House of Commons

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 22 March 2023

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have a short statement to make. Today marks the sixth anniversary of the death of PC Keith Palmer, who died in the line of duty protecting this Parliament from terrorist attack. His sacrifice will not be forgotten. May I express on behalf of the whole House our sympathy with his family, friends and colleagues on this sad anniversary?

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to mark the anniversary of the Belfast agreement.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to mark the anniversary of the Belfast agreement.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

Mr Speaker, may I associate myself and everyone in the House with your comments about PC Keith Palmer on this anniversary? May I also remind the House that yesterday marked 30 years since the IRA’s Warrington bomb? My thoughts are with those who were affected by this atrocity, which caused the death of two young children, Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball, and injured 54 others. It is a reminder of the terrible cost of the troubles and of the vital importance of maintaining peace and improving political stability in Northern Ireland, and I am grateful to all those who continue to promote peace and reconciliation in our society.

Last week, I visited the United States for the St Patrick’s day celebrations, and I am keenly aware that that the eyes of the world will be on Northern Ireland in the month ahead as we prepare to mark the Belfast/Good Friday agreement’s 25th anniversary. A host of events, big and small, civic, private and public, are being organised, many by Queen’s University Belfast, to mark this important anniversary.

[Robbie Moore]

The 25th anniversary of the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is significant, not just in the history of Northern Ireland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. How will my right hon. Friend’s Department ensure that this historic moment is recognised appropriately in every part of the country?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this historic moment is an achievement not just for Northern Ireland but for the entire United Kingdom. We have an educational initiative that is going to offer young people across the United Kingdom an opportunity to engage with the anniversary by learning about the journey to the agreement and its crucial role in providing peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. Obviously, 25 years on, we are no less committed to achieving that aim.

[Gerald Jones]

The Good Friday agreement is undoubtedly one of the proudest moments of the last Labour Government, and the Labour party is proud of its part in it and of the work of Tony Blair, Mo Mowlam and many others. Strand 2, on the North South Ministerial Council, is often overlooked, so can I ask the Minister whether, as we move forward with the Windsor framework, the bodies involved will have an important role to play in improving prosperity in Northern Ireland, and how he sees that developing?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

All three strands of the agreement are vital, and all need to be working, but the hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that strand 2 and the council are very important as we move forward from this point. Twenty-five years of peace and stability have flowed from the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and I would like to think, as we look forward, that we will have not just peace and stability but prosperity for the next 25 years.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I associate myself with your important words about PC Keith Palmer?

It has been reported that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has requested 330 officers from other UK forces for support during the forthcoming presidential visit by President Biden next month. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his Department will continue to work closely with the PSNI during this challenging period and anticipate any assistance that it might need?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

We have a number of big visitors coming to Northern Ireland to mark this important anniversary, and I know that the PSNI is remarkably well organised in preparing for this. Of course the Government will happily support the PSNI in its endeavours.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s words. The PSNI will also need support after Air Force One departs. Due to a funding shortfall, officer numbers will soon fall to a record low. In fact, there will be 800 fewer officers than agreed in New Decade, New Approach. Does he think this is fair for a force that faces unique challenges on a daily basis?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

First, I pay tribute to all the officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland for all the work they do across communities, and to the Chief Constable. He has brought in community policing, of which most of us will be cognisant in our own areas but which is almost new in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, policing is devolved to the Executive. I am well aware of the Chief Constable’s asks in this area, and I am talking to him about them.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

2. What the criteria are for using the Stormont brake.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

I encourage my hon. Friend to attend today’s debate, in this Chamber, on the regulations implementing this powerful democratic mechanism. In short, 30 Members of the Legislative Assembly from two political parties may use the brake if there is anything significantly different about a new rule, whether in its content or scope, and if its application will have a significant impact on everyday life that is liable to persist in Northern Ireland.

[Scott Benton]

Even if a significant number of MLAs object to a proposal from the EU, the decision to veto it will still rest with the UK Government, and there will no doubt be an institutional reluctance to use the veto, as it would be met with retaliatory action from the EU. Given the likely impact on UK-EU relations and wider trade, it is surely very unlikely that the Stormont brake will ever be used, even if MLAs want it to be triggered.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

With respect, my hon. Friend underestimates the power of this mechanism. The Government will be under a legal obligation to trigger the brake where the conditions under the Windsor framework are met. Compared with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, this is a significant advancement because the remedial measures he talks about, should the EU choose to take them, would be proportionate and would have to relate to NI-to-EU trade, whereas under the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill it would have been across the piece.

Nobody wants to use this mechanism for trivial reasons but, once it is triggered, the regulations set out that the Government must not agree a rule at the Joint Committee if there is not cross-community support for it in the Assembly or if it creates regulatory borders within the United Kingdom, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as Stormont not sitting or a foot and mouth disease outbreak, or something of that nature.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, rather than an emergency brake, this is more like a handbrake? A handbrake will stop, rather than slow, a moving car. The only brake on acceleration can come from the EU, which retains complete control over Northern Ireland and, by extension, over the will of this House, which it should not. That is both a tragedy and a travesty.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Essentially, if the Assembly says no to something, the presumption is that the Government would veto it. Without this measure, Northern Ireland would continue to have full and automatic dynamic alignment with EU goods rules, with the Northern Ireland Assembly having no say and no veto on the amendment or replacement of measures. The Stormont brake is a very good thing.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

3. What steps the Government is taking to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland have full access to the UK internal market.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

The Windsor framework restores the free flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The agreement guarantees unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the UK market on a permanent basis, and we have secured alternative arrangements that remove any proposed requirement to provide export declarations or equivalent information for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

[Alexander Stafford]

Rother Valley has many amazing businesses, especially butchers such as G. Lomas in South Anston, Grays of Thurcroft, Stuart Saunders in Maltby and Lawns Farm in Morthen. I want everyone to try their products. What assurances can the Minister give me that everyone, no matter where they are in the United Kingdom, can taste Rother Valley sausage?

[Mr Baker]

I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that residents of Northern Ireland will be able to enjoy the sausages produced by the great businesses in his constituency. The framework ends the ban on chilled meats, such as sausages and seasoned lamb joints, meaning that supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland will be able to stock the products that customers want and have bought for years.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

But the reality for my constituents, and businesses such as McCartney’s delicatessen in Moira, is that although they can bring in sausages from Yorkshire or any other part of the UK that are made to British standards, the sausages they make in Northern Ireland, part of the UK, have to be made to EU standards, because EU law applies to all manufactured goods in Northern Ireland. So why is it right to bring sausages from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and sell them in Northern Ireland, but it is not right to sell British sausages made in Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Baker]

I understand the force and passion with which the right hon. Gentleman makes this point, but he knows that what we have done is reduce the extent of EU law in Northern Ireland to the absolute minimum consistent with keeping open an infrastructure-free border with the Republic of Ireland. I appreciate that this is a compromise that for many people will go too far, but I believe it is the right decision in these circumstances.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask Members, please, to take notice of the questions.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reality is that Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market has not been fully restored by the Windsor framework, because EU law applies to all manufactured goods in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that of £77 billion-worth of goods manufactured in Northern Ireland £65 billion are sold in the UK. All of those goods must comply with EU law, regardless of where they are sold. Can we not get back to the proposals in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which mean that UK law applies unless a business wants to trade with the EU, in which case it must follow EU law?

[Mr Baker]

On the proposal for dual regulation, that was not what constituent businesses in Northern Ireland wanted. At some point, even unrelenting figures such as myself do need to compromise and give the voters what they want. I recognise that compromise is extremely difficult. We are in a position where we have an opportunity to move forward together. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that the manufacturing of most of the kinds of goods to which he is referring is done to international standards. So given all the circumstances, this is a reasonable compromise for Northern Ireland.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to help increase investment into Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

The Northern Ireland economy has the ingredients required for economic success: exceptional talent, creativity, innovation and a healthy spirit of private sector entrepreneurship. Last week, the Secretary of State was delighted to visit the United States, and next week I will be visiting the USA and Canada to promote the excellent investment opportunities in Northern Ireland. We are, of course, also planning an investment summit.

[Theresa Villiers]

One way to attract foreign direct investment is by creating the right regulatory climate. The Minister has been a strong advocate for post-Brexit regulatory reform to make our rules more competitive, targeted, agile and modern. So when does he think we will get to the position where we can do that in Northern Ireland, in the same way that Brexit allows us to do it in Great Britain?

[Mr Baker]

My right hon. Friend and I have walked a long way in these various battles together and she knows very well what she asks me. On goods, we have to make sure that we can keep open an infrastructure-free north-south border, but the unique position of Northern Ireland is that on services regulation it will be subject to UK law and UK trade agreements. So where we have comparative advantage, particularly in Northern Ireland on issues such as fintech, we will be subject to UK law and UK regulation and have access to global markets through the kind of trade agreements and services that it is in all of our interests to strike, in order to serve the comparative advantage of the whole UK. This is the unique opportunity now facing Northern Ireland, and I want us all to seize it in every way we can.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland now has the highest percentage accessibility of gigabit-capable broadband in the UK, with a figure twice that of the Republic of Ireland and one of the highest in the world. Will the Minister ensure that the energy infrastructure is such to complement that, thereby offering one of the best inward investment and indigenous business opportunities anywhere in the world?

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman will know that energy is devolved. I hope that he will join me in doing everything possible to ensure that the maximum investment can be made in Northern Ireland. He knows exactly what he and his colleagues need to do to help me to serve him and serve Northern Ireland: restore the devolved institutions.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in restoring the balance of the Belfast agreement the best approach is to pass the Windsor framework today in this place, and that we have to be pragmatic and open our eyes to the many opportunities, courtesy of inward investment, that will then follow for the benefit of all communities in the Province?

[Mr Baker]

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. The reality is that the Windsor framework is a dramatic improvement on the protocol. I do not think that anyone can reasonably argue otherwise. Of course, it includes compromises. Neither I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister is suggesting that it does not. The question that everyone needs to answer is whether this is a step forward for Northern Ireland. I am absolutely sure that it is, and I agree with my hon. Friend.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Tourism spending is also very important. The Minister will be aware that the Northern Ireland Tourism Alliance is very concerned about the application of the forthcoming electronic travel authorisation to the sector in Northern Ireland, given our unique marketing and unique offer. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to try to find a practical solution to that problem?

[Mr Baker]

I am well aware of the case the hon. Gentleman makes. Of course, we are in conversation with Home Office colleagues. The Government’s position is that we are determined to make sure that tourists understand that they will need to comply with UK immigration requirements to visit the UK, and that means that they will need that travel authorisation to go to Northern Ireland. I am aware of the concerns of tourism authorities north and south, and indeed the concerns of the Irish Government. We continue to take those seriously as we talk with the Home Office.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Jonathan Haskel, an external member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, has estimated that Brexit has resulted in the loss of approximately £29 billion of business investment to the UK as a whole. Does the Minister believe that the Windsor framework will undo the proportion of the damage that has been done to the Northern Irish economy? If so, why does he consider the market access that that framework underpins to be good enough for one part of the United Kingdom but not good enough for the rest of us?

[Mr Baker]

I am honoured that the hon. Gentleman should think that, on the fly, I would be able to do my own economic modelling on that subject. It is undoubtedly the case that the political turmoil of the last several years has been unhelpful. I say to the hon. Gentleman—and this should be a salutary lesson to everybody on his party’s Benches—that it is extremely important that when the public vote for a thing, they get the thing they voted for. The public voted for the whole UK to stay together in a once-in-a-generation referendum on Scottish independence, and then the UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union—and that is what we will deliver.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to support people affected by troubles-related crimes.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, which continues its passage through Parliament, will establish an independent body to conduct reviews of troubles-related deaths and serious injury, with the primary objective of providing information to families, victims and survivors. The Bill seeks to ensure that the process for dealing with the past focuses on measures that can deliver positive outcomes for as many people affected by the troubles as possible.

[Mark Fletcher]

Legacy is an extremely complex and sensitive issue. In setting up an effective information recovery process, we must ensure that power is in the hands of victims and their families rather than the perpetrators. What consultations have the Department had with victims and their families, to ensure that the right balance is achieved?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that legacy remains a highly complex and difficult issue. The Government are absolutely determined to deliver mechanisms that deliver better outcomes for those most affected by the troubles, including victims and their families. I know that no solution we will ever find will be perfect or easy, but we are working tirelessly to find a practical way forward via the legacy Bill. As for engagement, I and my ministerial colleagues have had over 60, nearly 70, engagements with groups and individuals, and we continue to meet people on a regular basis.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Government have made some changes to the legacy Bill during its passage through this House. If the changes are not enough and all Northern Ireland parties vote against it again on its return to the House, will the Secretary of State commit to a different approach, as reconciliation cannot be imposed on Northern Ireland?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and hope that all is well with the shadow Minister he is replacing, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). The hon. Gentleman has big shoes to fill, but that is a good start. I thank him for noticing what is going on in the other place, where we have already tabled amendments that seek to address a number of key issues raised by the stakeholders we have been meeting, including compliance with the European convention on human rights, strengthening the commission’s independence, sanctions for individuals found guilty of lying to the commission, and stronger incentives for individuals to engage with the commission. We will table more such amendments on Report, when I hope we can get everybody on board, or at least to acknowledge that we are doing a decent job.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on human rights commitments in the Belfast agreement.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

The UK Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the institutions and rights established by it. We recognise the importance of the right safeguards and equality of opportunity provisions within the agreement to the people of Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State discusses the subject regularly with Cabinet colleagues.

[Ellie Reeves]

The Good Friday agreement led to peace in Northern Ireland and enshrined human rights in Northern Irish law, yet the Tories’ Bill of Rights is nothing but a rights removal Bill. Does the Minister recognise that the proposed Bill would therefore be a breach of an international agreement, the Good Friday agreement?

[Mr Baker]

No, not at all. I confess that I thought the hon. Lady was going to ask me about the Bill of Rights provisions in the agreement itself, but she ought to know that the parties have been working together towards that Bill of Rights and it will need consensus to deliver a framework in Northern Ireland. Of course the UK continues to be committed to the ECHR.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

7. Whether he has made a comparative assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Windsor framework on economic competitiveness in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the UK.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

10. Whether he has made a comparative assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Windsor framework on economic competitiveness in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the UK.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

13. Whether he has made a comparative assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Windsor framework on economic competitiveness in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

The Windsor framework restores the free flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through a green lane, guarantees Northern Ireland businesses unfettered access to the UK market on a permanent basis, and offers a whole host of other benefits.

[Martyn Day]

The Prime Minister described Northern Ireland as

“the world’s most exciting economic zone”,

being in the UK market and having access to the European market. Does the Secretary of State agree with that assessment? If he does, does that not mean that the rest of the UK’s nations are at a disadvantage, being less exciting for only being part of the UK market?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging what a good deal the Windsor framework is. As the Prime Minister has said, Northern Ireland will now be in the unique position of not only being part of the UK internal market—the fifth biggest market in the world—but enjoying the EU single market. As part of the UK, Northern Ireland’s businesses and consumers are able to benefit from the new trade agreements that we are able to negotiate and the new UK regulatory regime for trade and services that we can have outside the European Union.

[Kirsten Oswald]

By the Secretary of State’s and the Prime Minister’s own admission, Northern Ireland is in a better economic position than the rest of the UK because of its place in the European single market. The Prime Minister also said that would lead to more companies investing in Northern Ireland, but that will not be new money. If companies are investing more in Northern Ireland, that means they will be investing less in the rest of the UK. Would the Secretary of State see that as a win-win?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think the hon. Lady has completely missed the point. There is a huge amount of inward investment that wants to flow into Northern Ireland from outside these isles—and, yes, we should be welcoming inward investment into Northern Ireland, because prosperity builds on the peace and stability that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has brought for the last 25 years. That is why we should all welcome the Windsor framework.

[Ms Qaisar]

Scotland, like Northern Ireland, rejected Brexit. Both were dragged out of the EU despite voting to remain. Yet Northern Ireland has retained access to the EU single market and the economic benefits it brings. Does the Minister agree that Scotland should have a similar deal in order to be as economically competitive as Northern Ireland?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

With the greatest respect, the positions of Northern Ireland and the other nations of the UK are, as I have said before, not completely comparable. Northern Ireland is undoubtedly a wonderful place, but it has a complex and troubled history—we have talked about the wonders of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is marking its 25th anniversary. It also has a land border, the only one between the UK and the EU. That has brought added complications, so the Windsor framework is in place to safeguard the achievements of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the hard-won gains of the peace process. It recognises those unique circumstances, including the all-Ireland dimensions of economic life between Northern Ireland and Ireland and the need to avoid a hard border.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I strongly support the Windsor framework and welcome the veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on progress towards securing the long-term supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland, and smoothing the safe movement of animals between GB and Northern Ireland to include not only pets but farm animals and horses?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this subject. As he knows, a grace period on veterinary medicines is in place until the end of December 2025. I would like to think that the new atmosphere that has been created between the United Kingdom and the European Union as we move forward has demonstrated that we can talk and negotiate about these things. We fully expect to be in a position to address all his concerns in good time.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I point out that live subtitles and a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings are available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 March.

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Jo Gideon]

Tomorrow is the National Day of Reflection, a Marie Curie-led initiative bringing together communities across the UK to remember family, friends, neighbours and colleagues we have lost. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Stoke-on-Trent City Council for supporting my call for a post box to heaven in Carmountside cemetery?

On the second anniversary of the tragic death of my constituent, two-year-old Harper-Lee Fanthorpe, who swallowed a button battery, will the Prime Minister thank her courageous mother, Stacy, for leading the campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of button batteries, and will he back my call for legislation to ensure greater product safety?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I join my hon. Friend in thanking Stoke-on-Trent City Council. I am very sorry to hear of Harper-Lee’s tragic case, and my thoughts are with her friends and family, particularly her mother, Stacy. We are aware of the concerns about button batteries. The law is very clear that products available in the UK must be safe. The Office for Product and Safety Standards has published guidance for manufacturers on exactly that, and it is working with the Child Accident Prevention Trust to educate parents and childcare professionals on button battery safety.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Today we remember the innocent lives lost six years ago in the terror attack on Westminster bridge. Among those tragically killed was PC Keith Palmer, who sacrificed his life to protect others. Police officers up and down the country work tirelessly every day to keep us safe, and we thank them for that. But as we saw this week, those brave officers are being let down. Dame Louise Casey found institutional homophobia, misogyny and racism in the Metropolitan police. I accept those findings in full. Does the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to PC Palmer and, indeed, to all the other police officers who have lost their lives serving and those who do so much to keep us safe.

I was appalled to read the descriptions of the abhorrent cases of officers who have betrayed the public’s trust and abused their powers. Let me be clear: that is and was unacceptable and should never have happened. We have taken a series of steps already, and the Government will also now work with the Mayor and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ensure that culture, standards and behaviour all improve. At the heart of this matter are the people whose lives have been ruined by what has happened, and I know that the whole House will agree with me that it is imperative that the Met works hard to regain the trust of the people it is privileged to serve.

[Keir Starmer]

I take it from that answer that the Prime Minister does accept the Casey findings in full, including the institutional failures. Nobody reading the Casey report can be left in any doubt about how serious this is, or doubt for a second that it is restricted to the Met. The report lays bare how those unfit to join the police are aided by patchwork vetting systems that leave the door open. If the Government backed Labour’s plan for proper mandatory national vetting, we could end the farce that sees different police recruitment standards in different forces. Will he back that plan so that we can make speedy progress?

[The Prime Minister]

There is no need to back that plan, because we are already taking action to tackle the issues raised in the Casey report. Two months ago, I met Dame Louise Casey and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and we introduced a series of measures. For example, the College of Policing is currently updating the statutory code of practice for police officer vetting that all forces legally have to follow; all police forces are in the process of checking their officers against the police national database; and in weeks His Majesty’s independent inspectorate will report back on its reinspection of all forces’ vetting procedures. These steps will of course not undo the terrible damage done previously, but we owe this action and more to the victims and survivors to ensure that such tragedies never happen again.

[Keir Starmer]

The problem with the Prime Minister’s answer is that what he refers to is not mandatory. How can it possibly be right to have different standards for recruitment in different police forces? No wonder the Casey report criticised what Dame Louise calls the Government’s “hands-off” attitude to policing over the last 13 years, but let us call it what it really is: sheer negligence. The report also exposes chronic failures by the police to deal with rape cases, with officers using “overstuffed…or broken fridges” to store rape kits from victims. On his watch, the rape charge rate is 1.6%, yet the Government still have not backed Labour’s plan to have proper, high-quality rape and serious sexual offences units in every police force. Why not?

[The Prime Minister]

What Louise Casey also says is that primary public accountability of the Met sits with the Mayor of London. She described that relationship between the Mayor and the Met as “dysfunctional”. I hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman next stands up, he will confirm to the House that he will also take up these matters with the Labour Mayor of London so that he plays his part.

The way rape victims were treated by the criminal justice system was not good enough. That is why the Government published an ambitious rape review action plan. It is right that we have extended Operation Soteria across all police forces in the country. We have also tripled the number of independent sexual violence advisers, improved the processes of collecting phone evidence and cross-examination, and, since 2010, quadrupled funding for victim support services. That is a Conservative Government doing everything we can to support victims and tackle predators.

[Keir Starmer]

People are fed up to the back teeth with a Government who never take responsibility and just try to blame everyone else—[Interruption.] If Government Members are proud of the fact that over 98% of rapists are never put before a court, let them shout about it. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The truth is simple: after 13 years of Tory Government, crime is out of control and people are paying the price. Before Christmas, the BBC reported the shocking case of a woman in Armthorpe, who had been beaten with a baseball bat by burglars three years ago. No one had been charged with that burglary, and she could not sleep at night. Under this Government’s watch, tragically, that is not an unusual case. Can the Prime Minister tell us what is the charge rate for theft and burglary across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, since 2019, neighbourhood crime is down by 25%. The Leader of the Opposition rightly asked about what is happening with rape cases, so let me tell him that we are on track to meet our target of doubling the number of rape cases that are reaching our courts. Since the rape review action plan was published, we have seen police referrals double and charges double, and last year there was a 65% increase in rape convictions. Importantly, we also changed the law to ensure that rapists spend more time in prison. But what did Labour’s shadow Policing Minister say? “Prison doesn’t prevent crime.” That tells you everything you need to know about the Labour party. You cannot trust them to keep Britain safe.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister stands there and pretends that everything is fine. He is so totally out of touch. He needs to get out of Westminster, get out of Kensington—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Today is a big day in the House, and a very important day. We do want to make progress. Holding us up is not advantageous to any of us.

[Keir Starmer]

Mr Speaker, he needs to get out of Westminster, get out of Kensington—and I do not mean to Malibu, but to the streets of Britain. He needs to go there, tell people it is all fine and see what reaction he gets. The answer that he did not want to give, although he knows it, is 4%. So 96% of theft and burglary cases are not even going before the courts. Burglars are twice as likely to get away with it now as they were a decade ago. The Government should be ashamed of that record. That cul-de-sac in Armthorpe has apparently seen 10 burglaries in 18 months, but only one of them has resulted in a prosecution. So rather than boasting and blaming others, why does the Prime Minister not tell the country when he is going to get the theft and burglary charge rate back to where it was before they wrecked policing?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let me say that North Yorkshire is a lot further away than north London. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I like the lines as well, but I would prefer to hear them rather than the jeering. [Interruption.] Now, we are going to make progress. Mr Shelbrooke will be buying the teas in the Tea Room if he is not careful.

[The Prime Minister]

And they will be Yorkshire teas, Mr Speaker.

Since the Conservatives came to power, crime is down 50%, violent crime is down 40%, and burglary—the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned burglary—is down 56%. Why? Because we have recruited 20,000 more police officers, we have given them the powers to tackle crime, and we have kept serious offenders in prison for longer. All that the Opposition have done is vote against greater protections for emergency workers, oppose tougher sentences for violent criminals, and they are failing to give the police the powers they need. It is the same old Labour: soft on crime, soft on criminals.

[Keir Starmer]

The only criminal investigation that the Prime Minister has ever been involved in is the one that found him guilty of breaking the law. I have prosecuted countless rapists—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am determined to hear these exchanges, whether from the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Sorry? I think you might be the first customer for tea, Mr Cairns. We keep having this little problem; we will have no more. Please, let us get through this and just show some respect to both people at the Dispatch Boxes.

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have prosecuted countless rapists and I support tougher sentences, but you have to catch the criminals first, and when 98% of rapists are not even being put before the court, that is a massive failure of the Government. If the Prime Minister wants to go to Armthorpe, which is in Yorkshire, why does he not go to that cul-de-sac, when he gets out and about in Yorkshire, and ask about those 10 burglaries that have not been prosecuted? The reality is that after 13 years of Tory government, they have done nothing on standards; neighbourhood policing has been shattered; and burglars and rapists walk the streets with impunity. It is the same every week from the Prime Minister: whether it is the cost of living crisis, crime running out of control or the state of the NHS, why is his answer always to tell the British people they have never had it so good?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me just address the issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, because I said at the time that I respected the decision that the police reached, and I offered an unreserved apology. For the avoidance of doubt, at the moment that that happened, there was a full investigation by a very senior civil servant, the findings of which confirmed that I had no advance knowledge about what had been planned, having arrived early for a meeting. But he does not need me to tell him that; he has probably spoken to the report’s author much more frequently than I have. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Look, the Prime Minister needs to answer the question. [Interruption.] I do not think we need any more. Let us keep it that way.

