79 of the Local Government Act 1972;”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the fact that the definition of “qualifying citizen” in paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 2 follows the definition of that term in paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 as amended by paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Elections Act 2022, which is not yet in force. It therefore ensures that the definition in the Bill tracks that in the 2009 Act while the amendment to the latter by the 2022 Act is not force.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have tabled a number of consequential, minor and technical amendments for combined county authorities. The consequential amendments are to existing legislation, to ensure that it applies to combined county authorities where necessary. This will mean that the CCA model can work in practice as a local government institution. It will also mean that CCAs have parity with combined authorities where it is required to make the model a viable alternative to areas with two-tier local government.
The other minor and technical amendments are to amend the Bill to update references to legislation that gained Royal Assent in 2022, including the Elections Act and the Local Government (Disqualification) Act, which will affect the combined county authorities. Though they amend other Acts, these amendments do not extend provisions any further than the remit of the previous clauses. Given their importance to enabling the combined county authority model to work effectively in practice, I hope noble Lords will support these amendments.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I will speak very briefly; I will certainly not debate with the Minister all 35 amendments. I am taking on a brief inspection that these are indeed just minor and consequential. I want to use this as the opportunity to say that the Minister has written to us today, advising us of a whole range of further amendments that the Government will table. While most of them flow from the debates we have had so far, one particular amendment relating to the building safety regulator is completely off-piste, as far as I can see. In responding, can the Minister—perhaps being grateful for me not debating all 35 amendments—assure us that sufficient time will be given for us to think through some of the new amendments the Government have tabled today?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that I too will not debate all 35 amendments. They are largely consequential and drafting amendments. I noted that, earlier in today’s debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the consultation provisions contained in Amendments 151 and 152, so we will have a closer look at those, and we may write to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, if we have any further concerns on that.
I have one tiny question—forgive me: I know that it is late—on Amendment 143. The proposed new paragraph 7ZB in Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:
“If the Secretary of State … thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and (b) invites the combined county authority to prepare or revise the document, the combined county authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.”
I do not necessarily need an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me. Is it the Secretary of State or the constituent planning authority who invites the CCA to intervene in the preparation or revision of the document? That was not clear. The amendment also makes provision for the CCA to charge the non-constituent authority for work done on the development plan. Would those charges be agreed between both parties in advance, subject to a fee scale or limited fixed charges? I ask that question because it may be that the financial position of the constituent planning authority was the reason for the delay in the first place. It may be that, either in preparing the plan or if the recruitment of planning staff in the area is difficult, the authority is not in a position to increase salaries and so on, so if there were to be a massive charge to it from the CCA, that might be an issue. I am happy to take a written response to that question in due course.
Other than that, I have no questions or comments on the amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her offer; I would prefer to give a written answer to that question, because it was quite complicated, and I do not want to give the wrong answer.
On the question of sufficient time for the new government amendments, I will ensure that I talk to the usual people to give plenty of time for noble Lords to look into them, because they were more substantive than this group of amendments. Saying that, I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 25, page 259, line 27 and page 259, line 28 correct drafting errors, in that references to various kinds of regulations should be references to various kinds of order.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 24.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 24.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 259, line 24.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference, which should be to section 114A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 rather than to section 115 of that Act.
“(3) Until the coming into force of paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Elections Act 2022 (amendment of paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 relating to undue influence), sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if paragraph (e) were omitted.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the fact that paragraph (e) of paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2 matches paragraph (e) of paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 as inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Elections Act 2022, which is not yet in force. It therefore ensures that paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill tracks paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 5B to the 2009 Act while the amendment to the latter by the 2022 Act is not force.
“8A “(1) A person is disqualified for being elected or holding office as the mayor for the area of a CCA if the person is subject to—(a) any relevant notification requirements, or(b) a relevant order.(2) In this paragraph “relevant notification requirements” mean—(a) the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;(b) the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010;(c) the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Criminal Justice (Sex Offenders and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2013;(d) the notification requirements of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 2001 (an Act of Tynwald: c 4).(3) In this paragraph “relevant order” means—(a) a sexual harm prevention order under section 345 of the Sentencing Code;(b) a sexual harm prevention order under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;(c) a sexual offences prevention order under section 104 of that Act;(d) a sexual risk order under section 122A of that Act;(e) a risk of sexual harm order under section 123 of that Act;(f) a risk of sexual harm order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;(g) a sexual risk order under section 27 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016;(h) a restraining order under Article 10 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010;(i) a child protection order under Article 11 of that Law;(j) a sexual offences prevention order under section 18 of that Law;(k) a risk of sexual harm order under section 22 of that Law;(l) a sexual offences prevention order under section 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 2006 (an Act of Tynwald: c 20);(m) a risk of sexual harm order under section 5 of that Act. (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a), a person who is subject to any relevant notification requirements is not to be regarded as disqualified until—(a) the expiry of the ordinary period allowed for making an appeal or application against the conviction, finding, caution, order or certification in respect of which the person is subject to the relevant notification requirements, or(b) if such an appeal or application is made, the date on which it is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails because it is not prosecuted.(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), a person who is subject to a relevant order is not to be regarded as disqualified until—(a) the expiry of the ordinary period allowed for making an appeal against the relevant order, or(b) if such an appeal is made, the date on which it is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails because it is not prosecuted.(6) This paragraph does not have the effect of disqualifying a person for being elected or holding office as the mayor for the area of a CCA by reason of the person becoming subject to—(a) any relevant notification requirements, or(b) a relevant order,before the day on which this paragraph comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for a person to be disqualified from being the mayor of a CCA in certain circumstances. The provisions correspond to the provision made about the mayors of combined authorities by the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference, which should be to paragraph 11(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Bill rather than to paragraph 11(2)(a) of that Schedule.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the second amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 260, line 10.