[The Prime Minister]

We are getting on. We are halving inflation by paying 50% of people’s energy bills and freezing fuel duty. We are cutting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The same goes for those on the Opposition Benches. Mr Gwynne, I do not need any more from the Back Benchers here either. Let us calm—[Interruption.] Mr Fabricant, not again. Seriously, today is a very big day. Some important decisions are going to be taken, so please, I want to get this House moving on.

[The Prime Minister]

We are also cutting NHS waiting lists by resolving pay disputes and by getting doctors back to work, and we are stopping the boats with a new Bill to tackle illegal migration. That is a Conservative Government delivering on the people’s priorities.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

Q2. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the efforts he has made to support the UK’s steel industry. We remain very concerned about job losses at British Steel in Scunthorpe, so will he today reassure my constituents in north Lincolnshire that we will never see the end of UK steelmaking under his watch?

[The Prime Minister]

The UK steel industry can have no greater champion than my hon. Friend. I know this must be a concerning time for British Steel employees, and we stand ready to work with her to support them. She is right that industrial sectors, including steel, have been able to bid into competitive Government funds worth £1 billion to help support them to cut emissions and become more energy efficient, and the Government’s recently announced British industry supercharger fund can help boost competitiveness in the UK’s key energy-intensive industries. I look forward to working with her to ensure a thriving steel industry in our United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Scottish National party.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I would like to begin by paying tribute to PC Palmer, who so tragically lost his life in defence of this Parliament and, indeed, what we all stand for—democracy. What worries the Prime Minister most about Brexit right now: is it the likely 4% hit to UK productivity, or is it three former Tory leaders planning to vote down his deal this afternoon?

[The Prime Minister]

The Windsor framework represents—

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Just to help the Chamber, I understand it is two former Prime Ministers.

[The Prime Minister]

The Windsor framework represents a good deal for the people, families and businesses of Northern Ireland. It restores the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our precious Union. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I was more intrigued to see the words of his own party’s president, who just this past week described his party as being in “a tremendous mess”.

[Stephen Flynn]

The reality is that while Westminster is once again consumed by the damage being caused by Brexit, the public at home are facing the biggest fall in living standards ever, the highest tax burden since the end of the second world war and inflation at 10.4%. When are the Conservative party and, indeed, the Labour party going to realise that Brexit cannot work?

[The Prime Minister]

The actions that this Government are taking are ensuring that fully half of most families’ energy bills are being supported by this Government. We are also making sure that we are delivering for people by cutting NHS waiting lists. That is something we are happy to work with the Scottish Government to learn and share best practice with them on. But we are also delivering on the people’s No. 1 priority, which is to stop the boats and end illegal migration.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Q4. Gedling’s unemployment claimant rate has declined significantly over the last decade, but there are still vacancies to fill and specific groups to help. On Monday, the Employment Minister and I visited Arnold jobcentre, where Kelsie and her team are welcoming local employers to speak directly to jobseekers and a dedicated 50-plus work coach is getting more people from that bracket into work. Would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff at Arnold and other jobcentres across the country on the proactive work that they are doing and, when time allows, would he come to visit Arnold jobcentre in person to see the great work it is doing?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and join him in thanking all the staff at Arnold jobcentre for their hard work. I shall keep his kind invitation to visit in mind. He mentioned the over-50s, who my right hon. Friend the Chancellor described as more experienced workers. He was right to focus on them because, together with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, we are putting in place a range of measures to help support them to return to and stay in the labour market. That will not only help us continue to bring inflation down, but support those people to have healthy, productive, fulfilling lives.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

The UK Government recently confirmed that Scotland generated and sent south 35 billion kWh of energy in 2021. That number will rise to 124 billion kWh in less than eight years’ time. For this multibillion-pound bounty, Scotland will see no revenue and no manufacturing or supply chain jobs. In our land of energy plenty, why should our people be cold and hungry and businesses failing as a result of his Government’s robbery? What has the Prime Minister to say in defence of this naked exploitation of Scotland’s people and resources?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, this Government are a strong supporter of Scotland’s North sea oil and gas industry. It is the economically illiterate policy of, I think, almost all Opposition parties to prohibit any new exploration of fossil fuels in the North sea, which would have us pay billions of pounds to foreign energy companies and then ship that energy here, with twice the carbon emissions. It is a completely absurd policy that is bad for our security and bad for our economy, and that is why we are better off with the Conservatives in charge.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Q7. The Island has been getting a better deal in recent years. I thank the Prime Minister for that, because before he was the Prime Minister, he worked with me in different roles when he was in government to make that happen, and I am grateful. However, the Island remains the only sizeable island in the UK without a fixed link and separated from the mainland by sea that does not receive a funding uplift to support local government services. This injustice has been ongoing now for 50 years. All the evidence shows that it costs more to provide local services on an island than on the mainland. Will the Prime Minister work with me and his Ministers to overcome this injustice this year?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued campaigning on behalf of his constituents. It was a pleasure to spend many happy childhood holidays on the Island, and I enjoyed visiting him more recently there as well. Isle of Wight Council will benefit from a 10% increase in its funding in cash terms for the next financial year and has been awarded an additional £1 million in recognition of the unique circumstances of the Island, as my hon. Friend points out, but I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Minister for local government—the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley)—to carry on the good work that he and I started, and to make sure that his local constituents get the support that they need.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Q3. We now know from The Daily Telegraph’s lockdown files that, during covid, at the very heart of Government science was not being followed and rational discourse had been abandoned. This had dire consequences for children’s education, mortality rates among the elderly, the economy and access to the health service. Lessons must be learned, but we cannot wait 10 years for the independent inquiry to tell us what we should do next time when the inevitable epidemic arrives. Will the Prime Minister agree to a short-term, focused inquiry that can give us recommendations, so that we do better next time?

[The Prime Minister]

As with any public inquiry, the process and timing of the inquiry stages are for the independent chair to decide. As Baroness Hallett has set out, she intends to gather written evidence throughout this year, with public hearings also starting this year. The inquiry held a preliminary hearing in February that covered pandemic preparedness and resilience, and it has set out dates for preliminary hearings into core political and administrative decision making across the UK throughout this month. Most importantly, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it is an independent inquiry, and it is for the independent chair to set the terms.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Q8. More than 1.5 million people living outside London stand to be impacted by the Mayor’s new London-wide ultra low emission zone. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are all for the ULEZ charge; they do not care about the cost of living crisis. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to protect commuters and small businesses from the spread of this unfair, £12.50-a-day tax is to vote Conservative on 4 May?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He failed to mention that just this week, Labour in Wales has introduced plans for further road charging as well, increasing cost pressures for the public and businesses. I urge Opposition parties to listen and to stand up for the public and small businesses, just as the Conservatives do.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Q5. When my wee brother was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis eight years ago, it is fair to say that it turned our lives upside down. I am incredibly proud of the man he is and all that he has achieved while living with that life-limiting condition. My Livingston constituent, Steven Sharp, manages local football team the Fulshie in Stoneyburn. He has Crohn’s disease and he lives with a stoma. He is like many of our constituents up and down the UK who are living with a life-limiting condition and trying to provide for their families, while holding down a job, with a condition and disease that wreaks havoc on their body. Given that one in four people wait more than a year for diagnosis, will the Prime Minister and the House support the campaign to Cut the Crap and get people diagnosed early for Crohn’s and colitis? Will he meet me and my constituent Steven, to consider what more can be done for awareness, research and funding?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and pay tribute to her brother and to Steven for everything they are doing to raise awareness of this issue. I would be happy to meet her and Steven. This is something I am familiar with. It is a very difficult condition for people to live with, and it is right that they get the support and attention they deserve. I look forward to that discussion with her.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Q9. My constituent, Jamie Scott, spent four weeks in a coma, and remains seriously disabled as a result of a covid vaccination. He and his family continue to believe that mass vaccination is the right policy, but it must surely also be right to ensure that the tiny minority who are seriously injured as a result are properly compensated. In the absence of court cases, it is in no one’s interest to litigate. The current limit on compensation is £120,000, even for very serious and lifelong injury, and anyone who is disabled by less than 60% gets nothing at all. That cannot be right. Will my right hon. Friend look urgently at changing that?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important to start by recognising the importance of vaccines in protecting us all, not least the fantastic roll-out of the covid vaccines across the UK. I am very sorry to hear about the case my right hon. and learned Friend raises. In the extremely rare case of a potential injury from a vaccine covered by the scheme, a one-off payment can be awarded. That is not designed to be a compensation scheme, and it does not prevent the injured person from pursuing a legal compensation claim with the vaccine manufacturer. We are taking steps to reform vaccine damage payment schemes, by modernising the operations and providing more timely outcomes, but of course I would be happy to talk to my right hon. and learned Friend further about that.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Q6. New inflation stats this morning show that food inflation is at 18%—the highest in 45 years. Millions are living in food and fuel poverty because of this Government’s failures and political decisions to enable grotesque profiteering at the expense of our communities. How on earth can the Prime Minister claim that his plan is working, or is it, in his eyes, a success that so many people are struggling with their weekly food shop?

[The Prime Minister]

Figures recently published show that since 2010, there are 2 million fewer people living in poverty thanks to the actions of this and previous Conservative Governments. Of course, no one wants to see people struggling with week-to-week bills, which is why it is so imperative we stick to our economic plan. As the Office for Budget Responsibility said, we are on track to halve inflation by the end of this year. That is the most important thing we can do to ease the burden on people. In the meantime we have a range of programmes, whether free school meals or the holiday activities and food programme, to provide support to the most vulnerable families who need our help.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

Q11. With £60 million to improve transport links from Wednesbury to the rest of the Black Country, £4 million for Wednesbury high street, and last week, in the most important part of the Budget, the £22.5 million to level up Tipton town centre, the Government have put a vote of confidence in my communities, one they have not had for nearly 50 years. Delivery will be absolutely key on those projects. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, using his good offices, that we deliver them on time and realise the potential of my communities in Tipton and Wednesbury?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on behalf of his local communities. I am delighted that we are investing across the west midlands, particularly in places like Wednesbury and Tipton. We will work with him to ensure those investments are indeed delivered, working with local councils, Transport for West Midlands and the West Midlands Combined Authority. The investments will transform people’s lives and spread opportunity in his area. He deserves enormous credit for making that happen.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Q10. Households in Gateshead have seen their energy bills triple over the last two years. They have not just endured the energy unit price increase; daily electricity standing charges have gone up from an average of 22p in 2019 to 58p from next month, an increase of 155% in standing charges—over £200 a year. To many of my constituents, particularly those in low-income households, that seems like a company tax just for having the temerity to be connected to the network. These schemes will continue long after energy support schemes have ended. Will the Prime Minister commit to ending the regressive increases in standing charges and instruct Ofgem to return them to 2019 levels, or even end them completely?

[The Prime Minister]

Thanks to the Chancellor, the Government are providing support to a typical household of around half its energy bill over the winter. That support was extended in the Budget and will be worth £1,500 to a typical family, but we went further for the most vulnerable families. The Chancellor announced that we will end the discrepancy in unit charges for those on prepayment meters, something many in this House have called for, and provide generous cost of living payments worth £900 to the most vulnerable families.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Two of my constituents, Adrian and Carol Ellis, are my guests in the Gallery today. Sadly, in 2021, their son died by suicide. George was a member of the Yorkshire Regiment. He had become depressed following one of his comrades taking his own life. In memory of George, Adrian and Carol set up a support group, which marries up one veteran with another to enable them to talk and, hopefully, help them. The support group is called Getting Emotions Out, after George. Will the Prime Minister join me in offering condolences to Adrian and Carol, and support for the work they are now doing?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in sending my condolences, and those of the whole House, to George’s friends and family. I thank his parents for the brave work they are doing to raise awareness of veterans’ mental health. Support is available for anyone experiencing suicidal thoughts, including from the Samaritans helpline. Thanks to the excellent work of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), we are working specifically to support veterans’ mental health through Op Courage. That is a bespoke mental health and wellbeing service for veterans in the NHS, backed by considerable funding which was increased in the recent Budget. That fully integrated service will be launched next month. Again, I pay tribute to George’s parents for all the incredible work they are doing.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Q12. My constituent Maryam Amiri came to the UK from Afghanistan on a spousal visa back in 2016. The Home Office has just refused her renewal and advised that she should return to Afghanistan. Maryam is an educator who is due to start a university course in September. She is a valued community activist and a vocal opponent of the Taliban. She is married to a man who worked for British forces and her family is currently being persecuted in Afghanistan. She has been trying to get them here since Afghanistan fell. Can the Prime Minister think of any barriers or hardships Maryam might face in returning to a country where there is not even any means of applying for a visa? Will he personally intervene, as the Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is yet to reply, despite my raising this matter three weeks ago?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on an individual’s visa case, but I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a response from the Home Office on that particular case.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to and congratulate my constituent Max Woosey, best known as the boy in the tent, whose three-year adventure camping outside is drawing to a close? To date, he has raised more than £750,000 for the excellent North Devon Hospice. Will my right hon. Friend wish everyone taking part in his final adventure, a camping festival at Broomhill Estate, great success?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Max and everyone else taking part in this fantastic initiative. I congratulate them on raising such a considerable sum of money for a very worthy local cause, and I look forward to hearing how the rest of it goes. Very well done.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Q13. The Treasury receives an additional £65 billion in revenue from Scotland’s oil and gas, but it has allocated only £20 billion to carbon capture and there is nothing for Scotland. It has cut the renewable energy budget by a third. It has allocated only £10 million to Scotland’s world-leading tidal stream, and has failed to back pumped storage hydro, yet it wants us to contribute our share towards the £35 billion Sizewell C nuclear power station. Is it not the case that within the Union, Scotland is the energy but Westminster takes the powers?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not only supporting Scotland’s North sea oil and gas industry but providing £20 billion of funding for further carbon capture and storage. We want to work with and provide clarity for Acorn on its future path. The hon. Gentleman raised tidal power; I am pleased to tell him that it is now included in the contracts for difference allocations. There has been 40 MW of new tidal stream power from four projects across Scotland and Wales in the last year. That is this Government delivering energy security across the United Kingdom.

Points of Order

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

12:37

[Selaine Saxby]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) raised the issue of investment at one of my excellent North Devon schools, without prior notification of me or the school. Having spoken directly to the school and local education authority this morning, it appears that the information presented was, at best, misleading. The school has an extensive works programme and plans to expand its capacity. The timing of future works is being determined around the best interests of the pupils and the staff, with professional advice, and is certainly not held up by a lack of funding. As a former teacher, I find it deeply disturbing that Liberal Democrat MPs are prepared to use schools outside their constituencies as political pawns in this place. Might you advise how best to correct the record and ensure that this situation is not repeated?

[Mr Speaker]

I presume that the hon. Lady let the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) know that she was going to raise her point of order.

[Selaine Saxby]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of the point of order. She assures me that she has given notice to the hon. Member for Twickenham. As she knows, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Members’ contributions in the Chamber. If a Member has made a mistake, I encourage that Member to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The hon. Member has rightly put it on the record so that we all know the situation.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for accepting my point of order. Just now, in response to a question about his pretence that living standards are getting better in this country, the Prime Minister replied that he is halving inflation—on the very day that we find out that inflation is, in fact, rising. As you said, Mr Speaker, today is an important day for this House. How can the Prime Minister correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

I know the hon. Lady knows the answer to that. She has now put the situation on the record. As she knows, it is not a matter for the Chair but a matter for each individual to try to make sure they are correct.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, a substantive piece of Northern Ireland business about the Windsor framework will be debated today. The Government have indicated that it will be an indication of how this Parliament feels about the entirety of the framework, even though the debate is about just one component of the framework. Given that it will be signed over on Friday by the Foreign Secretary, why has the House been allocated only 90 minutes for a debate on this very important subject? That will not give Northern Ireland Members alone enough time to debate the issue, let alone the rest of the House. How can we fix this before Friday, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have no responsibility for the amount of time allocated. That is done by the Government, who own the Order Paper. I do not own the Order Paper. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is down to speak in the debate, so I am sure he will want to raise the point at that time.

Bill Presented

Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Jim McMahon presented a Bill to make provision about the monitoring of water quality; to set a target for the reduction of sewage discharges; to provide for financial penalties in relation to sewage discharges and breaches of monitoring requirements; to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for the reduction of sewage discharges from storm overflows, including an economic impact assessment; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 April, and to be printed (Bill 278).

Employment Equality (Insurance Etc)

1st reading
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Graham, please! The Member was standing to address me. [Interruption.] It is no use holding up your hands. Take notice of what is going on. It is totally unfair to the Member. It is a ten-minute rule Bill—please wait. You are important, but not that important.

12:41

[Mrs Elphicke]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, to prohibit age discrimination by employers in relation to the provision of insurance or a related financial service; and for connected purposes.

There are more workers working over the age of 65 than ever before. Nearly 1.5 million people, of whom around two thirds—a million workers—are employed, contributing 32 million hours of work in an average week. There has been a rapid acceleration in the shape and scale of older working. Sectors in which older workers are most likely to be employed are some of those which are particularly important to our economy and our communities. Around a quarter of such older workers are employed in healthcare, social work and education. The car industry and technical sectors also employ high numbers of older workers.

If we want people to have the option to work later in life, we have to give them the tools, support and legal protection that they need to do so. That includes protecting workers from discrimination solely on the basis of age. Age discrimination, like any other form of discrimination, is humiliating, demeaning and damaging. Right now, provisions in schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, introduced in 2011, make it lawful to discriminate on the basis of age in relation to health and insurance employment benefits.

Let me explain why that is wrong. I have a constituent, Stephen, who is in the Public Gallery today with his wife Marsha. Stephen is a train driver with Eurotunnel and has been since the tunnel first opened 30 years ago. Stephen worked on the building of the tunnel itself. At the age of 66, his statutory pensionable age, he did not get a birthday card from his bosses; he got a letter explaining that while it was not possible to sack him on grounds of age, Eurotunnel were terminating his health insurance, death in service and his income protection policy for long-term sickness and accidents.

Stephen is doing the same job at 66 that he did at 65, but now he does not get the same money’s worth or terms and conditions in relation to his contract of employment. In simple terms, Stephen does not get equal pay and conditions to another, younger, worker, simply by reason of his age. If Stephen falls ill, he cannot get the same access to speedy private healthcare that other people working for the company can get. That includes in relation to a workplace injury. If, heaven forbid, he died, his wife Marsha would no longer have compensatory insurance through death-in-service benefits. However, he is doing exactly the same job as someone else. It is the same job he did before he reached retirement age that he is doing now.

The attitude demonstrated by Eurotunnel seems to me to communicate to Stephen and to the wider employment community in Kent that it thinks that a person who is older is worth less. Stephen has made it clear to me that he loves working at Eurotunnel and wants to carry on working at Eurotunnel, but he does of course feel let down. I have written to the chief executive of Getlink, the operator of Eurotunnel, to ask that it reconsider Stephen’s case, not least in the light of his long service and commitment to the company. As of today, it has not yet done so, although it has said that it is discussing the matter with its insurers.

We need to tackle the issue if people are to stay in the workplace longer. We should tackle it because it is simply unfair and wrong. It needs to be tackled here in this place by changing the law, because—I want to be really clear about this—Eurotunnel is perfectly within its legal rights to act as it has done. It is entirely a matter for it whether it includes all workers fairly and equally or discriminates against those who have reached retirement age.

My Bill seeks to put that situation right for every older worker in this country by changing the law on workplace benefits so that older people are treated on the same basis as in any other part of their employment relationship. There was a time when a pregnant woman had to quit her job and just leave the workplace. Then there was a time when she did not have to lose her job, and it was said that if women were given paid maternity leave, they would not get jobs if they were of childbearing age. There are those who claim that this reform to end age discrimination would be costly to business, just as they used to say the same about women who went on maternity leave. As we know, however, employers found that retaining women in the workplace benefited not just mothers, but businesses themselves, which were able to retain the vital skills and knowledge of female workers.

In the same way, older workers have skills and knowledge gained over many years in the workplace. Treating older workers fairly will encourage them to stay and will benefit the companies that they work for. I remember a time when employers used to say that a woman did not need to work, did not need to get the same bonuses as a man or did not need to be offered overtime, because it was men who had the families to feed. We have outlawed that because equal pay at work is not about who is doing the work, but about what the work is. That applies every bit as much whether it is a younger or an older worker doing the same job.

Another excuse that has been given is that covering older people becomes more expensive for everyone because the premium for the company goes up. This is, of course, an absurd excuse. Applying that logic, would it be okay to exclude from employment benefits people who have a heart condition, cancer, a bad back, a disability or a chronic condition? Of course not. We would say that that was discriminatory and wrong, because it is.

Unless we tackle age discrimination, we will continue to have a working environment that is very difficult for people who are working in older age. An example of why the law needs to change is sitting here today in the Public Gallery: Stephen Horne, a man whose blood, sweat and hard work helped to build one of the great wonders of our time, the tunnel under the English channel from the UK to France. Stephen, a working man treated badly solely by reason of his age, is my constituent, and I am promoting this Bill because I do not think that he should have been treated in this disgraceful and unacceptable way—and neither should any other older worker.

The support that I have received right across the House has given me real heart. The Bill has received incredible cross-party support; I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Southend West (Anna Firth) and for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), as well as the Bill’s sponsors and several others.

We are at our very best in this place when we come together to address injustices and right wrongs. I very much hope that Stephen’s Eurotunnel law will be a turning point for protecting older workers in the workplace in the years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mrs Natalie Elphicke, Caroline Nokes, Dame Diana Johnson, David Linden, Jim Shannon, Bob Blackman, Rachael Maskell, Marion Fellows, Henry Smith, Tony Lloyd and Marco Longhi present the Bill.

Mrs Natalie Elphicke accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 277).

Northern Ireland

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

12:51

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.

It is my usual practice to take as many interventions as I possibly can during a debate; however, this debate is on a statutory instrument and is therefore time-limited, so although I will take interventions, I will not take as many as I normally would. I will, with the leave of the House, try to mop up all the questions raised at the end of the debate.

The Stormont brake is at the heart of the Westminster framework. It addresses the democratic deficit, restores the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and ends the prospect of dynamic alignment. It restores practical sovereignty to the United Kingdom as a whole, and to the people of Northern Ireland in particular.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

As someone who served in the Province during the troubles and saw at first hand the pain and anger endured by all communities, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the Windsor framework not only restores the balance of the Belfast agreement but offers the Province much greater prosperity by way of inward investment—and greater prosperity helps most situations?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are just coming up to the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has built peace and stability across Northern Ireland. I hope very much—as, I believe, does every single politician from Northern Ireland—that the next 25 years of the agreement, helped along by this Windsor framework, will bring to Northern Ireland an age of prosperity the like of which we have never seen before.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Strangford.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not often that I am called before the others, but it is always a pleasure.

The Secretary of State and I will have some differences of opinion on this, but does he understand our frustration about the Windsor framework, or, as we Unionists call it, the Windsor knot? It is not a deal that enjoys or receives Unionist support, because the United Kingdom is giving the European Union sovereignty over the courts and power over Northern Ireland. Let me say respectfully to the Secretary of State, because I am a respectful person, that it has been shoved through the House by the Government, the Conservative and Unionist party—with some dismay, I now question the word “Conservative”, and where is the “Unionist”?—in a format that does not allow for scrutiny or due processes. Members on both sides of the House should take note of that and should vote against this statutory instrument, because it introduces a gravely important constitutional issue, and we are very concerned about it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words, with which, however, I fundamentally disagree. I am a Unionist, and proud to be a Unionist. I believe that each of the four nations of our wonderful country makes it stronger, and I also believe that this is a massive step forward in terms of progress for not only Northern Ireland but the Union as a whole.

I disagree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has said because the framework actually adds to the democratic scrutiny that is available. As one of Michel Barnier’s former advisers put it, the mechanism

“does amount to a clear veto possibility for the UK government, directive-by-directive, at the behest of a minority in the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

I think that people who know what they are talking about understand that this is a very, very good deal.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks of prosperity. Seed potato growers in my constituency tell me that the framework is extremely welcome, because it means they can have access to the Northern Ireland market and in turn, via this mechanism, to the Republic of Ireland market. That is about the prosperity of my constituency, but perhaps this may lead to access to the Spanish and French markets, which could be useful in the future. I therefore believe that we should support the framework.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very, very pro-Unionist comments. He is entirely right. Through the protocol, seed potatoes and a host of other products were no longer available in Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework solves those issues and opens up market opportunities.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me. I thought I was going to have to do a whole lot of squats just to get in.

One of the criteria for using the Stormont brake, and for signing the Petition of Concern, is that Members of the Legislative Assembly

“must be individually and collectively seeking in good faith to fully operate the institutions, including through the nomination of Ministers and support for the normal operation of the Assembly.”

Does this mean that Jim Allister will be precluded from signing the petition?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

If the Assembly is sitting and he is sitting in it, which he would be as a fully elected member of his political party, I am absolutely sure that he could do that.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend for the work they have done. Does it not show that when we build bridges, when we show pragmatism, when we work with our continental colleagues, we can provide results? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, along with AUKUS, the Paris summit and indeed the Budget, this is a return to the statecraft that we want to see in No. 10?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

It is, without doubt, statecraft emanating from No. 10, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for everything that he does in that respect.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will continue for a bit, if I may. I will give way in a moment.

We all believe, as democrats here, that in a democracy people should have a say over any change in the laws under which they live, but under the old protocol, that was not the case. Changes to laws were automatically imposed on Northern Ireland whether it wanted them or not, and, like many other Members, I as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considered that to be an unacceptable state of affairs. The Stormont brake not only ends that situation, but ensures that changes made to rules and regulations have the consent of both communities, thus asserting a fundamental principle of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has made all this progress hugely possible through his hard work. Does he agree that wherever we are starting from, it is clear to everyone who compares the Northern Ireland protocol with the Windsor framework that good progress has been made, that the framework is an improvement, and that it is strongly welcomed by most of the communities in Northern Ireland, and for that reason we should support it today?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, I do believe that, and I thank my hon. Friend for making the point.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State is making a powerful case about democratic scrutiny. In that spirit, will he confirm that in order to support the Windsor agreement, he will use his powers as Secretary of State to retain all the existing EU law that would otherwise be deleted by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill by the end of this year? The European Union has written to us today warning us that if he does not do that, the agreement will be in doubt. This is not to do with the Stormont brake; it is the existing legislation that will be deleted by the sunset clause. The Secretary of State has the power to retain it. Is he going to do so, in order to support this legislation?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am afraid I have not seen that letter; I know nothing of it. I believe that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will do a good job of work for the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I fear that today we will respectfully have to agree to disagree. My right hon. Friend has described the brake on multiple occasions, including in BBC interviews, as a veto. Given that, if Stormont pulls the brake, UK Ministers may still not exercise the brake in exceptional circumstances—so it is down to ministerial fiat—and given that, even if they do, the EU can object and it will be referred to independent arbitration, where the UK could lose, that is a route to arbitration, isn’t it? That is not a veto. Will he accept that?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

One, it is a veto; two, it is a route to arbitration; and three, it removes any element of the European Court of Justice being relevant in this decision. So I think we have actually delivered on some of the things that my right hon. Friend and I have campaigned on over the years.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

In respect of grounds for seeking to apply the brake, in response to my written question to the Foreign Office on exports to Northern Ireland through the port of Holyhead, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) replied:

“The Green Lane is open to all UK businesses where they import or sell goods that are not ultimately destined for EU market. This includes goods travelling from Wales to Northern Ireland in transit through the Republic of Ireland, using the procedure”.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is indeed the case and elaborate, now or by letter, on how that procedure will work?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which I did not hear completely. The green lane will be open for goods travelling into Northern Ireland for consumption in Northern Ireland. There is a red lane for goods going into the Republic. If I misheard his question, I will write to him to clarify, if that is okay.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Why do EU laws apply under this agreement to businesses in Northern Ireland that are not trading with the EU? How many EU laws apply, and why can we not see a list of them?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

It is less than 3%. This preserves access for Northern Ireland businesses to the single market, and yesterday I listed a whole host of different areas in which these EU laws are disapplied in Northern Ireland.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State is of course right to say that any political entity within a wider economic structure should have a say or some way of expressing its view on the rules and regulations of that economic structure. With that in mind, will the British Government be bringing forward a Senedd and Holyrood brake when it comes to the UK internal market?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thought we already had it, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if that is not the case.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm, first, that the Stormont brake stops and gives total control to the Assembly in Northern Ireland on any new EU law or regulation; and, secondly, that this deal has made huge strides on seed potatoes, VAT, state aid, customs and all the aspects of the protocol that we in this House have debated for so long?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I have to agree with my right hon. Friend.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think I should now continue with my speech, so that I can explain all this to the House.

The brake is triggered if 30 Members of the Legislative Assembly from two parties object to an amending rule or regulation. These MLAs can be from the same community designation, so they can, in theory and in practice, come from two Unionist parties, or indeed two nationalist parties. The exercise of the brake will require no other process and no vote in the Assembly. Once the brake has been pulled, the law will automatically be disapplied in Northern Ireland after two weeks. The EU can challenge the use of the brake only through international arbitration, after the law has been suspended, where the bar to overturn it will be exceptionally high.

The Stormont brake is one of the most significant changes that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured. It is a robust change that gives the United Kingdom a veto over dynamic alignment with EU rules but, just as importantly, the regulations we are debating today put the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the driving seat when it comes to whether and when that veto will be used.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Could he answer, very clearly, this one simple question? Is it not the case that every single lorry that departs from the port of Cairnryan to Northern Ireland will have to have customs declaration papers for every product on that vehicle? Is it right that a vehicle travelling from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom continues to be treated in that way?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Those vehicles will be using the trusted trader service. There will be 21 fields of information, mostly auto-populated, which will mean no certificates will be needed from vets or other third parties—

[Ian Paisley]

That is wrong.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I think I am right.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

When my right hon. Friend appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday, he promised to deliver the list of the 3% of EU laws he says will remain as a consequence of this process. Can he please tell us where that list is?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I gave the majority of that list in the course of those proceedings, and I said that I would write to my right hon. Friend, which I will do.

The old protocol had some measures that were aimed at giving it democratic legitimacy. The UK had a vote over any new laws that the EU wanted to add to the protocol, but that veto did not extend to amendments of laws that were already there, and crucially, there was no role for the Northern Ireland Assembly in deciding whether and when to use that veto. Of course, it contained the democratic consent mechanism, an important means of giving the Assembly the right to end the application of articles 5 to 10 of the old protocol. Those measures were important, and the Windsor framework maintains them, but they were not, in themselves, enough to address the democratic deficit.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I wonder if my right hon. Friend could clarify something for me. He has spoken about the green channel for goods movements from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. This is a genuine question. As I understand it, the Northern Ireland economy produces around £77 billion-worth of goods, of which £65 billion-worth go to the rest of the UK. Is it not the case, though, that everything manufactured in Northern Ireland would have to meet EU standards, even if it is going to the rest of the UK?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I have made it perfectly clear that we are maintaining 3% of EU law in Northern Ireland. This is the bare minimum to maintain Northern Ireland’s access to the single market, which just about every business I have spoken to in Northern Ireland, and that has made representations on this, is delighted to be maintaining. Indeed, I have been lobbied by individual Members from Northern Ireland to maintain access to both the UK market—the fifth largest economy in the world—and the EU market for goods.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I fully support what my right hon. Friend has done here. The Prime Minister and the whole of the Northern Ireland team have done a great job. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Windsor agreement enables a huge opportunity in Northern Ireland not just to be a precious part of our United Kingdom but to be the target of enormous amounts of foreign direct investment because it will have the advantage of being an integral part of the United Kingdom as well as having open access to EU markets?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

We are maintaining that 3% of EU law. My right hon. Friend has helped to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) posed.

There will be a binding statutory obligation in domestic law on Ministers to pull the brake when a valid notification is provided by 30 MLAs. These regulations will add a new democratic scrutiny schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to codify the brake in domestic law. The UK Government must—let me repeat that: they must—notify the EU when a valid notification of the brake has been provided by MLAs. This is an important new function for Members of the Assembly, and it is vital that they exercise this new function with the right information and expertise. After consulting with Northern Ireland parties, these regulations provide for a standing committee of the Assembly to properly scrutinise the relevant rules.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I am treating today’s vote as a recognition of the wider package and voting for it, with the Government.

The democratic scrutiny committee is new to the Assembly and will require a lot of resources, as will the necessity of engaging with Brussels on the development of new law from first principles. Will the Secretary of State have a conversation with the Assembly about the potential for new resources, to make sure it can fully do this job?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I very much look forward to having that conversation with a fully functioning Assembly and Executive.

Some have described this as a consultative role for MLAs, but it is not. It is a robust power for MLAs to stop the application of amended EU rules, a power that neither the UK Government nor the European Union can override, provided that the conditions in the framework are met.

Some have claimed that the EU must have some means of blocking the brake. These regulations demonstrate that the process is entirely one for the United Kingdom. The process is firmly and unambiguously within strand 1 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. There is no role for any institution outside the United Kingdom, whether that be the EU or anyone else, in determining whether the brake is pulled. It will be for the UK alone—for its sovereign Government, alongside elected MLAs—to choose whether the brake is pulled.

Some also claim that the Government might simply ignore the brake. These regulations make it clear that the Government have no discretion. MLAs cannot be ignored. Valid notifications of the brake must be notified to the European Union. The Government’s actions will be subject to all the normal public law principles attached to decision making. For the avoidance of doubt, the regulations are clear that the prospect of any remedial measures by the EU cannot be a relevant factor in the Government’s determination.

It is not enough simply to allow MLAs to temporarily halt the application of a rule, but then allow the United Kingdom Government simply to override them when the joint committee decides whether the rule should be permanently disapplied. So these regulations go much further and provide a clear, robust directive role to determine whether the Government should use their veto or not. Unless there is cross-community support in the Assembly, Ministers will be legally prohibited from accepting an amended or new EU law that creates a regulatory border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, except in exceptional circumstances.

Let me be clear: “exceptional circumstances” means just that. The threshold for that exception is unbelievably high, and a Minister invoking exceptional circumstances must be able to defend that decision robustly and in line with normal public law principles. What is more, a Minister must account to Parliament where they have concluded that exceptional circumstances apply, or where they consider that a measure would not create a regulatory border. This represents one of the strongest statutory constraints on the exercise of ministerial functions under a treaty ever codified in our domestic law.

[Colum Eastwood]

Would the Secretary of State just confirm to the House: if there is no Stormont, will there be a Stormont brake?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The brake cannot even start to be a thing until Stormont goes back and the Executive function.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for setting out how the brake will operate. Will he join me in urging those considering these proposals before the House today to note that, for many years, people said it was impossible to have an application to stop the ratchet of EU law and to keep Northern Ireland in the Union?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was also told that this would be an impossible ask. Throughout my time in the European Parliament and, indeed, as chairman of an illustrious body of MPs in this place, I never thought this would be achievable, yet the Government have managed to achieve it.

These regulations could scarcely make things clearer. The overwhelming presumption is that, unless the Assembly says yes, the Government must say no.

Finally, as with any international agreement, if the EU considers that the UK has improperly pulled the brake, it may choose to initiate a dispute, but we need to be clear that any dispute could only arise after the rules have been disapplied in Northern Ireland, and the resolution of that dispute would be for an arbitration panel. The European Court of Justice would have no role in resolving a dispute.

These regulations make the case for functioning devolved institutions in Northern Ireland even more compelling. The measures will become operable only when the institutions are restored. Denying the people of Northern Ireland will not only deny them the basic right to an effective, stable Government but will deny them full democratic input into the laws that apply to Northern Ireland, and that denial cannot be justified.

These regulations give domestic legal effect to this democratic safeguard and restore the UK’s sovereignty. We should consider carefully how we vote on this measure, without which Northern Ireland would continue to have full and automatic dynamic alignment with EU goods rules, with no say for the Northern Ireland Assembly and no veto on amending or replacing those measures. That is an intolerable situation, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to vote to end that full and automatic dynamic alignment. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

13:15

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the leader of my party, said in January that any protocol deal struck between the UK Government and the EU would, by definition, mean real progress in mitigating the problems caused by the original deal that they negotiated. He pledged that, in those circumstances, Labour would support such a deal. We will honour that pledge today. While the Government have once again been distracted by rebellion and infighting within their own party, thanks to the Labour party they can be sure that the national interest will be served today.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. For the last quarter of a century, the House has proceeded in relation to the peace process in Northern Ireland—and today is about the peace process, let us be quite clear about that—on the basis of bipartisan or non-partisan politics. For that reason, my party will be joining his and the Government in the Lobby.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for coming to a similar view to the Labour party. He is a Scottish MP, and I want to express my sympathies with those affected by the incident that is unfolding in Edinburgh, where a ship has capsized, injuring, we believe, 15 or more people. Our sympathies are with him and with the people of Scotland today.

The Government have said that today’s vote is the main vote that the House will get on the Windsor framework. My speech will focus on why Labour supports the deal overall, but I will begin with the Stormont brake, which is the subject of the regulations before us today.

The democratic deficit was always one of the hardest parts of the protocol deal to reconcile. Of course, businesses and most people in Northern Ireland want to continue accessing the European market as well as the internal market, but the cost of this access was having no say on the rules that had to be followed. The Stormont brake will give representatives a say once devolved government is restored. It is impossible to argue that this is not an improvement on the current situation.

Thirty MLAs from two parties will be able to trigger the brake, but just as important is the new Committee of the Assembly that will scrutinise new laws affecting Northern Ireland. There are understandable concerns about how the brake will work in practice, but the best way of stress-testing it is through experience, and we can get that experience only by restoring Stormont. We all want to see Northern Ireland’s devolved Government back up and running—I know that is what DUP Members want to see, too.

I will state the obvious before going further: Northern Ireland’s economy has huge potential and is doing well. The Prime Minister eloquently explained why on his last visit to Northern Ireland, but he did not need to do so, because everyone who lives in or runs a business in Northern Ireland already knows. The challenges posed by the protocol go much deeper than market access, and that is what needs the most attention during this period of tortuous renegotiation.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend was right to acknowledge that Unionism had legitimate concerns about the operation of the protocol. Does he agree that anyone looking at this objectively would say that those have been addressed, both by the EU and the UK Government? Further to that, the fundamental point is that businesses in St Helens—in logistics, the medical sector, manufacturing and agriculture—would give their right arm to have the opportunity that Northern Ireland has to access both markets.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and pleased that he recognised the legitimate concerns of the Democratic Unionist party. All of us, right across the UK, want to see a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland up and running. That is what the purpose of this whole tortuous process has been, and we hope we can get this resolved soon.

[John Redwood]

So what is the point of rushing through a vote on this, given that it is the protocol and the agreement behind it that prevents Stormont from meeting, which means that the protocol would never be used?

[Peter Kyle]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the argument for why he should have voted against the protocol in the first place. Labour Members did oppose the protocol when it was imposed, but he voted for it. There are a lot of Members on the Government Benches whom I listen to with great interest, because they often contribute a lot of thoughtful insight into the way we debate, but let us just reflect on what he said in the run-up to the Brexit referendum and the promises he made to this country. This all came from his website, and I read it with great interest. First, he said that there would be more growth in the economy. Secondly, he said that Brexit would rebuild our fisheries. Thirdly, he said that food would be cheaper. Fourthly, he said that our power would be cheaper. Fifthly, he said that we would have fewer unhelpful regulations—if that was the case, we would not be here debating this measure today, would we? Sixthly, he said that we would get a US trade deal. Seventhly, he said that our balance of payments would improve. There are many people who should be contributing to this debate, in a thoughtful way, but I am afraid that he is not one of them.

The challenges posed by the protocol go much deeper than market access, and that is what has needed most attention during this tortuous period of renegotiation. The Unionist concerns were mostly twofold, the first of which was that there were impediments to the flow of goods traveling across the Irish sea. Some products and shipments were more affected than others, which was having a disruptive effect on supply chains and the ability of retailers to keep their stores stocked in a manner familiar to pre-protocol shoppers. That, of course, led to the second source of concern: the existential impact that those impediments have to the free flow of goods within the United Kingdom, and what that means for Unionism.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have made tremendous progress with the Windsor framework on veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary measures? The securing of human medicines for the long term and the direction of travel on securing veterinary medicines up until the grace period ends shows what can be achieved through dialogue. It shows us all that we should be strongly supporting this framework deal.

[Peter Kyle]

It does show that negotiating and talking delivers more than rowing, but it also shows that people should think carefully about what they vote for in the first place.

It is a right enshrined in treaty that anyone in Northern Ireland who wants to identify themselves as British should be able to do so without impediment. I understand that, of course I do. If produce made in Sussex faced checks at the border with Hampshire, I would have something to say about it. I have also asked myself this: if the protocol checks were taking place between Ireland and Northern Ireland, instead of in the Irish sea, would nationalist communities be demanding action today? I believe that they would. So the demand for action is warranted; it is based on real concerns, not confected ones. The mystery to me has always been why the Government took so long to act. Why did they wait until the devolved authorities had collapsed before seeming to care?

By the time I was appointed to this job, the DUP had been voicing concerns about the protocol for well over six months—they were ignored. A month before I was appointed, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) had published an article calling for article 16 to be triggered—it was met with silence. Then, in February, the Executive was collapsed, followed four months later by the Assembly. In all that time, there were no visits by the Prime Minister, and no meetings with party leaders, either in Northern Ireland or in Downing Street. Not a single statement was made to this House. As a result of that neglect—believe me, it is neglect—we are now faced with two problems. The first is solving the technical issues created as a direct result of the original protocol, negotiated by the Government and voted for by every Conservative Member. That protocol, I remind the House, was created, negotiated and hailed as a “great deal for Britain” by this Government at the time. Lest we forget, it was voted for by every single Member on their Benches, including those affiliated to the European Research Group faction.

Secondly, that period of neglect created a political problem that this Government are paying the price for right here today. Put simply, when the DUP was raising concerns about the protocol from within the devolved institutions, it was ignored by the Government in Westminster. When the DUP collapsed those institutions, it was rewarded with a prime ministerial visit and, ultimately, the renegotiation of the protocol. The message from the Government could not be clearer; the learned behaviour of dealing with this Government is that if you act functionally within the devolved Administration, you are ignored, but if you act outside the Administration, you are unignorable. In this period, the other Northern Ireland parties have been denied their place within the Government as well, through no fault of their own. So if you disrupt and act outside the structures of government, you get all the attention in the world. You even get a Prime Minister travelling abroad on your behalf to renegotiate a deal we had hitherto been told was not renegotiable.

[Jim Shannon]

This is not only about neglect or ignorance. Does the shadow Minister recognise that Tony Blair, the former leader of the Labour party, said that we cannot move forward without Unionist participation in this process and this framework? Bertie Ahern, another former instrument in the peace process, also said that we cannot ignore Unionism. Does the shadow Minister agree that Unionism cannot be ignored, and that our point of view has to be core to the whole issue of how we find a process to go forward?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and for the opportunity to have this exchange, as it gives me the opportunity to say something. I can only speak for the Labour party, and for myself as the shadow Secretary of State, in saying that his party, as with every other party in Northern Ireland, will never be ignored by my party or a future Labour Government. As I am about to explain, it will be most rewarded, and will have most attention and agency in political life right across the UK, from a position within the devolved authorities. I understand the point he makes—Tony Blair and others were right—but these are all leaders who gave the attention to the DUP and every other party at the point at which they needed it. They did not wait until devolution had collapsed before paying those in Northern Ireland and their parties the respect they are owed and due.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

To give the shadow Minister some credit, he is excellent at articulating the problem. But what is his solution?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for that, because we will be getting to it. [Interruption.] It is interesting that Conservative Members want me to speed up but they keep intervening. I will get through the speech if they allow me to get to it. The hon. Gentleman makes the most blindingly obvious point here: my party will be voting in unanimity today, but his party is getting in the way of getting this across the line, because it is his party that is split over how to vote on the issue before us today. We are acting in the national interest; the Conservatives are riven with division.

People like me aspire to government because we want to deliver positive change, but those in the DUP now have to ask themselves, because of the way they have been treated by this Government: would a return to government mean relinquishing power? This inversion of the very principle of government, this absurdity, is a direct consequence of the manner in which Northern Ireland has been treated by this Government and the other Conservative Administrations over the past 13 years.

I want to be clear to Members who represent communities in Northern Ireland on what they can expect from a future Labour Government, to answer the point of the previous intervention. Let me reassure them that we have not forgotten the lessons of 25 years ago and the tough years following the peace deal. To me, those lessons are, first, that leadership matters. Tony Blair’s first visit outside of London as Prime Minister was to Belfast. He visited five times in his first year as premier. He did not neglect Northern Ireland, and nor will my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

Secondly, we need to work towards a strong, trusting relationship with the Irish Government, because when our two countries work together closely, it eases the anxiety that some people in Northern Ireland feel regarding their Irish or British identities, and creates the conditions for economic progress across the island of Ireland.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the agreement 25 years ago would not have been possible without the sacrifices and statesmanship of so many, but will he acknowledge that it was John Major and his Government who started that process and that this is not a party political matter but something of which this whole House should be proud?

[Peter Kyle]

First, I thank the right hon. Lady for her time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I readily acknowledge that many people made peace possible in Northern Ireland 25 years ago. We in this House will have the opportunity to debate those issues in a forthcoming general debate, and there will be plenty of opportunities to do so over in Belfast when dignitaries from across the world come to celebrate the great achievement of that time. John Major of course laid the foundations and, at the time and subsequently, all Labour leaders, including Tony Blair, paid great respect to his contribution. If I were to start listing the names of everyone, we would be here for a very long time indeed.

Thirdly, we need to have the same ambition for Northern Ireland as we do for every other part of our Union. For example, it is not good enough to roll out home heating support months after citizens in every other part of the UK have received it.

Fourthly, we should aspire to build respect among communities and be a voice for all communities here in Westminster. The last Labour Government positioned the UK as an honest broker for all of Northern Ireland, and so will the next.

Finally, Labour will never give up on Northern Ireland, however insurmountable the challenges might seem. Those involved in the negotiations 25 years ago have plenty of stories of frustration and moments of hopelessness, but perseverance is rewarded. It was then and it will be again today and into the future. It always is in Northern Ireland.

Although this deal is not perfect, it is an improvement, so in the interests of Northern Ireland and the rest of our country we will be voting for it today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As you can see, there is a great deal of interest in this debate, so may I please ask Members to keep their contributions short so that as many as possible can get in?

13:33

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I welcome today’s debate and vote. The Windsor framework has my full support. I also welcome the fact that the Labour party, the Lib Dems and almost the SNP, I think, are supporting the Government and the Conservative party today.

Those of us who have followed this issue closely probably never expected to be here debating a renegotiation of the treaty itself. It is a testament to the Prime Minister’s determination and focus, and those of the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary and others, that they have been able to achieve that.

As someone who has been slightly traumatised by Brexit votes over the years, I am also delighted that this is the end chapter. Notwithstanding further improvements and changes, I think this chapter is one that probably all of us are delighted to be ending.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said, may I suggest that this remains unfinished business as regards our leaving the European Union?

[Julian Smith]

Some things never change, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his continued monomaniacal focus on this issue.

I also want to acknowledge the work done by hon. Members in Northern Ireland. Although I believe we will be in different Division Lobbies today, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) spoke powerfully about the democratic deficit and the need for cross-community safeguards, which are now at the heart of the Stormont brake. As one of Michel Barnier’s top advisers said, and as the Secretary of State has just told us, that has actually been a big victory for the Democratic Unionist party. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) worked harder than anybody else to finally fix the issue of seed potatoes for her farming constituents, and the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) have all engaged closely with businesses and Northern Ireland enterprises to find practical solutions. I believe that huge progress has been achieved, and we now need to maximise the potential for Northern Ireland to become one of the most attractive places in the UK to invest in.

I want to finish by talking about the Union. The greatest strength we have in securing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union is the majority of people in Northern Ireland who support it. We must cherish, nurture and expand that support and consent at every opportunity. Recent polling has shown that there is huge support across Northern Ireland—above 70%—for the Windsor framework and for solving this issue, and in particular cross-community support for the access it provides to both the UK and EU markets.

I believe that if we can bank the wins in this deal and secure over time stable power sharing, we can look forward to decades and decades of overwhelming support for Northern Ireland remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That was a three-minute contribution from a former Secretary of State. If everyone follows that example, I am sure we will get a lot of people in.

13:36

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Perhaps I should begin by addressing the remarks made just now by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who said that he thought the SNP was almost ready to support this. I can say to him that he is almost right. We support the agreement—we welcome it and will vote in favour of it.

The mechanism set out in the draft statutory instrument provides what looks at first glance like a reasonably effective means of scrutiny in Stormont, although I have to say that, in terms of its function as a brake, it is questionable whether the brake lever is connected to anything. Only time will tell.

On the good aspects, we welcome the fact that at long last the UK Government have engaged constructively over a prolonged period with EU partners to come to an agreement that improves the protocol. We welcome that the protocol Bill has been abandoned, as it always should have been, averting the prospect of a catastrophic series of tit-for-tat trade reactions over the protocol, which would have been disastrous for all parts of the UK. The task now is for Ministers to start repairing some of the damage that has been caused in the intervening period.

From our perspective in Scotland, although this certainly restores access for Scottish producers to the Northern Irish market, it still leaves us deprived of equivalent access to the European single market. It is not my natural disposition to be a party pooper in any way, as I am sure the House will agree, but this only serves to make an already poor situation slightly less bad. A number of questions still need to be asked about how the UK Government will continue to try to improve trade conditions for other devolved nations in the UK; whether the Government can provide clarity over how the port at Cairnryan will operate and what infrastructure is needed; whether cows and sheep being transported between Northern Ireland and Scotland can qualify for the green lane; and how the UK Government are, in more broad terms, going to tackle the food security crisis that affects us all.

Occasionally in politics we are blessed with a rare flash of candour. We had one in the Budget speech last week when the Chancellor said, to great acclaim from our Benches:

“Independence is always better than dependence.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 844.]

But we also had it from the Prime Minister when he went across to Northern Ireland to sell the benefits of this deal. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thought that, just because he was saying it in Northern Ireland, nobody in Great Britain, particularly in Scotland, would be able to hear what he had to say. He said that the framework would make Northern Ireland

“the world’s most exciting economic zone”

because of access to both GB and EU markets. He went on to say that that very special position made Northern Ireland

“an incredibly attractive place to invest”—

no less than the world’s most exciting economic zone. Just to make sure he does not feel left out, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), also said:

“What an extraordinary opportunity for Northern Ireland: dual access to both markets.”

Of course, that very special position is precisely what the entirety of the UK had prior to Brexit. I certainly do not grudge Northern Ireland one iota of those benefits; I just wonder why Government Members, whatever views they take on this legislation, have been so utterly determined to deprive the rest of us of them.

13:40

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I believe in the real Union of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of its Parliament here at Westminster. Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol clearly set out the principle of consent for Westminster and that the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom is fundamental. Consent and veto are different things.

We have left the EU and passed section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, guaranteeing the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, yet all laws passed before we left in relation to the single market still apply to the people of Northern Ireland, subjugating them to the EU, but do not apply to the rest of the UK.

There is no such thing as Northern Ireland sovereignty; there is only constitutional Westminster sovereignty. I am afraid I do not recognise the expression “practical sovereignty” used by the Secretary of State in this debate and in the letter he wrote to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 20 March. Why should 2 million Northern Ireland citizens and voters for Westminster be treated differently from, say, the 2 million people of Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester?

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Obviously, he is a subject matter expert and I know he has passionate views on this, but, listening to him, the phrase that comes to mind—a German one, I am afraid—is “pathologische Realitätsverweigerung”, or pathological denial of reality. The simple fact is that the lived reality in Birmingham and Manchester is entirely different. We are not against another national border. We do not need some form of alignment with a neighbour for the free movement goods and services. For example, I think there is a single milk processing plant on the island of Ireland. There has to be some kind of practical recognition of the difficulties and the lived reality.

[Sir William Cash]

The heading of the statutory instrument that we are discussing in this motion is “Constitutional Law”, and I am sorry to say that what my hon. Friend says—some reference to pathological something-or-other—makes absolutely no sense in relation to constitutional law. We in this country operate a constitutional law that confers sovereignty upon the Westminster Parliament. That includes the people of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Northern Ireland, and it should do so equally.

Since Brexit, more than 640 laws, as we see each week in the European Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, have been passed already for Northern Ireland by the EU Council of Ministers: behind closed doors, in Brussels, by majority vote, without even a transcript. Can we imagine laws being passed in this country, in Westminster, without Hansard—without a transcript—and by majority vote? It is unthinkable.

[Colum Eastwood]

If memory serves me right, the hon. Gentleman voted for the protocol, which did not have a Stormont brake and had far more checks in it. Can he explain why he is voting against this?

[Sir William Cash]

Very simply, because we agreed that we would bring in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which I will come on to in a minute. That is the difference. That Bill would have dealt with the situation. We in the rest of the UK have left the EU and so are subject to our own laws and not those of the EU, as we were for the last 50 years.

As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), this remains unfinished business. Pre-Brexit single market legislation continues in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill dealt with the unacceptable imposition of EU laws, but that Bill is now being disposed of, to my very grave concern, although it was passed in this House by a majority of 72 on Third Reading, and most of the hon. Members here today—on the Government side of the House, anyway—voted for it.

The Windsor framework does not effectively disapply EU law as such in, for example, the customs regime, because that falls within the legal competence of the EU in relation to goods. If the UK purports to use its so-called veto—the Stormont brake—on this question, the EU will be able to get round it sooner or later on the green lanes and may invoke retaliatory measures. I am afraid I am not impressed by the expression “exceptional circumstances”—words mean what just we choose them to mean, as Humpty Dumpty said. The question is who is to be master—that is all—and I believe firmly that it will be the European Union.

One of my sadnesses about this whole business is that there really was a need for proper time to discuss alternative legal arguments in consultation with the Government. There are papers that have been produced in the last 48 hours and over the last few weeks—blogs and commentaries by distinguished lawyers—that clearly demonstrate that the arguments presented by the Government are not those agreed by other eminent lawyers. This is a point of law as well as a point of fact.

I am sure the question of democratic consent and the inadequacy of the Stormont brake will be addressed by DUP Members today. That question is as important for all of us as the main principle of the Union. The procedures have been rushed, and I simply cannot accept that it is right for a statutory instrument to be approved in this House today, when there is not yet a legal decision in the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee—that will not be until Friday, so we hear.

Furthermore, I now hear that the House of Lords, which is part of that Joint Committee, is not going to consider the statutory instrument until Wednesday 29 March, which is after the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee sits. The Government, in seeking approval of the statutory instrument today, are not doing so in synchronisation with the House of Lords. I find that manifestly unsatisfactory.

I am deeply concerned, too, that these procedures are not following the criteria of Standing Order No. 151 regarding the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I think, if I may say so with great respect, that the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), should really be here today to explain its position. I was surprised to see a letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairman of that Committee dated 20 March.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

As one of the few Members of this House who was born and raised in Northern Ireland, I want to make it very clear that this is not about the Secretary of State’s correspondence, but about the future of the people of Northern Ireland. The vast majority of them support the Windsor framework, as does the business community. They believe that the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister is much better than they ever thought possible. The people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the people of the UK need to move on and focus on more important things.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken for eight minutes now, and this is really a very time-limited debate, because it has to finish at 2.21 pm.

[Sir William Cash]

I am just about to conclude by saying that this debate is about the rule of law and constitutional law, as well as the very fair points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) has just made. I do not doubt the importance of the stability of Northern Ireland, having taken great interest in these matters for many years, but I insist that the constitutional position is not reflected by the arrangements in the Windsor agreement. I simply make this final point: the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

13:48

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you will appreciate that there is a lot the DUP would like to say today in very limited time. The regulations we are debating, known to many as the Stormont brake, touch on many important legal and political matters.

At the outset, I thank the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and others for their continued engagement with my party and for the efforts they have made. Although at this stage we may differ in our views on the Windsor framework, I am not here to question the motivation of Ministers in seeking to make improvements, but they must—and, I hope, will—continue to work with us and others to get the further improvements that we need to enable the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

To be clear, I want to see the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. My party is a party of devolution; we believe that delivering effective government for our people is the best way forward, working alongside this House and this Parliament. That is where we want to get to, but we have to get it right.

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the rush to bring this statutory instrument forward. I have written to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments expressing my concern that we have not had adequate time for scrutiny of the instrument. The Government have indicated that we are not dealing just with the SI before us, but that this is also an indicative vote on the Windsor framework itself. It is therefore important that I reflect not just on what the Stormont brake does, but on where it fits in to the wider Windsor framework.

Fundamentally, for us the problem with the Northern Ireland protocol is the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland in circumstances in which it covers all manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether those goods are being sold in the United Kingdom or to the European Union. I repeat the statistics that I quoted earlier at Northern Ireland questions: of all goods manufactured in Northern Ireland, the vast majority—some £65 billion out of £77 billion of goods manufactured—are sold in the United Kingdom. The solution must be proportionate to the difficulty, and the difficulty is the EU’s desire to protect its single market and to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland. But the price for that cannot be that Northern Ireland businesses manufacturing goods for sale in the United Kingdom are inhibited in many ways from trading within their own market.

I say to the Secretary of State, in relation to the Windsor framework, that although improvements have undoubtedly been made, we have not yet fully addressed the fundamental problem of the continued application of EU law for the manufacturing of all goods in Northern Ireland. We believe that the real solution here is similar to that proposed in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which was that, where goods are being sold in and staying in the United Kingdom, United Kingdom law and standards apply, and where goods are being manufactured by Northern Ireland businesses for sale in the Republic of Ireland or any other EU member state, EU rules apply. That is the solution that we are looking for. The Windsor framework does not deliver that solution.

[Julian Smith]

On that point, and in respect of any other improvements or changes that need to be made, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to exert influence now is for Stormont to return and to be the centre of what I am sure will be ongoing improvements and iterations in this area?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the former Secretary of State for his continued interest in Northern Ireland. I say to him simply that my Ministers in the Democratic Unionist party sat in Stormont for more than a year after the protocol was implemented. We pleaded with the Government—as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), reminded the House—to intervene and do something to help us with the difficulties that the protocol was creating, but the Government did not act. I had to take action, and it was our action that brought the EU back to the table. And yes, we have made progress as a result, but more is needed.

What more is needed? To deliver the pledge given by the Government in the New Decade, New Approach agreement to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the internal market of the United Kingdom. Although the Windsor framework goes some way towards doing that in relation to the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, it does not deal with, for example, the real potential for divergence between EU laws that apply in Northern Ireland and UK laws that apply in Great Britain when the UK decides to change regulations that were formerly EU regulations.

There is a Bill before this House that will fast-track and significantly broaden the number of UK laws that will be changed where EU law is disapplied. That creates the potential for divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It harms our ability to trade with Great Britain, it harms the integrity of the internal market of the United Kingdom, and the Windsor framework does not address that problem, which we need to see addressed. I say to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) that I want to see Stormont up and running, but we need the Government to deliver the commitment that they made when he was the Secretary of State to protect our place in the internal market of the United Kingdom.

[John Redwood]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because the EU will have powers over things such as VAT and state aid in Northern Ireland, it will also have powers on a drag-through basis over the whole United Kingdom? Does the whole United Kingdom not need a veto?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is why we need a solution that enables the United Kingdom Government and this Parliament to regulate the entirety of the United Kingdom internal market. That is the solution. I am not saying that where Northern Ireland businesses trade with the European Union, EU standards and rules should not apply; I am saying that we can allow for that. What I do not accept is a situation where every business in my constituency must comply with EU rules even if they do not sell a single widget to the European Union. That is wrong, because it harms our place in the internal market of the United Kingdom.

The Stormont brake seeks to address the democratic deficit that I have mentioned, and to an extent, it provides a role for Stormont to pull that brake where changes to EU law occur, but I note that it does not give us any ability to deal with existing EU laws that impact on all manufacturing in Northern Ireland—laws that have been applied without our consent. To that extent, the brake cannot apply. It applies to amendments to EU law or changes new EU laws that are introduced.

I also note that in the proposed arrangements, it is available to the EU to take retaliatory action in the event that the UK Government apply a veto to a new EU law. That is a matter of concern to us in Northern Ireland, because retaliatory action could come in a number of forms. It could include the suspension of arrangements in the green lane, which would impact our ability to bring goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We need to be clear that it is wrong for the EU to be able to intervene at that level in the free flow of goods from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. I highlight that issue as a real matter of concern to us.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I will.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before you take this intervention, Sir Jeffrey, I remind you that you have now been speaking for nine minutes. Once you have resumed your seat, I will introduce a three-minute time limit to get as many Members in as possible. Please be cognisant of that.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend will know about the exchange that the Secretary of State and I had yesterday in the European Scrutiny Committee, where he was invited to indicate that the “exceptional circumstances” in paragraph 18 in the schedule to the Stormont brake regulations would preclude a material consideration being the EU retaliatory action to which my right hon. Friend has referred. The Secretary of State was quick to agree with that interpretation. May I ask, through my right hon. Friend, whether the Secretary of State will consider reaffirming the commitment that he gave yesterday? It features in paragraph 14; it does not feature in paragraph 16. Just to be clear: the Secretary of State would not be allowed to consider the threat of retaliatory action as “exceptional circumstances” when exercising a veto.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I welcome what the Secretary of State said yesterday: that we must not allow the threat of EU retaliatory action to influence Ministers in exercising their powers under the Stormont brake. I also welcome the clear commitment the Prime Minister gave to me recently: that the application of the Stormont brake is entirely a matter for the United Kingdom. It is a strand 1 issue under the terms of the Belfast agreement and does not involve a role for the Irish Government in relation to these matters. That is a very important principle for us.

The Prime Minister has indicated to me that in this process the wishes of Stormont will be respected, but I have made it clear that in exercising the Stormont brake we are simply applying in our terms the potential of a veto by the United Kingdom Government on one aspect of EU law. This does not deal with all of the problem, and that is the difficulty we have. The continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland is what creates the problem in our ability to trade within the internal market of the United Kingdom.

It is important that the Government of the United Kingdom take stock of where we are now. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is to attend the UK-EU Joint Committee on Friday to sign off the Windsor framework, and that today’s indicative vote in this House will be used as the justification for doing so. Surely though, our shared objective, as espoused earlier by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), is to see the political institutions in Northern Ireland restored; we need therefore to continue to engage with the Government to get this right.

My party is committed to doing that. We are committed to continuing to work with the Secretary of State and with the Prime Minister, but that has to be about delivering on the commitment given to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the internal market of the United Kingdom, and to ensure that where EU law is applied to facilitate cross-border trade, it does not impede our ability to trade with the rest of our own country in the internal market of our own country. That is the bottom line for us, and until that is resolved, I cannot give the Government a commitment to restore the political institutions. It is what I want to do, but we need to get this right. I want Stormont to be restored on a sustainable and stable basis, where there is cross-community consent and consensus, but that does not exist at the moment. We need that consensus to be restored.

For our part, we will continue to work intensively to solve these issues, doing so in the knowledge that what has already been achieved was achieved because we were not prepared to accept the undermining of Northern Ireland’s place within the Union of the United Kingdom—the economic Union of the United Kingdom. That is what we stand for. That is what we will fight for. We want to get it right, and we will work with the Government to achieve that.

14:02

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I rarely rise to speak in debates that he leads, not because I disagree with what he is doing but because I think it is important that predecessors do not comment too often on their successors’ work. I know how hard the job of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is. Today though, I rise to speak because I support wholeheartedly what he and the Prime Minister have achieved and want the statutory instrument to go through with the support of the overwhelming majority of this House.

Two weeks ago, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I co-chair, met in Belfast to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We met in the currently empty Assembly Chamber in Stormont. We met representatives of legislatures across the islands that make up the British Isles, and we reflected on the leadership that had been required to deliver that deal 25 years ago—leadership not just for a few weeks, but for years. People made sacrifices and went above and beyond, because they were prepared to recognise that, while no deal is perfect, the result of achieving the Belfast/Good Friday agreement for the people of Northern Ireland and people across these islands was so significant that the sacrifices were worth making.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that another great virtue of this framework agreement, which is much to be commended, is that it enables us to resolve the issues in a way that does not lead us into breach of any of our international law obligations, as would have been the case had we proceeded with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill? That has to be a win for the UK’s reputation, as well as for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Karen Bradley]

I agree wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend always speaks with great wisdom.

When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, it was clear to me that leaving the European Union without a deal would have been devastating to Northern Ireland—devastating economically and devastating to community cohesion. That is why as Secretary of State and subsequently I have tried to find a way to make sure a deal was reached that we could all get behind. We reached a deal whereby the whole United Kingdom left the EU together, but that deal was not acceptable—not to those on the Opposition Benches and not to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I recognise and acknowledge the reasons for that: they felt it would leave us too close to the European Union, and I fully respect their view.

Then, a deal was presented to us by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). The deal had many faults, but I believed my right hon. Friend when he said that he wanted me to vote for it because it was important for the people of Northern Ireland. I was willing to do that, even though I knew that it would result in checks on goods in the Irish sea—that was clear in the agreement—because it was so important for Northern Ireland and because my Prime Minister asked me to vote for it.

Remember that when the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was drawn up and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 implemented, the United Kingdom and Ireland were both members of the EU. As a result, many of the issues did not have to be codified. We did not have to set out what happened to goods travelling to and from Northern Ireland, or set out rights, because those rights came from both of us being EU members. Leaving the EU means that some of those issues now need to be codified, and that can be done only through negotiation and accommodation being made by both sides. The Windsor framework demonstrates enormous accommodation on the EU side; the Stormont brake is an extraordinary thing for the EU to agree to. People around the world are looking at the agreement and congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on what he has achieved.

My question for this House is this: what is the alternative to the Windsor framework? What do we think we will get? There is nothing better on the table. This is a significant step forward, and I urge my right hon and hon. Friends to vote for it.

14:07

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I confess that when I read the Windsor framework I was surprised, and pleasantly so, because as the Secretary of State told the House earlier, there were things in it that I did not think negotiation would manage to achieve. It is to the great credit of the negotiators, and to the great credit of the DUP, that they have achieved so much in this agreement. The EU has had to move a long way.

This proposal is very sensible. Leaving the European Union always confronted us with a choice in what to do about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Apart from those who said, “That’s not my problem. Leave it to the EU,” everyone knew that some arrangement had to be put in place. The result was the protocol, but it did not work. The Windsor framework provides a way forward. In particular, the Stormont brake answers the point DUP Members make in this House about future EU legislation, because the brake is available.

Secondly, I wanted to respond directly to the point the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made about existing EU law that continues to apply in the United Kingdom. Many pieces of EU legislation have applied in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom for years. Have they had an impact on the ability of Northern Ireland businesses to trade with rest of the United Kingdom? No, they have not. They continue to apply in Great Britain because of EU retained law.

When the Government decide which of those pieces of retained law they want to dispose of or change through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, they have a choice about the extent to which they want to create divergence. I suspect that, by the end of this year, many of those pieces of legislation will still apply in Great Britain, because divergence creates problems. That is the point that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) made in a speech shortly after the referendum: divergence results in our having to make a choice.

The final point I want to make is that it is very striking that businesses will take decisions for themselves. There was a recent example: the EU decided to reduce the amount of permitted arsenic in baby foods. What did manufacturers in Britain do in response? They did not wait for the Government to say, “Well, we might or might not follow suit”; they said, “Henceforth, we will of course produce baby foods matching the EU standard”, because they want to continue to be able to sell their products. Ultimately, businesses will decide the standard that works for them. This is a very sensible measure. I congratulate the negotiators, and I really hope the House will vote for it.

14:10

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I think we must avoid the danger of hyperbole, and I hope I do not disappoint my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench by saying that I do not think we can characterise this instrument as the last word that will ever be spoken on this subject. However, it does represent material and real progress, and if my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and I had seen a similar flexibility on behalf of the European Union three years ago in 2019, history might have turned out rather differently.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved considerable things with this agreement. No, it is not the last word. Yes, it is true that to any of those who prize the constitutional principles that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has spoken of, it will always leave a lasting sense of dissatisfaction that certain rules that apply in Northern Ireland do not apply on the mainland of Great Britain. However, Northern Ireland is a special case. It was already recognised to be a special case when the Good Friday agreement was introduced, and even then by the British-Irish agreement. The full and absolute sovereignty of the United Kingdom Government was abridged by the arrangements that were put in place in 1997.

For those of us who are Unionists, there will always be an aspiration to an ever-increasing proximity between us, but the stage we have now reached is that this agreement represents a significant and major achievement by this Government. I fully believe that it requires—compels, commands—the assent of every Member on the Government Benches, for it is a serious and significant improvement on the protocol as it was agreed in 2019. Why would we not at least agree to an improvement, even if we say at the same time, “It is not the last and final word”? So, looking back at the past few years with a degree of regret—perhaps nostalgia, even, for those times—I commend most strongly and urgently to this House the virtues and merits of this important and real staging post on the pathway to what I hope, ultimately, will be a final settlement.

14:12

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In the very short time I have, I will make a number of brief points. We do not like the Stormont brake, for a number of reasons. I would never have agreed the Stormont brake, because I think it damages and clouds the investor proposition; it has no specific role for the human rights or equality commissions; and the brake can be pulled before the committee can even finish its work on scrutiny. Most importantly, given the number of years I spent in Stormont, I think it is a very bad idea to give the DUP a veto over anything.

I also want to say something about some of the people in this House who will vote against this motion today—former Prime Ministers and members of the European Research Group, all of whom supported the protocol which had no Stormont brake and far more checks for businesses. They are more interested in internal Tory politics than they are in the wishes and interests of the people in Northern Ireland, and I urge the DUP to learn the lesson of the past few years. The people who the DUP Members can trust—the people who want to work with them—are sitting right here on these Benches. They are not over there on the Back Benches of the Tory party.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I just want to say two things: first, the people we trust are the people who elected us to stand for them. Secondly, as the hon. Member will well know, the veto that was given to the DUP was given to us by the people of Northern Ireland, who voted in a referendum for the Belfast agreement. That includes a veto for Unionists, and therefore when he decries that, he is decrying the agreement that his party supported.

[Colum Eastwood]

And, of course, the agreement that the right hon. Member did not support.

We will vote for this motion, because it has been made very clear that this is a vote on the whole framework. We have been through many a negotiation in the past. We understand when the negotiation is done and a decision has to be made. There have been parts of every single agreement that we have not liked, but we have had to stomach them for the greater good of the people of Northern Ireland. We see the Unionist concerns; we see many of them—most of them—addressed in this agreement; and we are prepared to make the decision on that basis. However, let me make something very clear to this House: if the DUP still refuses to go into government after all of this, I can guarantee that more and more people will figure out that the best way to make the north of Ireland work is within a new Ireland. That is where this is going, and people should be very aware of that.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the Secretary of State, and myself were all in the United States last week. We know that President Biden has appointed Joe Kennedy as an economic envoy to try to take full advantage of dual market access. We met investors and senior members of the US Administration who want to help us bring jobs to places such as Derry that have been left behind over many years. Dual market access is a huge opportunity that is right in our face—as somebody said earlier, people from around this House would give their left arm to have that opportunity for their own constituents. Despite some concerns that even I have with the agreement, why, oh why, would we give that up?

The most important thing to remember, though, is that it is done—it is over. The negotiation is finished. The British Government and the European Union are moving forward. They are moving on; they are dealing with other issues. It is now time to deal with the crisis in our health service, which is at the point of collapse, and to deal with the economic stagnation. It is time to get into Stormont, to do the work on behalf of the people, and to come back together again and work the common ground. There is no other alternative.

14:16

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am a passionate Brexiteer, and I still think that our future outside of the European Union is the best possible thing for the United Kingdom, but above all else, I am a passionate Unionist. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), it really does pain me that here we are again, having the same discussions that we had in the hung Parliament of 2017-19. Now, though, so many of us believe that the deal that has been struck with the Prime Minister, with support from Front Benchers and other passionate Brexiteers, is the best possible deal. At any time over the past seven years, if we had been offered this deal as the way forward as a United Kingdom, we would have bitten their arms off.

It seems to me the greatest pity that right hon. and hon. DUP Members are not going to support the deal today. It seems to me that this is a superb deal for people who live in Northern Ireland, and while I fully respect the views and knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I do think that the constitutional issue has to be taken as slightly—only very slightly—different from the issue that faces us today. Today, we are looking at a deal that will work so much better for the people of Northern Ireland and for our Union. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) said, in all likelihood, this will not be the last we hear on this subject, but let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good: let us move forward as one United Kingdom and vote for this SI.

14:18

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Let us be clear what we are debating here today: we are debating a lock, or a brake, that is necessary because the Government have allowed the EU to impose its law on part of the United Kingdom. The result is that we now have a border between one part of the United Kingdom and the other part of the United Kingdom, a border that is going to be reinforced very shortly by the building of physical posts that will be used to monitor trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Goods that are going into Northern Ireland purely for consumption in Northern Ireland will be checked—100% will be customs checked, and one in 20 will be physically checked. Of course, that can be varied by the EU. What is the Government’s answer to it? That Unionists can make a protest about it and sign a petition of concern. By the way, if there is anything that will destabilise the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is the constant use of the petition of concern. Members from other Northern Ireland parties behind me will confirm that.

First, there is a limit on what can be done and, secondly, despite the Secretary of State saying that he would be bound to listen to petitions of concern from Unionists, in fact he would have no option to. Whole sections of the framework tell us the grounds on which he can refuse a petition. Even if he does accept it, he then has to go to the Joint Committee and exercise a veto, which he knows will lead to material impacts for the United Kingdom, and of that we can be absolutely sure. If it is a choice between disrupting relations with the EU or accepting legislation—ironically, this Windsor framework is presented on the basis that it will normalise relations with the EU—how likely is it that we are going to pick a fight with the EU over the implementation of some EU law in Northern Ireland? The truth is that this is not a Stormont brake; it is a Stormont fake. It should be rejected by this House. It does not protect the Union, it does not protect democracy in Northern Ireland, and it will not get the Assembly back and running again.

[Mr Speaker]

With 20 seconds, I call John Redwood.

14:20

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Government should not put this measure to a vote now. This will not work. It cannot work as a brake, because Stormont will not meet because of it. It gives amazing powers to the European Union—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

14:21

One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).

14:21

Division 197

Ayes: 515

Noes: 29

Resolved,

That the draft Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.

Public Order Bill

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 11

Powers to stop and search without suspicion

14:40

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 6B to 6F.

The Bill is about giving the police the tools they need to tackle the highly disruptive protest tactics that we have seen in recent months, which have blocked ambulances, delayed passengers making important journeys, stopped children getting to school and prevented patients from receiving critical medical care. We have seen our capital city, London, being held to ransom. It cannot be right that a selfish minority committed to causing as much disruption as possible continue to get away with it. These actions are not only impacting the public, but diverting the police away from the communities they serve; in October and November last year, something like 10,000 hours of Metropolitan police time were taken up. That is why the Bill is so important.

We have had some back and forth with the other place, but there is now only one remaining issue to resolve between us. It concerns the power to stop and search without suspicion, which has been extended through the Bill to enable the police to search for and seize articles related to protest activities. It is worth saying that, before that power can be exercised, it requires a police officer of the rank of inspector or above to have a “reasonable” belief that a number of offences may be committed in the area concerned. It further requires that officer to believe that the conditions being imposed, and the authority to carry out these searches, are necessary to prevent the commission of offences. Moreover, the power lasts for only 24 hours and is capable of extension for another 24 hours at the most. Therefore, the power is to be used only where it is reasonably suspected an offence may be committed, only where it is believed to be necessary, and only for a time-limited period. Those are important restrictions on the way the power can be used.

Stop and search is a vital tool used to crack down on crime and protect communities. We see it as appropriate, in the face of large, fast-paced environments where it can be difficult for the police to reach the level of suspicion required for a suspicion-led stop and search, for them to have this power available as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am old enough to remember when a policeman used his initiative and intuition to suspect that a crime was probable, or could be caused or had been caused. Does the Minister feel that the Bill ensures that a policeman can still use his initiative to ensure that those who are carrying out crimes can be detained with the suspicion of cause, rather than without evidence?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Police will often suspect that crimes may be committed, but in a particular case an individual may not reach the suspicion level and, in those circumstances, these rules will apply. I completely agree with his point.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm, as an illustration, that, if a demonstration is about to take place by a group who use a particular tactic—gluing themselves to the road, for example—the police may use this power to intercept individuals with glue in their pockets, before they carry out an activity such as gluing themselves that occupies enormous amounts of police time, often puts them and police officers in danger, and causes enormous inconvenience? In those circumstances, will the police be able to use this power to get ahead of the problem?

[Chris Philp]

The way my right hon. Friend puts it is good. It is in exactly those circumstances, where the police are concerned that one of the specified crimes may be committed, that they can use this power. Those crimes are specified in clause 11(1), and include offences under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980—that is wilfully obstructing the highway—offences under section 78 of the relatively new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which involve

“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,

and various offences under the Bill, which include causing serious disruption by

“tunnelling…being present in a tunnel… obstruction etc of major transport works”,

interfering with critical national infrastructure, as well as “locking on”, which I think is the point made by my right hon. Friend.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

This was raised the last time we had this debate, but the Minister mentioned the crime of nuisance. The threshold for that is incredibly low. An inspector could be concerned that there was a chance that someone would commit this offence by being seriously annoying or inconveniencing somebody, and then we let loose suspicionless stop and search of hundreds, potentially thousands, of people, for no further reason than that. Is that not a ludicrously low threshold for triggering these search powers?

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure I entirely agree. The offence of intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance is set out in section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and I do not accept the characterisation of that offence as simply a minor one. Causing huge inconvenience to other members of the public is not something that this House should treat lightly, particularly as we have seen examples in recent protests of ambulances not getting through, and of people unable to get their children to school or to attend medical appointments. I am not sure I accept that characterisation.

A number of changes have been proposed in Lords amendments 6B to 6F. They first propose a higher level of authorisation for suspicionless searches. By the way, the other place is not disputing the principle; it is simply seeking to change some of the thresholds, one of which would involve changing the authority level in a way that would be inconsistent with the use of searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in other contexts.

Another change relates to the time periods. As Lord Hogan-Howe, a former commissioner of the Metropolitan police, pointed out, the use of the power has to be practical and reducing the time threshold to just 12 hours would limit the ability of police forces to use these powers in a meaningful way. We should take seriously the opinion of the noble Lord who used to be the Met commissioner.

The changes proposed in the other place would also require a chief superintendent to provide authorisation for this matter, when an inspector is acceptable under the existing section 60. I think that overlooks the urgency and speed with which these protests can unfold, and the speed at which decisions need to be made. It also has potential to cause confusion if there is a different level of seniority here, compared with the well-established section 60.

Finally, the amendments proposed in the other place would set out in statute a requirement for the forces to communicate the geographical extent of an order. The Government recognise that communication of any power is important for understanding and transparency. I am aware that most forces already communicate their section 60 authorisations—I have seen that happen frequently in Croydon and it is gratefully received when it happens. But, for consistency, it is important to keep these new powers as close as we can to existing legislation, although the Government encourage forces to communicate any use of this power, in the way they already do for a section 60 order, where it is operationally beneficial to do so. There is a lot to be said for consistency, which is why I respectfully encourage Members of this House to gently and politely disagree with the other place in their amendments 6B to 6F.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

Stop and search is a crucial tool, as we all agree. Its normal usage is based on intelligence around a crime or a potential crime, based on proper suspicion, and applied for the right reasons. In our country, we use stop and search with suspicion to look for weapons, drugs and stolen property. Under particular circumstances, we use suspicionless stop and search—a section 60, as we call it—to search people without suspicion when a weapon has been used, or where there is good reason to believe there will be a serious violence incident. The Government are introducing suspicionless stop and search for potential protests, an overreach of the law that the police have not asked for and which pushes the balance of rights and responsibilities away from the British public.

Yesterday, we debated Baroness Casey’s report into the Metropolitan police. It is an excoriating report that, among much else, calls for a fundamental reset in how stop and search is used in London. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister today accept all the findings and recommendations in the report. The report states:

“Racial disparity continues in stop and search in London. This has been repeatedly confirmed in reports and research. Our Review corroborates these findings.”

It is ironic that the day after the report was published the Government are trying to pass laws that risk further damaging the relationship between the police and the public by significantly expanding stop and search powers way beyond sensible limits.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady says these measures may damage relations with the public. The vast majority of the public feel very strongly that their lives have been severely impacted by these protests, so giving the police the tools to get ahead of them may in fact command widespread public support, notwithstanding the issues of protest. I wonder what her solution might be to the problem of people who persistently come to protests and glue themselves to all sorts of surfaces, thereby causing enormous disruption to other people’s lives, disproportionate to the issue they are protesting about.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. We do not disagree on some of the struggles here—we never have. We have never said that it is not a problem in terms of major infrastructure, getting around the country and so on. Our argument has always been, first, a series of existing laws is in place that enables the police to do their job. Secondly, the use of injunctions could have been made easier—we put that case forward in earlier stages of the Bill—so that we could get ahead of some of these problems. But fundamentally, we disagree with the premise that extending these powers, which are used at the moment for serious violence, to this loose definition of potential protest is helpful, or anything the police will necessarily want or use.

Clause 11 will introduce wide-ranging powers for the police to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest, including any of us who happen to walk through the area. The Government’s knee-jerk reaction to introduce sweeping powers that will risk further damaging policing by consent is not the way forward. Members in the other place passed very sensible changes to raise the threshold for the powers in clause 11 to be used. To the Minister’s point that they are not disputing the principle, they have already disputed the principle—we have had that argument and they have, rightly, as is their role, moved on. So they are trying to contain what they think are the problems with these measures. All we ask is that the Government accept these sensible minor tweaks to clause 11.

Lords amendments 6B to 6F would raise the rank of the officer able to authorise the power to stop and search without suspicion for a 12-hour period to a chief superintendent. The Minister argued that we need consistency. I do not accept that argument. There are all kinds of different levels of all kinds of different things across the law that we can all understand. Because this is a more significant intervention for potentially a lesser crime, the amendment is relatively reasonable.

Lords amendment 6C removes “subsection (ii)”, which means the power could be used for the anticipation of “causing public nuisance” such as merely making noise. Without this change, every time music is played outside Parliament anyone could be stopped and searched without suspicion. Baroness Casey suggests that

“as a minimum, Met officers should be required to give their name, their shoulder number, the grounds for the stop and a receipt confirming the details of that stop.”

Lords amendment 6F would insert:

“The chief superintendent must take reasonable steps to inform the public when the powers conferred by this section are in active use.”

That is important because communication failures are a common factor in problematic stop and searches.

A recent report from Crest Advisory, examining the experience of black communities nationally on stop and search, found that 77% of black adults support the use of stop and search in relation to suspicion of carrying a weapon. So, in the poll, the black community absolutely agrees that we need the power to stop and search. But less than half of those who had been stopped and searched felt that the police had communicated well with them or explained what would happen. That less than half of those who had been stopped and searched felt that the police had communicated well to them or explained what would happen shows how important it is to make sure people are communicated with when these strong and impactful powers are used by the police. If we imagine that in the context of clause 11, where anyone can be stopped, including tourists who might have got caught up in a crowd and not know what is going on, there is a risk of a chaotic invasion of people’s rights to go about their business.

We have discussed previously and at length the definition of “serious disruption”. The Minister considers it

“more than a minor degree”.

Would being stopped and searched for simply walking through Parliament Square when a protest is taking place disrupt his day more than a minor degree? The suspicionless stop and search powers being applied to protests are extreme and disproportionate. We have raised many times in this House the warnings from former police officers that they risk further diminishing trust in public institutions.

After the devastating Casey report, it is hard to see how public trust in the Metropolitan police could suffer more. Ministers were unable to offer any solutions to bring the reforms we desperately need in policing, but they could at least try not to pass laws that would risk making trust and confidence in the police even worse. Clause 11 will create powers that risk undermining our Peelian principles even further. When Ministers say that it would only be in very unusual circumstances that the powers would be used, I want to stress, why bother? Why bother, when to deal with disruptive protests the police could already use criminal damage, conspiracy to cause criminal damage, trespass, aggravated trespass, public nuisance, breach of the peace and obstruction of the highway? The Minister knows I could keep going. Many protestors have been fined and many have gone to prison using those powers. Thousands of arrests are already made using existing powers, but the Bill is apparently justified by an impact assessment that says it will lead to a few hundred arrests only. The powers are there for the police to use.

Disruptive protests have a serious impact on infrastructure and on people’s ability to go about their daily lives. Over the course of the passage of the Bill, we have spent many hours on new ways to ensure the police have all the levers they need. We tried to introduce sensible amendments on injunctions. The Government’s response to the problem is a totally disproportionate headline-chasing response that is, depressingly, what we have come to expect. Gone are the days when the Government were interested in passing laws that could fix problems or make things better. The truth is that the Government’s disagreement with the sensible narrowing amendments from the other place will create more problems than it will solve. I urge the Government to think again and to back these common-sense amendments from the other place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023. The Ayes were 290 and the Noes were 14, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will be brief because much of what I have to say agrees with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones).

I remind the House that the biggest curtailment of stop and search in modern times was in 2010, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Home Secretary. The reason she did it, in large part, was the feeling that nearly all the stop and searches were in the Met—there were only about 50 in Scotland one year, but thousands down here—and ethnic minorities felt that they were targeted at them. The way they were pursued made race relations in the capital worse.

15:03

[Sarah Jones]

On that point, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that every year that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), was Mayor of London, the number of stop and searches went down.

[Mr Davis]

I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) wants to intervene on that point.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. What he says is incorrect. At the time, we were dealing with a huge spike in knife crime in London, which was disproportionately reflected in the black community. Young black men were dying on an almost daily basis and, sadly, the vast majority of the perpetrators were also young black men. There was definitely a campaign to try to eliminate weapons from within that community, which worked. In 2008, 29 young people were killed in London, and by 2012 that was down to eight, so the campaign was successful. During that period and up to about 2016, confidence in the Metropolitan police rose to an all-time high of 90%, including rising confidence among minority communities in the capital. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend’s basic premise is not correct.

[Mr Davis]

I have allowed my right hon. Friend to make his point, but the simple truth was that the reason for the Home Secretary of the day curbing stop and search was concern about its impact on ethnic minorities. He is also right that the biggest number of victims of knife crime came from ethnic minorities, so I take his point. My answer to him—and the general concern here—is that bad policing is not improved by bad law, which is what I think this is.

That brings me to the Casey report. The hon. Member for Croydon Central was right to cite the criticism of the Metropolitan police. The report said that there were numerous examples of stop and search being carried out badly. There were examples where officers

“justified carrying out a search based on a person’s ethnicity alone”.

That should not apply under any circumstance. There were examples where officers

“Had been rude or uncivil while carrying out a search”

and

“had used excessive force, leaving people (often young people) humiliated, distressed, and this damaged trust in the Met”.

Those are all bad things from our point of view.

We all want—I include the Opposition—the disgraceful trend in modern demonstrations brought to an end. It is designed not to demonstrate but to inconvenience—there is a distinction. But the Bill is a heavy-handed way of doing that. The Minister tried to say that the Lords had accepted the principle. They had not. What they have sought to do with these amendments is leave the tool in the hands of the police but constrain it in such a way that it is used more responsibility.

The Lords amendments will change the level of seniority required to designate an area for suspicionless search from inspector to chief superintendent or above. Whatever Lord Hogan-Howe says, that is not a crippling amendment. Changing the maximum amount of time for which an area can be designated from 24 hours to 12 hours is not crippling but practical. While my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire was doing his job in London, I was on the Opposition Benches as shadow Home Secretary, dealing with a number of Metropolitan Police Commissioners. That is a perfectly practical change. Changing the level of seniority required to extend the authorisation by a further 24 hours to chief superintendent is, again, a practical change.

We talk about suspicionless stop and search. What does that mean? It means the right to stop and search innocent people who have no reason to be stopped and searched whatsoever. We are handing the discretion to a police force that has been called upon to reset its approach to stop and search. The Government are doing almost precisely the opposite of what Casey is calling for. The final amendment states:

“The chief superintendent must take reasonable steps to inform the public when the powers conferred by this section are in active use.”

Those are all practical changes. The smart action of the Government is to accept them, carry on and try to improve on the Metropolitan police that we have today.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will be brief because I agree entirely with the two previous speakers. There should be no suspicionless stop and search powers anywhere near a Public Order Bill. It is pretty grim that removing clause 11 entirely from the Bill is now off the table. All we are debating, in essence, are a few inadequate safeguards, yet still the Government are not listening to or understanding the concerns of those who will be stopped and searched.

As we have heard, yesterday the Casey report spoke about the UK’s largest police force needing a fundamental reset on stop and search, because it was being deployed at the cost of legitimacy, trust and therefore consent. Among the report’s stark conclusions was that enough evidence and analysis exist to confidently label stop and search a racialised tool.

Suspicionless stop and search is a counterproductive, disruptive and dangerous police tactic for a whole host of reasons. Yet here we are, the day after Casey, and the Government still insist on handing out a ludicrously broad and totally disproportionate power to do just that. It is not good enough for the Government to say that the use of the powers will be restricted, as the Minister in the other place sought to do. The same Minister said that the whole reason for keeping public nuisance in the scope of clause 11 was that it was an offence committed so frequently. Suspicionless stop and search to prevent the possibility of someone being seriously annoying or inconveniencing someone would almost be funny if it was not so deadly serious. The Government should at least get public nuisance out of the scope of the clause.

The Minister said that he was trying to seek consistency on the rank of the authorising officer, but it is comparing apples and oranges if the Government think that a power to tackle nuisance has to be consistent with the power to tackle serious violence. It is also selective because, as was pointed out in the other place, no-suspicion stop and search powers in relation to terrorism require a far higher rank before they can be authorised.

I will finish my brief contribution with the Casey report, which states:

“We heard that being stopped and searched can be humiliating and traumatic. Yet we could find no evidence of the Met considering how this would impact on how those who had been stopped would use the police service”.

The Government’s insistence on this power means that exactly the same criticism can be levelled at them. They do not recognise the serious disruption caused by suspicionless stop and search. The fact that they have been so tin-eared to concerns raised is pretty worrying. The Lords amendments are the barest minimum that we can do to restrict a severe and draconian power, and we should support them.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is three in a row, as I agree and associate myself with the remarks of the previous speakers. It is important to look at the Lords’ amendments in the light of yesterday’s Casey report. Throughout my involvement with the Bill, I have always tried to look at it as a former police officer, although not a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I have always tried to think about the Bill from the perspective of the police officers who will be required to carry out the powers in it, and from the capacity perspective—the capacity of officers to go and do these duties and to be trained to carry them out.

On the first point, I refer to page 86 of the Casey report, which states:

“The lack of comprehensive workforce planning and prioritisation…throughout this report also makes for a weak approach to learning and development. Officers regularly said that they had to keep their own records and that they were not held centrally.”

Can the Met say how many officers it has currently trained in public order, whether in basic command units doing aid training or in tactical support groups? When the Bill is enacted and police come to court, the defence will ask officers what training they had in these powers, so that is a valid point.

The second bit is about capability. If officers have not attended the training but are then abstracted to attend a protest, do they actually have the skills at all? I want to pick up on page 131 of the report, which mentions tactical support groups and their use across London. It states:

“While they can be tasked to carry out policing functions in a BCU area, they are not accountable to the BCU chain of command. This can undermine a BCU’s attempts to own its very extensive patch, and to be fully accountable for policing there, both to the Met and to the public.”

It goes on to say:

“We were told that specialist teams tended to have rigid attitudes to their style of policing. ‘TSG come here not knowing the area…they come late, allegedly go to the gym on job time…they annoy the community, and arrest people who probably didn’t need to be arrested anyway… My colleagues think it suppresses crime. I don’t think it’s worth the community upset, it poisons the relationship with the community.’”

Those comments have been made by some of the core teams that will be enacting these powers.

My third point goes back to the comments I made last time we discussed these Lords amendments. Whether a police officer is attending an incident or a spontaneous protest, and whether they are a police constable attending by themselves or taking directions from a silver public order commander in relation to a planned protest, they are still exercising those powers and making those decisions. We must look at the stress placed on police officers who are juggling all those multiple demands. Again, I refer to page 90 of the Casey report:

“The reality of policing means that most of the time, police officers are in threat perception and threat management mode.”I suggest that when people are policing in those kinds of modes, the strain they are under means that making good decisions, potentially about complex legislation, becomes more challenging.

I agree with the comments have been made about clause 11 being removed in its entirety; indeed, my colleagues in the other place continued to support that. We also support the new amendments that we are considering. In terms of arguing whether they are reasonable or not, I say this: they reflect the safeguards and the BUSS—best use of stop and search—scheme, which was introduced in 2014 and scrapped by the former Home Secretary in May 2022. What is proposed in the amendments has previously been utilised by the police, so I do not see why they cannot continue to do so.

[Chris Philp]

I do not wish to repeat everything I said at the beginning, but I want to pick up on one or two points made in the course of this short debate. The first point relates to policing’s position on this power. The shadow Minister, my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), said that the police had not been calling for this. I politely draw her attention to what was said by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which is run by a former chief constable:

“On balance, our view is that, with appropriate guidance and robust and effective safeguards, the proposed stop and search powers would have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe.”

I do not want to reiterate yesterday’s extensive debate about the Casey report, which has been referred to, but I will say one or two things about the use of stop and search in that context. First, when I discussed stop and search with Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner, a few days ago, he pointed out that between 350 and 400 knives are removed every month from London’s streets using stop and search. I think that is an extremely important contribution to public safety.

In her report, Baroness Casey referred to academic research from the United States that found that the use of stop and search led, on average, to a 13% reduction in crime. For the sake of balance, it is important to keep those points in mind.

It is fair to say that a very small proportion of stop and searches result in complaints. That has been the case particularly since body-worn cameras have been used, because the officer knows that when conducting a stop and search the whole thing is being recorded. Some of the bad practice that may have been prevalent 10 or 15 years ago is much less likely to occur when both parties are aware that the stop and search is being recorded.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Of course stop and search has a role to play, but it has to be applied appropriately and under the right criteria. As a barrister who has prosecuted and defended cases, and having been a member of the Home Affairs Committee, may I ask the Minister a question specifically about stop and search? How many individuals from diverse communities who have been stopped should not have been stopped in the first place? We need to have that data to know how to look at legislation moving forward. At the end of the day, we have to carry communities with us and ensure there is appropriate community cohesion. What is the figure?

[Chris Philp]

In whatever context, stop and search has to be done in a respectful and appropriate way. That is why body-worn cameras are so important. As I pointed out a moment ago, only a tiny fraction of stop and searches result in a complaint these days.

To conclude, we have recently seen protesters use tactics, often covertly, that are deliberately and exclusively designed not to protest as a way of communicating a message, but to cause intentional disruption to other members of the public going about their daily business, including children trying to get to school and patients trying to get to hospital. These well-designed and proportionate measures will help the police protect the public and allow them to go about their daily business, while also allowing the right to protest. Therefore, I respectfully invite colleagues to disagree with Lords amendments 6B to 6F.

Question put.

15:15

Division 198

Ayes: 296

Noes: 229

Lords amendments 6B to 6F disagreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 6B to 6F;

That Chris Philp, Scott Mann, James Sunderland, Aaron Bell, Sarah Jones, Gerald Jones and Stuart C. McDonald be members of the Committee;

That Chris Philp be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Jacob Young.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 6 September 2022 (Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill: Programme), 22 September 2022 (Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 12 December 2022 (Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill: Programme (No. 3)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendment

Clause 2

Further provision about power

15:30

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

This Government amendment, tabled in the other place and agreed to, rectifies a minor and technical typographical error in the Bill, and clarifies the power available to Ministers of the Crown or a devolved authority under clause 1. The amendment inserts a single word, “different”, in clause 2(1)(a), making it clear that regulations under clause 1 may make different

“provision for different purposes or areas”.

The intention of the provision overall is to make clear that if it were wanted, the Government procurement chapters could be implemented differently for different types of procurement or in different sectors. The Government do not anticipate relying on this flexibility for the initial set of regulations implementing the procurement chapters, because the chapters will be implemented in the same way for the procurement subject to those chapters. None the less, it is important to retain the flexibility should the need arise in the future—for instance, if it were necessary or expedient for regulations to make provision implementing an amendment to the chapters in one way for utilities and a different way for local government.

The flexibility is also reflected in regulations that may be made to implement trade agreements within the scope of the Trade Act 2021. Section 4(1) of that Act similarly provides that regulations

“may…make different provision for different purposes or areas”.

However, I assure the House that any regulations made under the Bill can be made only for the purposes described in clause 1, namely implementing the Government procurement chapters and/or dealing with matters arising out of or related to those chapters.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week the Office for Budget Responsibility published figures on trade which changed the context for this debate on what is an apparently innocuous amendment from the other place. According to the OBR, we now face two years of declining exports, with a huge 6.6% drop in British exports this year, a further drop next year, and then an average growth in our exports of less than 1% for the next three years. We are reaping the results of the Conservatives’ failure to negotiate a better trade deal with the European Union or complete a trade deal with the United States, and the impact of significant cuts in support for attendance at trade shows and access to overseas markets is now all too obvious.

This amendment, and the debates in the Lords, strike me as a big missed opportunity—not for want of trying by Opposition colleagues—to start attempting to put things right. Abolishing the Department for International Trade and moving the deckchairs around in Whitehall is not going to hide away the Conservatives’ dismal record on trade and economic growth. We are lagging behind the rest of the G7 on exports to the world’s fastest growing economies in the G20, and nothing that the Minister has said so far, this afternoon or in previous debates, is going to improve the situation any time soon.

I do not want to detain the House too long, but while the amendment might involve the insertion of only one word in the Bill, the difference it makes does matter, both for what it does and what it does not do. Although there is support across the House to increase trade with our friends in Australia and New Zealand—particularly on the Labour Benches, not least because both countries are now led by progressive Labour Governments—there has also been widespread concern, among hon. Members and certainly outside the House, about what Ministers have negotiated, particularly in the trade deal with Australia. As I say, this amendment feels like a missed opportunity to begin to address those concerns.

We know that Ministers decided to throw British farmers under the bus, ignoring the concerns of the National Farmers Union. We know that the Prime Minister could have intervened, but did not. And we know that the desperation to get any deal meant that too much negotiating leverage was given up. One of the questions that the amendment raises is whether its wording in any way helps to offset, even just a little, those significant negotiating failures by the Government. We on the Labour Benches warned Ministers that the Australian deal would be used as a precedent by the other countries with which Ministers are negotiating, and as the Minister knows, that is exactly what is happening. The weaknesses in the deal that his predecessors negotiated are now being used to demand further concessions in our current negotiations, particularly by the countries with big agricultural interests.

I have considered carefully whether this amendment helps us to find any comfort following the devastating analysis of these trade deals offered to the House by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), when he explained, back in November, that we

“gave away far too much for far too little in return”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

He also said that

“the value of the UK agri-food market access offer was nearly double what we got in return”.

I have also considered carefully whether this amendment from the other place improved the scrutiny by Parliament, or even the scrutiny of how the regulations bringing into effect the procurement chapters of these trade deals are implemented. If the amendment had forced Ministers to consult with and in the nations and regions of the UK before the regulations were introduced, it would have been extremely helpful. After all, surely one of the most important lessons from these two trade deals is that the process of parliamentary scrutiny for trade deals is not fit for purpose.

Granted, Ministers in the Department for International Trade were busy disagreeing and attacking each other at the time, but when the then Trade Secretary failed to turn up eight times to give evidence before the International Trade Committee on these deals—and despite that, would not extend the time for the Committee to report on the deals to the House—it became clear that something was very amiss with the system of scrutiny. It is hardly surprising that the International Trade Committee has been abolished by Ministers, but instead of improving the scrutiny of trade negotiations, or even just the regulations implementing the procurement chapters of the negotiations, the amendment makes things a little easier for Ministers.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm, notwithstanding the absurdities of the previous Trade Secretary, who was more concerned with a photo opportunity than a proper deal, and some of the other difficulties, that our position is that it is enormously important that we have good trading and all other relations with our great allies in Australia and New Zealand, particularly after we recently strengthened and deepened our strategic relationship through the very welcome AUKUS deal?

[Gareth Thomas]

My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes a hugely important point. Australia and New Zealand, as I said earlier, are important allies of this country with whom we have crucial security interests as well as trade interests. I accept that anything that helps to maintain and strengthen those relationships is very positive, but I am sure he would agree that we need to learn the lessons from how Ministers carried on those negotiations, particularly with the Australians.

Given the specific context of the Bill and the focus on implementing the procurement chapters of the two trade deals, it is a struggle to see how this amendment will help to improve the implementation of the supposed better access to our partners’ procurement markets.

The leading procurement expert Professor Sánchez Graells set out clearly in his evidence to the other place, and indeed to this House, his concerns that the Australia deal worsens the protections for British businesses competing in the Australian procurement market. We are entitled to ask ourselves whether this amendment helps to address that concern in any way. Sadly, I do not think it does.

Professor Sánchez Graells also made clear his view that the benefits of the trade deal in terms of access to Australia’s procurement market have been significantly exaggerated. The noble Lord Purvis and Labour Lords also picked up on that point in the debates in the other House, but the one Lords amendment that the Government backed does not address this concern. What the amendment does, if anything, is ever so slightly increase Ministers’ powers to implement regulations, wherever and however they want.

Given how Ministers excluded some groups from the negotiations—including trade unions—given the disregard for the legitimate interests of our devolved nations, and given the failure to negotiate commitments on climate change or proper protections for specialist British brands such as Stilton cheese or Scotch whisky, Ministers’ apparent determination to try to claim a little more freedom to implement the procurement chapters does not encourage any sense that they have learned lessons from what has happened.

I have one specific question for the Minister on the implementation of these trade deals. It would be very helpful for small businesses across the UK if he set out the Department’s plan to support small businesses that want to access the Australian and New Zealand markets and take advantage of the trade preferences in these two deals.

We will not seek to divide the House, but this amendment is a reminder of the Government’s woeful performance on trade and exports, and of the desperate need for a new Government determined to lift up the living standards of everyone in this country, not just the already very wealthy, by delivering more exports and sustained economic growth.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on taking such a great deal of time to find some contention in a single amendment that adds only the word “difficult.” I am afraid my remarks will be somewhat shorter.

The whole basis and value of this Bill, and of what the Lords have sent back to us, is in taking the opportunities presented to us by our trade agreements. It is undoubtable that, through the Australia and New Zealand trade deals, new trade opportunities have been delivered. We have to be clear about how those values have offered themselves, whether through defence agreements, through creating new digital partnerships, through joining new blocs such as CPTPP, through exploring the idea of the Gulf Co-operation Council, through signing memorandums of understanding with American states and trade agreements with Israel or through finding ways to join up with India to unlock services and industry opportunities for our country and our businesses.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about how we might be able to help small and medium-sized enterprises. Well, only this morning the Department for Business and Trade held an event in the Attlee Suite of Portcullis House on how we can help SMEs achieve their true value and potential beyond our borders. I hope we see more of those events, because it is essential that we find ways to help our small businesses reach new markets.

I will come on to procurement and the amendment in a second, before I stray too far, but it is relevant to talk about the value of these trade deals. All too often, we are told that they are not of enough value to the UK economy, which is to presume that our trade deals are static and that no one takes advantage of them when they are brought into force. After they are brought into force, we always see them grow.

On the International Trade Committee, I always cite the example of the North American free trade agreement. The expectation when NAFTA came into force was that it would be of very little benefit to the signatories’ economies. In fact, the opposite was the case. It grew steadily over time and has evolved into what it is today under a different name. We should look not at the current forecast value of these trade deals but at how we can encourage businesses in each and every one of our constituencies, from Totnes in south Devon to Harrow West and Northern Ireland, to take full advantage.

We talk about procurement a lot and we are trying to shape it in a meaningful way in this House. So far, we are doing very well, with the Procurement Bill. However, as the Minister has rightly said, this is the chance to take the benefit of procurement opportunities that vary. Where there are differences—it will not just be in defence, as it might be in utilities, services, industry and so on—this will allow us to take the opportunity that comes with that range.

I do not think there is going to be much disagreement on this Lords amendment. At last, it shapes a Bill that—

15:45

[John Spellar]

Do we not have to be careful on public procurement and recognise the world as it is, notwithstanding agreements? Even when we were a member of the EU, we found that other countries gave considerable preference to their own producers within procurement. Our civil service and Treasury resolutely, adamantly and stubbornly refuse to support British industry, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and so when they go into the world market, they hear, “If you are not good enough for the British Government, why are you good enough for us?” They are being constantly undermined, even now, on small modular reactors.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. We have accepted in many instances the terms of the World Trade Organisation and the carve-out measures within them, so we are very compliant in many areas where we can be, for example, in this instance, a little more protectionist in respect of some of the key technologies we are developing in this country. There is a bit of give and take on that point. We do recognise it in some areas, although perhaps not to the extent that he would want to see.

As I was saying, I do not disagree with this Lords amendment, which is a perfectly simple one. There is always a lot in a word, but this will give us the opportunity to take full advantage in our trade deals and through procurement.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Out of all the potential amendments that could have come back along the corridor from the other place, this is not one that would have been top of my list. Let me surprise the Minister by saying that this is a very good trade deal—for those viewing it from Australia or New Zealand. It is not such a good trade deal—it is a pretty lousy one—for those viewing it from Scotland. We are dealing with a single-word amendment, and I can think of many farmers in my constituency who could probably sum up their views of this deal in a single word—none of their words would be parliamentary, I hasten to add.

I hear what the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) has to say about this not being a static arrangement, but even then it still requires a great deal of catching up in order to make up the ground here. The UK Government’s own analysis shows that the trade deal with New Zealand will bring in an increase of 0.03% of GDP over 15 years, with a figure of 0.08% of GDP from the Australia deal, all while the UK trade and co-operation agreement with the EU leads to a 4.9% fall for the UK over the same period.

The Scottish National party has a simple yardstick on trade deals: we will support those that are good and oppose those that are poor. Nothing that has come back alters our view of this particular deal.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I shall be brief. I thank Members for their contributions today. We have had two glass half empty responses and one glass half full one. That does not surprise me at all, because I am still waiting for the Opposition to support one of our trade deals. It is important to remember that the Australia and New Zealand deals benefit every nation and every region of the UK. I am disappointed to hear what the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said, because the attitude of the Scottish whisky manufacturers might be slightly different, as huge benefits will likely come from these deals.

As I said in my opening speech, this Lords amendment is a minor and technical one. It ensures clarity on the point that the power in the Bill can be used only to implement and deal with cases arising as a result of these free trade agreements. Again, the Government do not—

[Gareth Thomas]

I realise that the Minister probably does not have much more to say, but may I take this opportunity to press him to set out the plan to help small businesses benefit from the trade preferences in these deals?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member is being slightly too impatient. I said that my speech would be short, but it is not too short. There are a couple of comments that I will come on to.

On the amendment, the Government do not anticipate relying on this flexibility for the initial set of regulations implementing the procurement chapters, but it is nevertheless important that the flexibility is retained should the need for it arise in the future.

I will respond to comments made by hon. Members. I have already mentioned the economic benefits of the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. They will generate billions of pounds of economic activity, to the benefit of UK businesses and, of course, the people we represent. This will lead to more jobs, which is why it is unfathomable that anybody would vote against this.

The scrutiny that we give Bills stacks up pretty well compared with other parliamentary democracies and, of course, is based on CRaG—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process—which I remind Opposition Members was developed and implemented during the time of the last Labour Government. If they do not like it, they are criticising their own legislation.

On protections to support the most sensitive parts of the UK farming community, we have secured various measures across both deals that are collectively available for 15 to 20 years for the most sensitive products. We have engaged, and continue to engage, with the farming industry. Of course, these and the many other deals we are negotiating are also ensuring that we are fit for the 21st century. We are no longer in a world where all we do is ship widgets from country A to country B via the countries closest to us. Services, particularly those delivered digitally, are now vital to the UK economy. They represent 80% of the UK economy and it is absolutely vital that they form a key part of our trade deals, as is the case with these two deals with Australia and New Zealand.

On support for businesses, of course, as the Secretary of State has said many times, we need to not only deliver on the deals but make sure that businesses, large and small, right across the country are able to benefit from them, so we will continue to support small and medium-sized businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) highlighted this morning’s export showcase event, at which MPs and Lords were surprised at the extent to which support is already, and will continue to be, available, whether in training, export support services or UK export finance. That is not just for big businesses; it is for small and medium-sized businesses as well. There will be extensive support because we want all businesses, large and small, to benefit from these deals.

The Bill’s measures might be technical in nature, but they will make a real difference for people right across our constituencies and right across the United Kingdom.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 1 November 2022 (UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]: Programme), as varied by the Order of 1 February 2023 (UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]: Programme (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 2

Objectives and activities

15:53

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 3B.

The Lords proposed amendment 3B in lieu of Commons amendment 3. As the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill reaches the final stage of its passage, I am pleased that it will also include nature-based solutions explicitly.

Members will recall that in previous debates I noted that nature-based solutions were already included in the inclusive definition of infrastructure, and as such we did not think it necessary to add them explicitly to the Bill. The Government have, however, reflected on that position and we recognise the strength of feeling on the matter across both Houses. I am therefore pleased to say that we support the Lords amendment in lieu, and I hope that colleagues across this House will do so, too. We think that the amendment strikes a careful balance, making it clear that nature-based solutions are within the bank’s remit without being overly prescriptive and limiting the bank’s opportunity to invest.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this Bill. I am pleased that, on such an important Bill, we have reached consensus. UKIB has transformative potential, which I know is recognised and supported on all sides of the House, and the changes made to the Bill show how effective Parliament is in scrutinising legislation. This Bill is the final stage in establishing the bank as a long-lasting institution, establishing in statute its key objectives of tackling climate change and supporting regional and local economic growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 3B. I am going very slowly in case anybody appears on the Opposition Front Bench—or, indeed, in case anybody currently on the Opposition Front Bench wishes to address the matter. No? Then we will move to the SNP spokesman.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I just have a small point. The SNP supports this Bill and the intention to create the UK Infrastructure Bank, with its objective to help tackle climate change. However, it is worth putting on record very briefly that both the original Government amendment 3 and amendment 3B in lieu from the other place—while the latter does keep “nature-based solutions” in the wording of the Bill—seek to remove

“structures underpinning the circular economy”

from the infrastructure that the Bill is designed to support in its objectives of tackling climate change and meeting the target for 2050.

I am sure people interested in such matters will look rather askance at that. How on earth can we have a UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, with highly laudable objectives to tackle climate change and meet the Government’s own targets, only then to have both the Government and the other place actively remove investment in infra-structure to support the circular economy—which, for goodness sake, must be part of the solution—from the Bill? We are not going to oppose the amendment, because the Lords amendment is marginally better than the original Government amendment, but it is worth putting on record that the removal of the words

“structures underpinning the circular economy”

from the Bill strikes me as somewhat perverse.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I find myself in the unusual and extremely uncomfortable position of agreeing with what the SNP spokesperson has just said. It is a condition that I hope will be quickly removed so that I can assert my usual sound Conservative principles.

There is an important point here, which I know the Minister is aware of, and which is not specific to this Bill. It seems a little odd, if we are looking at the next 10 or 20 years of our investment in infrastructure under the terms of the new Infrastructure Bank, to omit explicitly one of the foundational aspects of infrastructure from the Bill. I know my hon. Friend the Minister will have already reviewed that and he will say, I think correctly, that there is nothing in this Bill to stop support for investment in the circular economy infrastructure. However, I think it is important to have voices at this stage of the debate who can say that clearly, so that those who will now take forward the Infrastructure Bank know that, even if it is not in the Bill, the importance of creating the foundation of the circular economy is explicitly one of the things we anticipate and hope that the bank will do.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to say that we support this amendment. As other speakers have said, it improves on the text of the Bill, so we are happy to support it.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for the Opposition’s support. Indeed, the Bill has been characterised by support from across the House for this important institution, which, I remind the House, is already up and running. Today, I am pleased to say, we are putting it on a statutory footing.

I have heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), as well as by my good and hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who helped to pilot the Bill through its early stages. I will make the point that my hon. Friend expected me to make: the language in the Bill is inclusive rather than exclusive. His point is well made and understood.

On behalf of this House, we wish the institution well as we put it on a statutory footing. We in this House all look forward to hearing how it fulfils its objectives of levelling up and adding to the transition to net zero.

Lords amendment 3B agreed to.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Economic Crime (Anti-money Laundering) Levy

That the draft Economic Crime (Anti-Money Laundering) Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Small Businesses in Railway Arches

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jacob Young.)

16:01

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I have sought this debate to bring to this House a number of serious issues affecting small business based in railway arches.

There are more than 5,200 railway arches across the country. They have historically provided affordable workspace for a wide range of businesses. They were sold by Network Rail on a 150-year lease in 2019 to Telereal Trillion and Blackstone Property Partners, which established the Arch Company to manage them. Sixty per cent. of those arches are in London, and they are typically clustered around key urban centres and near major transport hubs. There are 324 arches in my Dulwich and West Norwood constituency.

The Arch Company reported a £45 million profit in the 2021-22 financial year. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on that figure as I set out some of the issues that railway arch-based businesses in my constituency are currently facing. The issues are twofold. First, I will raise the impact of a recent rent review process on a number of car mechanic businesses based in my constituency. Secondly, I will raise a number of wider issues arising from the Arch Company’s lettings policy in the Brixton and Herne Hill areas of my constituency.

Turning first to the impact of the recent rent review on small businesses, I have been contacted by several car mechanics who run businesses based in railway arches in the Loughborough Junction and Camberwell parts of my constituency. Those are long-standing small businesses that typically employ two or three staff and usually take on apprentices. This sector is under pressure at present as a consequence of changes in the market for vehicles and the increase in electric vehicles on our roads. There has been a drop in traditional business, and there is a need to learn new skills, which comes at a cost. The customers of those businesses are also under financial pressure. Many have older vehicles, which are essential for their work, and they are facing a cost of living crisis—they cannot afford to pay more for vehicle maintenance.

The car mechanics—several of whom I know were hoping to be in the Public Gallery but have been caught out by the business concluding early—all tell of the same experience: the Arch Company has sought to double their rent. I know that the Arch Company has argued that the level of rent those companies have been paying is low—below market level—but the market rent for car mechanic businesses based in railway arches has been established for a long time, and the business model of those businesses is based on it. If a proposal for a rent increase effectively smashes the business model of a whole sector, that cannot be allowed to pass without challenge.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is describing the experience of businesses in her constituency that are tenants of Network Rail. She might be interested to know that Transport for London provides quite a different kind of service and relationship with its tenants. It is estimated that 99% of tenants in railway arches under tube lines are small and medium-sized enterprises. TfL paused rents when businesses were no longer trading during the pandemic. Laura Sevenus Swimming Tuition and W6 Gym are two examples of small businesses in my constituency that benefited and are now thriving thanks to a positive partnership approach by TfL. Does she agree that that is the right way to go and that maybe Network Rail can learn lessons from TfL?

[Helen Hayes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because she highlights very clearly the contrasting approach Transport for London takes to businesses in exactly the same physical circumstances, and how it is possible to run a different model that both benefits businesses and secures rental income for the landlord.

The car mechanics in my constituency have described the Arch Company as being difficult to negotiate with. They try to call the office, but the telephone is not answered. They receive an unexpected visit to their premises, and feel intimidated. The Arch Company will not engage with them as a group of businesses, despite their often being co-located on the same street of railway arches.

What car mechanics in my constituency have experienced has all the hallmarks of a rent maximisation approach, which has little regard for the individual small businesses it affects and which risks traditional light industrial uses being squeezed out in favour of gentrifying businesses that can pay a higher rent, regardless of the importance of the existing businesses in terms of the livelihoods they provide and to the customers they serve.

The National Audit Office investigated Network Rail’s disposal of its railway arches to the Arch Company. It found that, although the sale itself achieved value for money and the achievement of Network Rail’s own objectives, it was

“concerning that tenants as stakeholders did not form part of the aims of the sale and that they were only fully considered late in the process.”

The sale places no residual obligations on the Arch Company with regard to existing tenants or rental levels. The Arch Company does have a tenants charter, but this is a voluntary document that is not enforceable. The NAO further concluded that, in the future, there should be much more engagement with stakeholders affected by such a sale, and that any Government Department engaged in a sale should consider whether to place explicit customer protections in the contract of sale.

I understand that, following my interventions, the Arch Company has stepped up its engagement with some of the car mechanic businesses, and has agreed a new lease with a zero rent increase for one of them. I will take the opportunity afforded by this debate to urge the Arch Company to do the same for all of these businesses, so that they are protected in the medium term, have the time and space they need to recover from the impacts of the pandemic and to reskill where needed for the age of electric vehicles, and can continue to afford to offer highly valued apprenticeships.

The second issue I am raising with the Minister today is the impact of Network Rail and the Arch Company’s policies on two town centre areas in my constituency, Brixton and Herne Hill. In both cases, the difficulties began prior to Network Rail’s sale of the arches. Back in 2015, Network Rail announced that it needed to complete major works to two lengths of viaduct and planned to terminate the tenancies of businesses occupying the arches and evict them. A very effective community-led campaign, which I supported, ultimately secured the right to return for these businesses and protection from a cliff-edge rent increase, stepped over seven years.

The works dragged on and on. What was supposed to be a year turned into two years, and then five, creating enormous “dead zones” in both town centres, reducing footfall and making it very hard for businesses neighbouring the arches to trade. The works started to come to an end just as the pandemic took hold, meaning that the trading environment for returning businesses was very challenging. The situation was then made even worse in Brixton by the failure of Network Rail to notice during the preceding four years of major works that there was a significant structural problem with the northbound platform at Brixton station, which overhangs Atlantic Road, where many of the arches are located. This resulted in a further year or more of scaffolding and vacancy.

Once all the scaffolding was removed, the viaduct along Atlantic Road and Brixton Station Road looked—well, exactly the same as it did before. Almost seven years of appalling damage done to the economy of Brixton town centre, and Network Rail had not bothered to remove the buddleia growth, fix the brickwork or improve the lighting. It had even created a new problem: in wet weather, dirty rainwater now drips down from the northbound platform on to shoppers on Atlantic Road. It has felt as if Network Rail has been treating Brixton with total contempt. Following my intervention, it has agreed to do some additional works to improve environmental quality in the area, but frankly that is too little, too late after years of damage to our local economy and community.

Many of the refurbished arches in Brixton and Herne Hill still stand empty: by the Arch Company’s own figures, 25% of the arches in my constituency are currently vacant. The Arch Company says that it is open to approaches from start-up businesses and organisations that cannot afford to pay full market rent, but whenever I or the local ward councillors have approached the company on behalf of a business willing to rent an arch, no lease has been forthcoming. I know of two organisations, both of which would make a brilliant contribution to Brixton town centre, that would like to rent an arch, but both have only been offered levels of rent far above what they can afford.

I bring these issues before the House today because railway arch-based businesses make a significant contribution to local economies and local communities, providing goods and services and creating local jobs. The very nature of this estate has been that it provides affordable space, but in disposing of the arches to the Arch Company, Network Rail essentially cut those businesses adrift, placing them outside of Government regulation and at the mercy of the lettings policy of an entirely private organisation.

We should be doing all we can to protect and nurture small businesses during difficult economic times. As such, I ask the Minister the following questions. First, what representations has he made to the Arch Company in relation to the rent increases being faced by its tenants? Does he think the doubling of business rents in a single step during a cost of living crisis is an acceptable way to treat small businesses? Will he consider what protections can be given to long-standing railway arch-based businesses from unmanageable rent increases? What support is available for car mechanic businesses to gear up to maintain electric vehicles? Finally, will he work to strengthen the duties of Network Rail to consider and mitigate the economic impact of its operations and to maintain its estate properly? We owe it to the thousands of business owners, employees and customers to ensure that railway arch-based businesses are treated fairly and supported to thrive.

16:11

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair again, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate on small businesses in railway arches. As she has said, small businesses are the lifeblood of the UK economy, providing jobs and driving innovation. I am pleased that the railway supports those businesses through high-quality accommodation in railway arches. In the hon. Member’s constituency alone, there are 300 arches in use by businesses, ranging—as she has mentioned—from mechanics to retail and food. I would just like to add that I am very sorry indeed that her constituents—the mechanics she mentioned—are not able to be here due to the timing of the debate. I am sure they will be able to watch and see that they have been well represented by the hon. Member, and I hope they will note my response with interest.

To help improve the state of the railway arches and fund improvements to the railway, Network Rail sold leases for many of its railway arches to the Arch Company Ltd —or Arch Co, as I will refer to it. As part of that sale, Network Rail sold over 5,000 properties on 150-year leases, generating over £1.4 billion, which was invested back into the railway. As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has set out, running a business in a railway arch is not always plain sailing, and I am aware of some issues that have occurred in her constituency that Network Rail has engaged with her on.

While arches offer businesses access to affordable property in prime locations, they remain part of the railway. Network Rail will sometimes require access to undertake safety-critical maintenance work. Network Rail is aware of the need to balance the safe and efficient operation of the railway against the needs of Arch Co’s tenants. To help businesses remain trading, Network Rail tries to examine vacant arches, working closely with Arch Co to understand vacancies and planned refurbishment programmes. On occasion, access will be required to undertake safety-critical arch examinations in tenanted arches. Network Rail works with Arch Co and its tenants to undertake examinations at times that will be less disruptive to the individual businesses, including trying to work outside of business hours and working around tenants’ fixtures and fittings.

Since it acquired the leases, Arch Co has been engaged in what it calls Project 1000—its plan to invest £200 million to bring 1,000 empty and derelict spaces into use by 2030. Arch Co plans to create space for 1,000 businesses, supporting approximately 5,000 jobs in urban areas in England and Wales, including major works in London, Manchester and Leeds.

Network Rail has worked closely with Arch Co to agree standardised designs that streamline landlord consent processes and minimise risk to the railway. This has allowed Arch Co to accelerate its enhancement programme and support its tenants in the arches to evolve and meet current market demand. Network Rail prioritises the undertaking of arch examinations during the refurbishment process to minimise disruption and enable tenants to maximise trading periods between examinations.

I know that the hon. Member has campaigned for the protection of those owning businesses in the arches. Network Rail seeks to support businesses that are disrupted by its works. It will cover rent payments for the period of disruption and will look to return arches in an improved condition. Further support from Network Rail to cover additional costs incurred by tenants is considered on a case-by-case basis.

While Network Rail and Arch Co work hard to ensure that businesses can return to their arches, there are exceptional occasions when businesses may have to leave permanently. No tenants have been permanently removed from the arches since February 2019, and any tenant facing removal would be entitled to a statutory compensation element, depending on the terms of their lease. Where possible, Network Rail will work with Arch Co to identify suitable alternative accommodation within either Network Rail’s or Arch Co’s portfolio. To support effective business planning for tenants of arches, Network Rail access is subject to a minimum of either 60 business days’ or six months’ notice, dependent on the nature of the access. Network Rail and Arch Co try to give more than the minimum notice period, and the 12-month forward rolling plan for arch examinations and specific communications plans is much more the case for larger projects. In emergency circumstances, Network Rail has the right to immediate access where prior notification is not possible. Network Rail liaises with the businesses and Arch Co to keep them updated in such circumstances.

When Network Rail transferred its leases to Arch Co, rent arrangements, protections and notice periods were transferred unchanged. That included all provision for rent reviews, with any increases tied either to market level or the retail price index. Before and since the transfer of the arches to Arch Co, many neighbourhoods where railway arches are situated saw dramatic regeneration, increasing the value of properties. Even during this time, very large increases in rent have been an exception. I note the points made by the hon. Member, but with the arches having been transferred from Network Rail to Arch Co, some of the matters she has raised are a matter for Arch Co.

To support those whose leases were transferring, Network Rail and Arch Co worked with tenants to develop a tenants charter, which commits Arch Co to being an accessible and responsible landlord, providing environments to help its customers to thrive, working with its customers and creating positive social and economic impact. If the hon. Member feels that that tenants charter has not been accorded to, I will of course look at the requirements on Network Rail from that tenants charter to assist her and her constituents.

The hon. Member also referred to Atlantic Road. I have positive memories of the time I spent working in Brixton. I spent five years as a youth centre staff manager and trustee for two youth centres on Coldharbour Lane, and I used to walk past the arches that she talked about. I want to see for myself—not just for those reasons—the issues that she talked about on Atlantic Road. I would be pleased to join her in her constituency, meeting her constituents and business owners on Atlantic Road so that I can see and hear for myself.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. It has raised a number of key issues that show how important it is that small businesses in the UK have access to safe, reliable and affordable premises. Railway arches represent an excellent opportunity for those businesses to get affordable premises in prime locations, and I hope I have demonstrated Network Rail’s commitment to work alongside tenants where access is required. I hope I can find out more when I join the hon. Member, if she will have me, in her constituency to see for myself.

Question put and agreed to.

16:15

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

Division 196

Ayes: 290

Noes: 14

Draft Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (Corporate Joint Committees) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2023

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Martin Vickers

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

Berry, Sir Jake (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)

† Bradley, Ben (Mansfield) (Con)

† Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con)

† Davies, Dr James (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales)

† Hardy, Emma (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)

Holloway, Adam (Gravesham) (Con)

† Jones, Gerald (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)

† Largan, Robert (High Peak) (Con)

† Long Bailey, Rebecca (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)

McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

† Millar, Robin (Aberconwy) (Con)

† Nici, Lia (Great Grimsby) (Con)

† Smith, Royston (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)

† Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)

Tarry, Sam (Ilford South) (Lab)

Western, Andrew (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)

Guy Mathers, Zereena Arshad, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 22 March 2023

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Draft Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (Corporate Joint Committees) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2023

09:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (Corporate Joint Committees) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The draft order will make changes to UK legislation following the establishment of corporate joint committees in Wales under powers in the Senedd’s Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021. That Act established a new framework for regional collaboration between local authorities in Wales on bodies called corporate joint committees. It is fair to say that there has been a mixed reaction to them, but the concept behind them is that they can exercise functions regionally that have been transferred from principal councils. They can be established at the request of two or more principal councils or, in relation to some functions, at the instigation of Welsh Ministers.

The Welsh Government have established four CJCs—North Wales, Mid Wales, South East Wales and South West Wales—reflecting the four city and growth deal areas. Each CJC comprises the leaders of its constituent county and county borough councils, and eligible office holders from national park authorities in the CJC area. As corporate bodies, CJCs are able to employ staff directly, hold assets, and manage budgets. CJCs formally began operating on 1 April 2021. From June of last year, they came under a duty to prepare strategic development plans and regional transport plans for their region. They have the power to do anything to enhance or promote the economic wellbeing of their area. As CJCs develop, Welsh Ministers may decide to increase their functions through regulations, although the Welsh Government have said that there are no plans to do so.

This order will put CJCs on the same footing as local authorities in Wales in a number of respects. In particular, the order deals with most fiscal and employment matters relating to CJCs, with the exception of VAT. His Majesty’s Treasury made a separate order admitting the four CJCs into the VAT refund scheme from 9 February. Article 2 of the order adds CJCs to the definition of “local authority” in paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 4 to the National Loans Act 1968. That will allow the Treasury to provide loans to CJCs, just as it can to local authorities. Section 119 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that in the event of the death of a local authority officer, moneys owing to their estate from the local authority can be paid to personal representatives of the estate of the deceased. Article 3 of the order clarifies that the term “local authority” in section 119 covers a CJC.

Articles 4 and 5 of the order provide that CJCs are to be treated in the same way as local authorities in respect of tax on their income, the taxation of chargeable gains, and corporation tax. The Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment in Local Government, etc.) (Modification) Order 1999 modifies certain provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning redundancy payments for persons employed by certain local government employers and other employers in related sectors. Article 6 of the order ensures that CJC employees have the same rights as principal council staff in respect of any redundancy payments.

Finally, article 7 adds the four CJCs to the list of scheduled employers in part 1 of schedule 2 to the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013, and sets out in part 2 of schedule 3 to those regulations which local Government pension scheme administrating authorities will apply to CJCs. This will ensure that CJC employees are automatically admitted to a pension scheme.

The four city and growth deals have demonstrated the benefits of breaking down local administrative barriers and taking a wider regional approach to delivering jobs and economic growth. They are delivering for their areas through initiatives such as the Pentre Awel project in Llanelli and the digital signal processing centre at Bangor University. Indeed, some regions are already exploring the case for embedding their city and growth deal work in their CJC. I trust that the Welsh regions will benefit from the strategic, more joined-up approach to land use and transport planning that the CJCs will provide. I commend the order to the Committee.

09:31

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. As the Minister has outlined, the order allows for technical amendments. The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 provided for the establishment of corporate joint committees, which enable and support the delivery of important local government functions regionally. A small number of outstanding technical issues emerged during implementation of the CJCs, including in relation to taxation status and pensions.

When issues arising from Senedd legislation require amendment of UK-wide legislation in a way that is beyond the Senedd’s legislative competence, an order under section 150—“Power to make consequential provision”—of the Government of Wales Act 2006 can be developed in partnership with the Government in Westminster. The changes will resolve key operational issues that CJCs have raised, and allow them to plan with confidence for future financial years.

Section 150 supports the delivery of the commitment in the Welsh Government’s programme for government to ensure that each region in Wales has effective and democratically accountable means of developing its economy. The Welsh Government have established CJCs to support and encourage regional working through a coherent, consistent, simplified and democratically controlled mechanism. CJCs will allow partners to deliver their regional ambitions, develop successful regional economies, and ensure local growth in a collaborative and strategic way. As the order has been developed with the Welsh Government, and makes technical amendments that result in a coherent, democratically controlled mechanism that operates regionally, we do not oppose it.

09:32

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification of a point, to aid my understanding. The explanatory notes say that CJCs

“are largely subject to the same powers and duties as principal councils in the way they operate.”

Councils, which are made up of elected representatives, are accountable to the local electorate; to whom will CJCs be accountable? How will that accountability work?

09:33

[Dr Davies]

I thank hon. Members for their short contributions to the debate. The order makes a number of consequential changes to UK law that are necessary to place the new corporate joint committees in Wales on the same footing as all local authorities. I welcome the comments and support of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. On the accountability point that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised, the representatives of each constituent local authority will be accountable to the members of that local authority, and ultimately to the electorate. The Welsh Government will also oversee the performance of these bodies. Of course, this project is primarily led by the Welsh Government, so these questions are also to be directed at them.

I close by offering my thanks for the productive manner in which the UK and Welsh Governments have worked together to prepare the order, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

09:35

Committee rose.

Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mrs Sheryll Murray

Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

† Atkins, Victoria (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Blackman, Kirsty (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

† Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab)

† Carden, Dan (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)

† Crouch, Tracey (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)

† Henry, Darren (Broxtowe) (Con)

Holmes, Paul (Eastleigh) (Con)

† Howell, Paul (Sedgefield) (Con)

Johnson, Kim (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

† Jones, Mr David (Clwyd West) (Con)

† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)

† Murray, James (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)

† Smith, Greg (Buckingham) (Con)

† Swayne, Sir Desmond (New Forest West) (Con)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Jack Edwards, Sam Nariani, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 22 March 2023

[Mrs Sheryll Murray in the Chair]

Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023

14:31

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023.

May I say what a pleasure it is to appear before you today, Mrs Murray, especially because I know that, as president of Liskeard girls football club, you have a particular interest in ensuring that we do everything we can to make the Finalissima festival, or contest, at Wembley stadium on 6 April as enjoyable as possible, and particularly that we cheer on our Lionesses? This Committee is today making footballing history by helping UEFA and its counterparts in South America to host the women’s Finalissima football match at Wembley stadium on 6 April, when the recently crowned European women’s champions—namely, our very own England Lionesses—will play their Copa América counterparts, Brazil.

This statutory instrument enables an income tax exemption for accredited overseas individuals who participate in the women’s Finalissima football match. The exemption will apply to any UK income that an accredited individual receives playing matches in the tournament or for duties and services performed in connection with the match. This is an opportunity not only for the Lionesses to showcase their talents in front of a sold-out Wembley stadium and a worldwide audience, but for us to ensure that women’s football is treated equally with men’s football—something in which we all believe. These measures very much follow the framework that was set up, for example, for the athletes and others taking part in the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic games, the UEFA men’s and women’s Euro championships in 2021 and 2022, various UEFA champions league finals, the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games and the 2017 World Athletics championships.

The draft regulations make use of powers that were introduced in the Finance Act 2014, providing a tax exemption through secondary legislation. I hope the entire Committee gets behind this instrument: help us to help them with their tax affairs, so that the players and those who support them can concentrate on a great game of football at Wembley on 6 April.

14:33

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. As we have heard from the Minister, the regulations seek to remove the income tax liability for accredited persons who are non-resident in the UK for performance of their duties or services in the UK in connection with the women’s—I cannot say this very well—

[Victoria Atkins]

Finalissima!

[James Murray]

Yes—hopefully Hansard will correct that for me. The Finalissima 2023 will be held here on 6 April. As the statutory instrument sets out, the tax exemption will be available from the period of 2 to 7 April. As well as being non-resident, beneficiaries of the tax relief must work for or be contracted by one of the sporting bodies, teams or clubs competing in the competition. The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument, as it is standard practice with world-class sporting events for the host nation to provide certain tax exemptions, not least to avoid the risk of double taxation in the UK and the home nation of the accredited person. We believe it is important that the UK is seen as an attractive place to host major cultural and sporting occasions, as it has done successfully so many times in the past.

If you will allow me, Mrs Murray, I would like to place on record how pleased I am that the competition will be hosted only a stone’s throw from my constituency. As it is only a short journey from Ealing North to Wembley stadium, I am sure that many of my constituents will be eager to attend the match. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what measures will be taken to ensure that communities local to the competition will have a fair opportunity to purchase tickets. My constituency has another close connection with our women’s national football team: one of its players, the brilliant Chloe Kelly, was raised in Hanwell. I am so glad to be able to quote the excellent deputy leader of Ealing Council, Councillor Deirdre Costigan, who announced that Ealing Council would like to offer Chloe

“Freedom of the Borough for her amazing achievements…we want to see many more young people achieve sporting greatness like Chloe.”

I wholeheartedly echo her comments.

The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument, and I am sure that the Minister will join me in wishing the Lionesses every success in the upcoming match.

[The Chair]

In my enthusiasm to progress this instrument, I omitted to say, “The Question is that the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023.” I hope that I have now corrected the procedure, and I call Kirsty Blackman.

14:36

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mrs Murray. It has been a while since I have been on a Delegated Legislation Committee, so it is quite nice to come to one; I say that without any measure of sarcasm at all.

I—like many people, I am sure—spend a good chunk of my Sundays standing at the side of a football pitch watching my daughter play football, so it is really good to see the women’s game being treated with parity alongside the men’s game. It is also incredibly good to hear that this game is sold out, because although we are trying to improve access to the games, we do not see stadiums as full for some women’s games as we do for the men’s. Teams like the Lionesses and the Scotland women’s team have done a great job of popularising the sport for people to watch, and it is quite nice that in Scotland people can watch a chunk of the women’s football on the excellent BBC Alba. I pitched to the BBC recently that it should keep this custom up, because it is improving access to the women’s game.

Particularly for young people playing sport, men’s football has sometimes seemed pretty inaccessible and quite far away, whereas the pathways in the women’s game are much clearer and more obvious; people can look at Scotland players and at the Lionesses and think, “I could be that one day” in a way that they may find more difficult to do with the men’s game. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North, I am more than happy not to oppose this statutory instrument. It is a sensible measure and I hope the event is a big success.

[The Chair]

The Question is that the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry; I call the Minister. I have really not got it together today.

14:33

[Victoria Atkins]

I hope, Mrs Murray, that Hansard reflects your energy and enthusiasm—and notes your enthusiasm for your local girls’ team.

I want to make a couple of points. First, I must of course place on record my gratitude to my very dear hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who does so much for football and contributes to the cause of women’s football by playing quite a lot, as I am sure others here do too.

Although I want to help the hon. Member for Ealing North, I am afraid that the popularity of the match means that it is sold out, but his local economy will benefit—everybody would expect me to bring a Treasury perspective to this debate—by about £50 million from events staged at Wembley, including this one. Wider London receives a £161 million boost from such events, and even outside London there is a further £80 million boost to our economy. I also understand that UEFA and the FA work with local councils to ensure that local communities get the best benefit and most enjoyment possible from this wonderful event.

I am extremely grateful for support from Scotland, and I am sure that on 6 April we will see exactly what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North described: a packed stadium with lots of women and girls, I hope, enjoying the match—alongside male fans as well. I really hope that the Lionesses beat the Brazilian team. I say that with great professionalism and in my ministerial capacity, and I am sure it is in line with the code of conduct; anyway, I hope the Lionesses beat them! I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I shall now put the Question—let me have a third try at getting this right!

Question put and agreed to.

14:33

Committee rose.

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 22 March 2023

Treasury

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Ministerial Corrections

Topical Questions

The following is an extract from Topical Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21 March 2023.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T9.   OBR analysis of last week’s Budget has shown that there will be no real-terms growth in public services in 2023-24 and just 1% in 2024-25. Given the recent Patriotic Millionaires UK survey showing that more than seven in 10 millionaires want to have a fair tax on their wealth—by wealth, we are talking about £10 million of investable assets—will the Chancellor look at this?

[Jeremy Hunt]

What I say to the hon. Lady, whom I greatly respect, is that we did a lot for public services in the autumn statement, including a £3 billion increase in the annual schools budget and an £8 billion increase in the annual health and care budget. We are always focusing on public services, and we do support a progressive tax system.

[Official Report, 21 March 2023, Vol. 730, c. 157.]

Letter of correction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

The correct response should have been:

[Jeremy Hunt]

What I say to the hon. Lady, whom I greatly respect, is that we did a lot for public services in the autumn statement, including a £2.3 billion increase in the annual schools budget and an £8 billion increase in the annual health and care budget. We are always focusing on public services, and we do support a progressive tax system.

Petition

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Petitions

Wednesday 22 March 2023

Ultra Low Emission Zone

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Petitions

The petition of residents of the constituency of Chipping Barnet,

Declares that, in the light of the significant increase to the cost of living, it would be wholly wrong for new charges on driving to be introduced by the Mayor of London; further that new charges would add to already strained household budgets; and further that petitioners strongly oppose the Mayor of London’s proposal to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to cover Barnet and the whole of Greater London, as well as his plans for pay-per-mile road charging.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to press the Mayor of London to drop his proposals to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to cover Barnet and Greater London, as well as his plans for pay-per-mile road charging.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Theresa Villiers, Official Report, 8 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 381.]

[P002807]

Observations from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden):

This is a devolved policy area: transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London, and he is responsible for transport policy decisions including on road schemes which charge users. It is for him to fund the cost of expanding the ULEZ; he cannot use any Government grant money to fund this. We would encourage residents and MPs to engage with the Mayor of London, the London Assembly, and Transport for London on this matter.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22 March 2023

[Mr Virendra Sharma in the Chair]

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: Specialist Workforce

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: e-petition 607849, Make SEND training mandatory for all teaching staff; e-petition 591092, Require School SENCOs to be fully qualified for the role; e-petition 587365, Require all school staff receive training on SEN children.]

09:30

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a specialist workforce for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Sharma. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties, which is supported by the Royal College of Speech and Language. I first pay tribute to Lord Ramsbotham, who did so much for the group over so many years, after an illustrious career in the Army and then the Prison Service. He certainly added great value.

Something like 50% of poorer children arrive at school with a speech delay, and in an average-sized class, which is 30 across Britain, something like two or three children have a speech delay of two to four years. Obviously, we are here to talk about the wider totality of special educational needs, not just speech and language, but it is worth mentioning that early intervention on speech and language would massively improve school performance, and thereby increase future tax revenues and reduce social costs, prison costs, justice costs and so on, so we really should think about that. In the wider totality, early intervention is a very good idea.

This debate, which I commissioned, comes partly on the back of a letter that I wrote to the Minister on behalf of 16 all-party groups, calling for the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to work in collaboration on special educational needs. We have now had the special educational needs review, and I was very pleased that in January the Minister agreed to speak to me. I am looking forward to confirming that date for a meeting with her and representatives from the all-party groups on autism, on cerebral palsy, on childcare and early education, on children who need palliative care, on disability, on dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties, on eye health and visual impairment, on muscular dystrophy, on oracy, on penal affairs, for the prevention of childhood trauma, on psychology, on social mobility, for special educational needs and disabilities, on speech and language difficulties, and on stroke. A very wide range of MPs is interested in this issue in one way or another.

On top of that, the SEND in The Specialists coalition, with which the Minister will be familiar, sent a letter in parallel to ours with the support of 114 organisations— I will not read them out—which has now grown to 128. The debate also comes on the back of a number of written questions I have tabled on specialist workforce, and another letter from 22 all-party groups about funding for speech and language therapy.

The Government have announced the plan for special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision for England, and I hope the Minister will set out a bit more detail on that in this debate. I know there is a steering group planned for 2023, which aims to complete by 2025. As far as parents and people engaged with this issue are concerned, the sooner, the better.

The Minister will be aware that there have also been three petitions. One is about mandatory training for all teaching staff engaged with special educational needs, again to ensure identification and early intervention.

As for parliamentary activity, I am very pleased that the Chamber Engagement Team got in touch with me about this debate and asked people to send in their experiences. I was more than pleased that 1,800 responses were received from parents, practitioners, and other adults who have engaged with the system, wherever they live, and faced similar challenges across the piece. Those challenges generally included huge waiting lists for support for their children. Obviously, the longer the delay, the more it costs to get people back on track and the greater the struggles in adulthood and the impact on life chances.

There is a second issue about the threshold for getting support: how ill is someone, or are they ill enough, as it were? “Ill” is probably the wrong word here, but is someone’s condition sufficient to satisfy the criteria for early intervention? A lot of parents feel neglected, unsupported and not understood. They probably think there is some sort of differential diagnosis; I do not know.

There is also an issue about fighting for diagnosis itself to start with, and often when there is a plan ready to go, the support is not in place to deliver it. Clearly, many people have to resort to going private, which sometimes means worse provision, but obviously at a cost, as they have to pay for it.

There is a special issue, which the Minister will be aware of, for girls and young women, who might be misdiagnosed as having mental health problems. Good plans are put in place, but are not followed through, or people are deprived of their plan owing to changes being made, perhaps to resources, so the vital education to give them the platform they need to succeed in later life is not provided.

People can also be ping-ponged between different services, which causes confusion, delay and uncertainty, and sometimes there are issues over sharing information from specialists with the school. The information has to go through the parents, rather than the school, and if a second language is involved, effective delivery can be impeded.

There is also an issue about coming up with feasible plans, which are not optimal plans owing to lack of resources, where people say, “We would like to do this, but we can’t, so we will do that. It’s not quite what is needed, but it’s all we can afford.”

Obviously, there were also a lot of positive replies, because there is a galaxy of excellent people out there doing their best to provide an excellent service to meet these needs. However, they are finding it difficult to cope. I do not want in any way to criticise the people in the special educational needs service who are doing such a fine job and need our support, but there is postcode lottery, because where someone lives determines how good a service they receive, according to resources and the availability of skilled staff. In some places, there are good networks where people have a good experience of different specialisms working together optimally to deliver excellent outputs for those in need; in other places, the experience is not so good.

I will not go through a list of specific examples, but the people who wrote to me were clearly saying, “We need funding, early intervention, a joined-up system, training for teachers and an evidence-based approach, particularly in relation to behaviours that appear in girls and young women.” Early intervention is of primary concern for the economy, but also with respect to releasing parents who often cannot work because they are looking after their children owing to the fact that the service is not there to deliver for the child. That means parents staying at home who could be at work. We are thinking about growth and how we manage the economy, so that is another consideration.

Let me turn to the reaction to the special educational needs and alternative provision plan. Various sectors have criticised the plan’s lack of urgency and ambition. Nobody is saying that what is in the plan is not commendable, but a crisis has been building for many years and we need to get on with addressing it. Therefore, this is another opportunity for the Government to listen to our concerns and to build the support to drive forward with greater speed.

Many people have commented that they have been waiting years for the Government to act to fix the broken special educational needs system. They are now saying, “Well is this all it is? We need more sooner.” That includes the SEND in The Specialists coalition of 128 organisations that I have mentioned. They are talking about the number of specialists, rising demand, and the new demands after covid. Certainly, the Royal College of Speech and Language and the surveys that we have commissioned have found that, interestingly, middle-class parents who had children with speech and language difficulties often saw an improvement in their child’s performance. That is because the parents would be at home, working from laptops, and spending quality time with the children. There is an issue there about having more flexible working more generally in the economy, as it would help productivity, and perhaps reduce costs and encourage better targeting.

In contrast, of course, the poorer children did not fare so well. Perhaps they had a single parent who was on a zero-hours contract, who did not have much time to spend with the child, and who did not have proper internet access that they could afford—there is an issue there about universal wi-fi clouds that the Government might want to think about. During covid, poorer children fared a lot worse in general; and specifically, those with speech and language difficulties deteriorated quite quickly. It is certainly worth considering that differential output. Perhaps I will send this research to the Minister.

This debate is about just one aspect of the plan, which is the specialist workforce. We welcome the Government’s commitment to work in a collegiate way alongside children, young people, families and other providers in the SEND system. The Departments for Education and of Health and Social Care set out a clear timetable for SEND workforce planning. We have a steering group that will move forward by 2023.

Wearing my speech and language hat, let me welcome the Early Language and Support for Every Child pathfinders, and the early identification and support for children with speech and language difficulties. The royal college is pleased that it was involved with the NHS and the Department for Education in that scoping, and I hope that it will continue to be involved in the Department in the future through the alternative provision specialist taskforce.

Let me lay out the main commitments that I am looking for from the Minister. First, we want a commitment to have the meeting with the signatories of the 16 all-party groups that has been promised and also a commitment by the Government to speak to the all-party group on speech and language difficulties in a separate meeting about what is happening, so that they can be quizzed by those in the industry. Secondly, we want a commitment to give the SEND in The Specialists coalition a place on the SEND workforce steering group, as it is important that the industry is engaged with the civil service and the Departments to get the best, most practicable plan possible.

Thirdly, we want the Government to commit to come up with a plan on how they will improve access to the specialist workforce for children, young people and families right now. We have talked about the 2023 and 2025 milestones, but, obviously, children grow up very quickly and they need that support now. Perhaps the Minister can elaborate on precisely what is happening in the meantime to bring forward tailored support. We want to see a broad approach—a holistic approach—to the definition of the SEND specialist workforce, because there are quite variety of people involved. Then there is the issue of recruitment and retention, on which the Minister may wish to touch. There is an issue about people leaving the service from the NHS and from the profession generally. We need not only to recruit and train enough people to build a force, but to stop people leaving by providing them with acceptable and enjoyable working conditions.

Finally, on behalf of the 1,800 people who have written in, I wish to question the Minister about funding and the Government response to our funding letter of 2021, which I mentioned earlier. The Government then said that the right funding was fundamental to accessing speech and language therapy. Will the Minister elaborate on what she thinks will be sufficient funding for a SEND workforce plan, to ensure that the speech and language therapy workforce is trained, developed, retained, supervised and supported to develop the necessary clinical specialisms and leadership roles? Will she mention something about student numbers coming into the workforce, and also address some of the reasons why people are leaving the workforce?

Perhaps the Minister could also say what her expectations are for accountability and local systems coming together on joint provision. How do we ensure accountability and make sure the resources are there to enable all children and young people with special educational needs and speech, language and communication needs and/or swallowing needs get timely access to the speech and language therapy they require? That would include provision for children and young people who need special educational needs support, as well as those with education, health and care plans.

I am glad to see a large number of Members here who want to get involved in the debate, so I will end my comments there. I look forward to a response from the Minister.

09:46

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Sharma. Many young children have faced an array of social and developmental challenges as a result of covid-19, and children with special educational needs and disabilities have been deeply affected due to the lack of services accessible for their needs during this time.

Every week, I have at least one constituent come to see me, pleading for support for their child with special educational needs, which are often undiagnosed because they cannot get an education, health and care plan or an appointment with child and adolescent mental health services. The formative years of a child’s life are essential for their development, and without changes and improved support for these specialist services, children with SEND will be exposed to bullying, mental health issues, isolation and disadvantages later in life and in the workforce.

SEND in The Specialists highlighted how we need to incentivise employment into the special needs workforce, as well as retain those already in it. Improving recruitment and retention is vital to provide the specialist teachers and staff that we need for our children and young people. Many schools need more assistance for these children. For schools to remain inclusive, it is essential to have specialist and supportive frameworks in place to keep more children in mainstream education.

I enjoy visiting the primary and secondary schools across Hastings and Rye. It is the best part of this job. I speak to the pupils and staff. One young primary school teacher was telling me recently that she has four young children with challenging SEND needs in her class. Without the support of teaching assistants and named teaching assistants, it would be impossible to control the class and provide for the needs of these children, let alone the rest of the class, especially if the TAs and NTAs are off sick or leave because they, too, find it extremely challenging.

Inclusion is not always the best thing for the child with special needs, nor the rest of the children in the class. Both miss out on education. We have to face the fact that while mainstream inclusion is important, some children need a high level of specialist support, which can only be provided in special needs schools or in alternative provision.

We need more SEND and alternative provision across Hastings and Rye, especially AP for secondary-aged children. We have a significant number of primary and secondary-aged children with high-level needs. It is very difficult to access EHC plans, and the waiting list for CAMHS locally is now two years. It is just not good enough. Early intervention is vital in ensuring that the right support is given at the right time, so that each child with SEND can fulfil their potential and become full, active and productive members of our communities.

I welcome the Government SEND and alternative provision improvement plan published earlier this month, which will help to deliver new standards to improve identification of the needs and expectations of the level of support that would be available in local areas. The plan creates additional funding of more than £10 billion by 2023-24, which is an increase of more than 50%, to support and help young people with SEND. It is also encouraging that the improvement plan will create a new leadership special educational needs national professional qualification—a SENCO NPQ—which will ensure that teachers have the training that they need to provide the right support for children. That is in addition to expanded training for staff, but we need those staff.

To address the demand levels, it is necessary to deal with the backlog, which is a consequence of the pandemic. Ofsted highlights that speech and language therapy has one of the longer waiting lists and that there are reductions in the service provided. The impact of covid-19 has only exacerbated those problems: demand for speech and language therapists increased after the pandemic because of the additional 94,000 children with speech, language and communication needs in 2021-22. Young children and teens rely on that therapy as an essential way to develop social and articulative skills; if their needs are not dealt with effectively, that section of society could be isolated.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing me an intervention. I intervene purely because the issue that I hear most about from parents of SEN children is the lengthy waiting time for speech and language therapists, which is in part due to workforce shortages. The improvement plan is welcome in the sense that it talks about improving access, but does she agree that we need more therapists now, precisely because of the impact that delays have on children in the system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed out?

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was going to say that all primary schools that I visited in Hastings and Rye have highlighted the need for speech and language provision for younger children coming to school following covid. It is essential. They are behind with oracy and communication skills, and that impacts on their ability to access learning. Our local primary schools have provided that provision themselves, and they work to help and support our local children.

A number of charities are already working to provide help and support for certain children with special needs. For example, Auditory Verbal UK is making great progress in helping to implement specialist early interventions to support deaf babies and children in learning to talk and listen. Roughly 80% of children who attend at least two years of the charity’s pre-school programme achieve the same level of spoken language as their hearing peers. Through Government investment, the charity would be able to aid considerably more deaf children to reach the same level. It is a great charity that supports not only deaf children but the whole support system. A number of charities, third-sector groups and volunteers work with children who have important issues that need to be addressed.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that investment to support organisations such as Auditory Verbal UK and the therapies that it can provide is excellent value for money? If children are reached with the right support early on, they can engage in mainstream education and benefit from it much more than if they are left with those needs on entry into primary school.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I completely agree. We could not function as a country without our voluntary sector—it is one of the wheels that keeps the country going—but we need to invest in it, so that it can save lots of money in the long term. That is absolutely right.

A specialist SEND workforce will make positive changes to our country. We must ensure that we allow a space for those children with special educational needs and disabilities to reach their full potential in society.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at about 10.40 am, and we have about nine speakers. I will not set a time limit now; I leave it to hon. Members to discipline themselves.

09:54

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, Mr Sharma—my wife is Dr Cynthia Pinto, chair of the committee on the Division of Educational and Child Psychology, and she is active in the Association of Educational Psychologists, so you can imagine what our breakfast conversations are like. I welcome the Minister, who has had responsibility for disabilities in the past, which gives her an understanding of some of the issues we face. She has also been a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Treasury, so she knows where the money is buried, which is extremely helpful. I thank Professor Vivian Hill from the Institute of Education at University College London, who has provided a number of us with briefings on educational psychology.

I want to draw attention to the issues facing educational psychologists. The chief inspector of education identified that the demand and need for educational psychology services from schools and families, to support early intervention and preventive work, has significantly increased. The inspector’s report also identified that there is a huge geographical variation—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) referred—in access to EPs, and noted that 60% of local authority EHCP assessments are not being completed within the 20-week timeframe as required.

Alternative provision has been mentioned. The Ofsted report last November identified that more children are being referred to alternative provision, but often because of the lack of access to specialist services in mainstream schools. Let us look at the stats on the increased numbers of education, health and care plans being issued. During 2021, 93,000 initial requests were made for assessment for EHCP—up from 76,000 in 2020. It is the highest number since data was first collected in 2016. His Majesty’s chief inspector of education reported that 1.5 million pupils were identified with SEND in 2022—an increase of 71% on the previous year; I found that staggering. The number of EHCPs has also grown by 51% since 2014-15. I think we are all experiencing that in our constituencies, as we receive representations from parents struggling to gain access to the planning processes.

Also interesting—I wonder whether others have experienced this—is the significant increase in the number of SEND tribunals, which becomes incredibly expensive for the local authorities. This is worrying. It is interesting that Professor Hill has identified this from the various statistics that have been brought out, and it was raised in a debate in the main Chamber a couple of months ago about the unmet mental health needs of children and young people. A record number of children and young people are being referred to NHS services for mental health difficulties. In the previous debate on this issue, MP after MP reported the issues and demand on CAMHS that are overwhelming it; that is increasingly worrying.

An increased number of children and young people are being permanently suspended or excluded from school. Some Members might have listened to the reports this morning about the number of “ghost” children, who are no longer in school. The figure of 20% was absolutely staggering. Covid has obviously had an impact, and there is a continuing impact on mental health, but local authorities struggle to maintain levels of support services for families in particular.

I also found interesting the evidence that local authorities struggle to recruit educational psychologists. The recent local government ombudsman report shows that 70% of local authorities are now struggling to recruit EPs. The Government have recognised that; it is one issue that is being addressed in the future of our workforce plan for skilled workers and the recruitment of staff. It has also been recognised that the recruitment of staff from overseas can assist us during this period while we struggle to recruit.

Many local authorities are now relying on locum cover from private providers but, as hon. Members will appreciate, that can be extremely expensive compared with direct investment. Educational psychologists have raised with the Government the issue of adequate funding of the services overall, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West mentioned. Specifically for EPs, the Government responded in December with £21 million in additional funding, which was welcome. That will be for intakes from 2024, but the problem is that the core funding is inadequate—it has not been increased since 2020.

Let us look at the figures put out by the British Psychological Society, of which the Division of Educational and Child Psychology is a part. The announcement of £21 million for 400 additional educational psychologists is definitely a step in the right direction, but the BPS says that it really does not go far enough to close the workforce gap. The figure that I find shocking is that we are now at the stage where in 2017 there were about 3,000 educational psychologists working in England; on average, that is the equivalent of one educational psychologist for every 3,500 children and young people between the ages of five and 19. Again, there was one for every 5,000 for those between the ages of nought and 25 —the plan period. Therefore, the demand is for a greater increase of investment in educational psychologists to increase the numbers because of the increasing demands.

I will raise one issue that is specific to my own patch, but which may be reflected in other constituencies. I have 2,400 refugees—asylum seekers—in hotels in my constituency, including many children, who go into local schools. I have toured the hotels and done advice surgeries in them, and what has been reported back from the schools and from the discussions I am having with families is that a number of those children, who are largely from war zones, are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. That is placing an increased burden on individual schools. The teachers welcome rising to that challenge, but they need additional resources.

I would welcome a discussion with the Government—maybe all MPs have this situation in their constituencies—about what additional resources could be targeted at particular areas so that they can overcome this period, which I am sure will be temporary, but requires resources at the moment. The message is clear from the DECP and others: additional resources need to be specifically targeted at the recruitment and training of educational psychologists to meet this growing demand and, exactly as the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) said, to give children the life chances that they desperately need.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

Looking at the time and the Front Bench, I would appreciate it if Members would stick to four minutes.

10:03

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I will keep to your timeframe, Mr Sharma. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on introducing it and on his work chairing the APPG.

One of my first visits as the MP for North West Norfolk was to Greenpark Academy in King’s Lynn. The first issue that the headteacher raised with me was access to special needs provision and speech and language therapy for pupils who, at that school, often come from disadvantaged backgrounds. On a more recent visit to Whitefriars School, which has just been given a good Ofsted rating—it would have been outstanding if it had been a graded inspection—the school’s special needs unit was making a real difference in helping children to improve communication skills, often from a very low base, as a number arrived at the school non-verbal.

From visiting those and many other schools across my constituency, particularly in rural parts of North West Norfolk, the need to provide improved support is clear. The ability to communicate is fundamental for children to make friends, learn and realise their potential. The evidence is also strong that without the right support to help people with speech and language needs, children are at increased risk of poor educational attainment, mental health issues and poor employment outcomes.

Today’s debate is taking place because the current access to speech and language therapy needs to improve dramatically. Figures from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists that were shared ahead of the debate show that over 67,000 children were on a waiting list for speech and language therapy, with more than a third waiting over 18 weeks. As we have heard, many more are waiting over a year or, indeed, two years. That situation is not acceptable; covid has made it worse and we need to address it. Given those real challenges, I welcome the SEND and AP improvement plan that was published earlier this month, with its focus on speech and communication issues. There is a welcome new commitment for a joint DFE and DHSC approach to SEND workforce planning, although I hope the timetable set out in that paper can be accelerated.

That join-up, which is the holy grail in Government, across health, education and social care at national level is vital. As the royal college points out, that has to be accompanied by sufficient funding to train, retain and develop the workforce. DFE—again in partnership with NHS England, which I welcome—is pioneering pathfinders for early language and support as part of the £70 million change programme. I previously raised with the Minister the potential for Norfolk and Waveney to be one of the nine pilot areas. I look forward to meeting my integrated care board shortly to discuss what we might be able to bring there. I would welcome further opportunity to discuss that with the Minister, and more information about the process for selecting those areas.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, and would add Suffolk to the list of places that would like to be a pathfinder area. Does he agree that early intervention is vital, even though there are now more EHCPs than there were? The earlier that support for children starts, the more likely a positive outcome; getting that support is vital.

[James Wild]

Indeed, I do. My right hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area, not least with his private Member’s Bill.

The plan has a welcome focus on expanded training, including: 5,000 early years staff gaining accredited qualifications; an increase in the capacity of specialists, with two more training cohorts of educational psychologists; and the new leadership level SENDCO qualification. I am glad to see that it also commits to publishing the first of three best practice guides, including for Nuffield early language intervention, which has made a real difference in a number of my schools in Norfolk.

Finally, I welcome the new deal that provides £70 million in additional funding from the Department, in conjunction with Norfolk County Council, which will help to increase funding for special educational needs places. It will develop more specialist resource bases and AP in mainstream schools, which I hope will include schools in North West Norfolk, as well as building two more special schools.

In conclusion, getting this right is vital because children have only one opportunity when it comes to their education. We need to do all we can to help them realise their potential. The focus now must be on implementing those plans.

10:07

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. SEND services in Devon have been in serious crisis for a long time, probably three or four years, with the situation deteriorating lately. Last year, Devon County Council apologised for failing to improve SEND services, and promised that things would improve and that it would redouble its efforts. We are continuing to see a problem around a lack of political leadership and of oversight at the council. My postbag is heavy with correspondence from constituents who are at their wits’ end trying to get the support and educational placements that children need.

The wait times for assessments are far beyond the statutory 20 weeks. The lack of educational psychologists is leaving families uncertain, having to juggle work commitments and looking after their child at the same time. It is definitely leading to people being outside of the workforce who would otherwise be fulfilling an important role in it. The looming threat in Devon of these services being placed in special measures, or removed from the council’s remit, shows that things must change. The promise of more money in the forthcoming council budget is welcome. The Government’s recent announcement of a new SEND school at Cranbrook is again welcome, but we need to ensure that taxpayers’ money is being spent effectively to deliver the SEND placements that our children deserve.

I have had constituents contact me to highlight situations where a child is allocated a placement that is wholly unsuitable for them, and the child cannot take it up but remains on the school roll, with the funding also remaining assigned to that school. We need to ensure that money follows the child and that appropriate frontline services are delivered regardless of where the child then moves. I have seen for myself in East Devon that SEND pupils are being taught in cupboards and storage rooms, and I know that that is not unique to my part of Devon, because I have also seen it reported on the BBC. We should not allow that to continue. I cannot help but admire the parents who are pushing Devon County Council and the Government on this. Devon SEND Parents and Carers for Change staged a protest at county hall in Exeter last month, and they are trying to shine a spotlight on some of these failings.

It is not all gloom; there are some examples of best practice. My constituent, Danielle Punter, has written books and a blog—autability.co.uk—with tips on education and support in understanding neurodivergence. Danielle pointed out last month that when partial school closures happen as a result of lockdown or strikes, it is often special needs school pupils who are most affected, because those schools need to be fully staffed in order for children with a high level of SEND requirements to get the best possible care, otherwise they need to stay at home. In short, we need to get to grips with some of these repeated failures, particularly in Devon, and that will require political leadership and political oversight.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

I am now formally introducing a four-minute time limit.

10:11

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this important debate. This issue is of concern to many of my constituents in Darlington. Indeed, 77 people from my constituency signed the e-petitions relating to the debate. I welcome the announcement last week of a new school in Darlington and thank Councillors Jonathan Dulston and Jon Clarke for their work on that. This additional provision of 48 places for SEN children in Darlington is much needed.

However, Darlington faces serious problems with CAMHS. The delays in getting people assessed are significant. It impacts my case load and delays access to services for young people in my constituency. It is hugely important for Darlington parents and children that we speed up the woefully inadequate waiting times for CAMHS assessments by Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust. As Ministers are aware, we cannot overestimate the challenging circumstances that TEWV service users and their families face. More than 300 under-18s in Darlington are awaiting an autism assessment, and more than 20% of them have been waiting almost three years. That is just not good enough. In the absence of a diagnosis, these families’ lives are on hold, and these children’s lives are not progressing as they should.

I continue to engage regularly with TEWV and the families of special educational needs children in Darlington, including through my autism forum on Facebook, to ensure that their voices are heard and to push for us to take more action to reduce these backlogs, which are so damaging. I do, however, welcome the recent announcement that Darlington has secured additional funding of £6.19 million for special educational needs provision in the town, to address the growing needs in our community and tackle the high cost of out-of-town provision. I also warmly welcome the recent SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, which commits to increase spending on children and young people with such needs by more than 50% to over £10 billion by 2023-24.

I have tabled several written questions to the Department for Education in the past about its records for SEN training among teaching staff, and I was disappointed to learn that it does not keep records of the extent of such training. However, the recent news of expanded training for staff in early years provision, with special educational needs co-ordinators and educational psychologists, will, I hope, go some way to addressing that gap.

This is a personal issue for me. Like many people across the country, I have family members with special educational needs, and I have seen directly the work that parents must put in to secure the necessary support. It cannot be right that the most vocal parents or those who know the system are the ones who secure the right provision for their child. I have seen parents in my constituency surgery who have been pinging from local authority to CAMHS to schools to healthcare providers, which makes them frustrated, angry and bewildered. We really need to do so much better.

In conclusion, the SEND and additional provision improvement plans are good steps on the way, but we must ensure that the actions that are set out in them are delivered, and we must make the systems absolutely centred on the child—not just paying lip service to that idea, but really breaking down the silos in health, education and Government to truly deliver, end the excessive waits, and give the kids a chance.

10:15

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for securing this debate and leading it, and for setting the scene so well, as he often does. It is nice to see him down here with us in the Chamber, instead of up there in the Chair; that has been a pleasure today.

There have been ongoing issues relating to provision for special educational needs. Children with SEN rely heavily on routine, consistency and specialised support. Many people in my constituency contact me in relation to these issues; most notably, I am contacted about staffing issues. So I will focus on staffing issues today, including serving staff not receiving the adequate support and training to assist pupils with SEN.

I believe that we must do all we can to ensure that children are given an equal and fair start in life, so it is great to be here today to discuss that. I welcome the Minister to her place. She does not have to answer any of my questions about this issue, because we have a Minister in Northern Ireland with responsibility for this issue. However, I wanted to come here today to support the hon. Member for Swansea West and others who have spoken, because the things that have been spoken about here today are the very same for us in Northern Ireland. There is no difference; each other’s problems are replicated.

I will speak briefly on Northern Ireland, because I always like to give a taste of the situation there. In Northern Ireland, 67,000 children have some form of SEN, which is a fifth of the school population, and 19,000 children have received a statement about their need for additional support, which is a 20.3% increase on what it once was.

This issue is about the staff we have, including those who have received the basic SEN training for already qualified teachers to act in the event of sickness. Unfortunately, staffing numbers are down in Northern Ireland. I say this with all the provisos that I have as a Unionist, but we need a functioning Assembly that can take such things on. We must ensure that our Governments are allocating sufficient funding to train SEN-specialised teachers, so that the pressure is taken off teaching staff who are not specialised in SEN teaching and communication with children who have SEN.

The Education Authority in Northern Ireland also disclosed that the number of educational psychologists has decreased by 24% in less than five years—what a massive drop for us back home—from 140 to 106. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People also made 40 recommendations for improvement. The petition was signed by 29,000 people who called for SEN training to be made mandatory for all teaching staff, which is also recommended by the commissioner.

Some of the things that we are asking for are the things that others are asking for, and I know that the Minister will respond. And whatever the Minister responds to about the situation here will probably also give us an indication of where we need to be in Northern Ireland. Although the petition was centred around the English education system, it is crucial that any decision taken in relation to SEN training for teachers follows through to the devolved nations. My request to the Minister specifically is to ensure that the recommendations and answers that she gives in this debate are conveyed directly to the Education Authority and the Northern Ireland Assembly, because what we can learn from this debate can be a lesson for us all.

We are also living in a world where assessments for SEN are unfortunately taking considerable time, as we must ensure that children are assessed accurately, so that they can receive the right amount of support and specialist care. I ask for that to be done as well.

Once this debate has been completed, where do we go next? We must take the relevant steps to ensure that a sufficient workforce is there. We must encourage our young people to take degrees in this area and make such degrees accessible to them. It is about making sure that teachers are trained, in place and can do the job. This is the effort that we go to and that they go to. Such teachers deserve to be under the least amount of pressure possible. So I call upon the Minister to engage with all regional Governments within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in order to come to a joint decision on how the issue of a specialised workforce can be tackled.

10:19

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Whenever we receive petition data, I do what I am sure we all do: I look at where my constituency ranks for number of signatures. For the first time in my three years as an MP—unless I have missed one—my Wantage and Didcot constituency was No. 1 for this petition. I think that reflects the problems going on at Oxfordshire County Council at the moment, as I receive almost daily complaints from parents and schools about emails not being answered, the phone not being picked up and EHCPs returned with the wrong child described on the plan.

While the county council would suggest that that is all about funding, some of those issues are not about that. Putting the wrong child on an EHCP when it is returned to a parent is not about funding. Actually, if the amount of money that is spent on tribunals by the county council was spent on the service, we would have a better service overall. As it happens, there is more money going into the system—an extra £2.6 billion—which will mean 50% higher spending in 2023-24 than in 2019-20. However, the issues are not just about funding.

In any organisation, there is always a debate about specialist versus generalist: whether we should have one person who is responsible for everything, the advantage of which is expert knowledge, or whether everybody should be responsible, so that they do not shirk that responsibility. That is true in this area too. It is right that the Government are reviewing the mandatory requirement for the national award for SENCOs, because parents clearly do not feel it is working in quite the way it should. I also warmly welcome the forthcoming apprenticeship pathway for those with sensory impairments.

However, it is also right to look at initial teacher training. Of course, there is initial teacher training and an expectation that all teachers should have some understanding and be able to handle children with special educational needs. But, again, it is absolutely clear that many parents do not feel that that is the case. While there are children who need specialist schools and other specialist provision, we know that children staying in mainstream education leads to better outcomes: they have better social skills; they have more independence; they have fewer behavioural problems. Having children with special educational needs in the classroom also improves other children’s tolerance and understanding.

The Government are absolutely right to pursue both those tracks. We are fortunate to have in the Minister a great advocate for children with SEND and their parents. She is working with the Department of Health to try to grip these specialist workforce issues, but also to help all teachers to feel more confident about dealing with children who have special educational needs, so that the first resort is not to try to push them somewhere else. I look forward to working with the Minister to achieve the Government’s aim of getting the right support in the right place at the right time.

10:23

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on leading today’s debate and concur with all comments made by colleagues across the room.

It is a fight, and it is always a fight, to get the right support in the right place at the right time—that is what parents have consistently told me. That is why we are here today. We have serious concerns about the timing of the Government’s proposals. Already, we are hearing about a specialist workforce group being set up, but it will be two years before we see that workforce plan delivered. On top of that, we have the training time to get those specialists in place to provide the support for young people, and timing is of the essence.

Time is of the essence for parents in my constituency, too. I think about the parents who came to see me because their child goes to specialist provision in the morning, but in the afternoon, is left to play with Lego; or the child who was confronted in their school environment because they did not make eye contact, and was told off and given detention for not doing so; or the parents whose child, who has autism and is non-verbal, despite meeting all the thresholds for an EHCP assessment, has been denied that assessment by their local authority. Children miss out time and again.

Let me speak about one child whose needs were not recognised in primary school. We raised our concerns frequently, but the teachers did not identify his dyslexia and memory and processing issues until the last term of year 6. He did not get the right support and fell further and further behind. His experience of school was horrendous: he had self-esteem issues by year 2 and signs of anxiety in year 3, and he told us that he would rather die than go to school in year 4. In years 5 and 6, the impact of his school experience was huge. Thankfully, he has now had the opportunity that he should have had when he started school, or even pre-school. It is always a fight for parents.

I am also here to fight for the workforce. It needs to be recognised, organised and supported. We are creating family hubs, but we had Sure Start. We brought people together across the professions to work together and wrap the services around the child. We need to reinstitute that. Labour did it, and we will do it again, because we know the importance of that inter-working.

I particularly want to speak up for teaching assistants, who are at the forefront of providing day-by-day support to young people. They know their children and are attuned to their needs. However, in a school in York, their contracts have been reduced to just term-time working, rather than full-time. They are therefore not able to afford to go to work any more. Teaching assistants should be recognised as the professionals that they are for the skills that they bring, and they should be rewarded with the pay they deserve. They work incredibly hard, giving children confidence on a day-to-day basis. Many children with special educational needs identify with their teaching assistant more than anyone else, and yet they are on minimum wage, term-time contracts. It is frankly disgraceful. When the Minister puts a workforce plan together, I ask her to put teaching assistants at the forefront and to recognise the professional skills they bring in supporting children at their time of need.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

I call Robin Walker. As he is the Chair of the Education Committee, I will relax the four-minute time limit.

10:27

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am honoured, Mr Sharma. That is most kind and unexpected.

I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for what she just said about teaching assistants. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) declared an interest in relation to his wife’s role. My sister is a teaching assistant in a special educational needs setting, and I think the work they do is absolutely heroic. She has faced all sorts of challenges in her work, including assault by pupils. Teaching assistants turn up day in, day out to do that work, not because it is well paid—it is not—but because they are absolutely passionate about supporting the children. As we heard from so many hon. Members, this is all about children’s life chances.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). We have had many lively exchanges over many issues over the years, but on this issue we are absolutely as one. He presented his case extremely well.

I am Chairman of the Education Committee, and this issue touches on so many of our inquiries, so I am very grateful to you, Mr Sharma, for slightly relaxing the time limit so that I can speak about all of them. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows extremely well, we are in the midst of conducting an inquiry into early years and childcare. Yesterday, we heard from SEND specialists in that space of the enormous benefit of providing the right specialist workforce at the right time—that early intervention in the early years, which Members from both sides of the House have talked about.

It is important that we remember that this can start in the early years. There is huge benefit in getting speech and language therapy in front of the right children in the early years. I was grateful that the hon. Member for Swansea West started his speech by talking about the importance of that. In my constituency, when I started as an MP, there was a real problem with the availability of speech and language therapy. I am told now by the royal college and by experts that we are one of the best areas in the country for that provision, and that is extremely welcome, but there is still more need.

We heard from Speech and Language UK yesterday that, with the right support and training, teaching assistants can deliver interventions that can help to reduce the demand on specialist speech and language therapists and allow them to focus on the children with genuine complex special needs. It is really important that we get our support right in that respect.

In my constituency I have a wonderful primary special school called Fort Royal, which serves the community extremely well. Tragically, and I think wrongly, that school has lost its specialist assessment centre—its nursery. That is not for any planning reason, but simply because the primary school is so overwhelmed by demand and has a constrained site, that they have had to create space for statutory provision of primary places at the expense of early years and nursery provision. That is not a good situation. I am hearing from nurseries and early years settings across my constituency that they are facing pupils whose needs they cannot easily meet as a result of that.

I am glad that Worcestershire Children First has listened to the concerns that I and others have raised about provision, and has agreed to commission a new specialist assessment centre. In the meantime, there is real pressure in that space, and there are children who are missing out on some of the support that they should be getting. I want to make sure that the local improvement and inclusion plans, which the improvement plan rightly talks about, include the right provision for early years and nurseries.

The improvement plan, which the Minister has been instrumental in delivering, has some very welcome initiatives. Those include the local inclusion plan, national standards, new specialist places—I warmly welcome the decision to approve an all-through autism school in south Worcestershire, which will benefit my constituents—and better support in mainstream education. We have heard some interesting exchanges about the importance of mainstream versus specialist education. The reality is that we need both—and we need more of both. We need support for pupils with special educational needs throughout the mainstream system, and we need more specialist places.

I join the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in recognising the Minister’s expertise in this space. She is the first Minister I have heard at the Dispatch Box recognising the rising tide of need that we see in the system. That recognition is important as we address the need for specialists.

The improvement plan also talks about the transition to adulthood. Another inquiry that the Education Committee is in the process of concluding is on careers education, information, advice and guidance. In the course of that inquiry we have heard that SEND pupils, and pupils in alternative provision, are not always getting the high-quality careers advice and guidance they need to improve their life chances and get good outcomes. I have seen some excellent examples of this being done well. I recently visited the special Westminster School in Rowley Regis, and saw the work that they are doing there with the Black Country careers hub to support and mentor SEND pupils into careers with employers such as DPD. There was some interesting partnership work going on.

I have a fantastic primary pupil referral unit in my constituency, Perryfields Primary PRU, which I recommend the Minister visits. It was one of the best visits I did as a Minister—it just happens to be in my constituency. The school does a fantastic job of meeting the needs of primary pupils. Regency High School, also in my constituency, does some really good work with children with complex needs, trying to prepare them and support them into work. The Government rightly want to ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to work. In order to do that, we need to get the right support and careers advice and guidance to people early.

As we have already heard, life chances for young people with SEND can be hugely improved with the right support. Getting speech and language therapists and teachers of the deaf in early, as well as auditory verbal therapy, is really important. Getting the right teacher training for dealing with children with autism and other conditions for teachers and teaching assistants is vital.

As the hon. Member for Swansea West and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned, there has been a huge impact from the pandemic on children with special educational needs. It is right that we invest in the sector to ensure that that is made up. When I was at the Department, we spent a lot of time, money and effort focused on catching up. If we can spend money on early intervention and supporting children earlier on, it will do more than catching up belatedly. We should continue to look at how we make the case for that.

We have heard about the delays to diagnosis; I spoke in a recent debate on that. I will meet Worcestershire Children First shortly to talk about some of our problems with the umbrella pathway in Worcester. One issue that we came across was that the health system was subjected to a cyber-attack, which has further delayed some of the desperately needed diagnoses for children. Any support that the Department can provide to protect systems’ cyber-security and ensure that those issues do not arise would be extremely welcome.

I have four quick asks of the Minister before I sit down. The first is the meeting that the SEND in The Specialists campaign requested. It sounds as though that is likely to be granted, but I would certainly welcome it. Secondly, I would like a commitment to keep on investing in continuing professional development for mainstream teachers and to see what more can be done through the initial teacher training and early career framework processes to make sure that we recognise that every teacher is a teacher of SEND children. Thirdly, I would like a commitment to working with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve access to the specialist workforce and to make sure that the NHS workforce plan takes into account the rising demand in this space, which the Minister has recognised. Finally, I would like a commitment to looking carefully at early years and ensuring that local inclusion plans include the right specialist support, which can make such a huge difference to children’s life chances.

10:36

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for securing this important debate on the specialist workforce for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I pay tribute to all the all-party parliamentary groups that work in that area for their important contribution in gathering evidence and raising concerns. I am grateful to every hon. Member who has spoken today.

We have heard a remarkable consensus this morning on the dire situation that faces many families with a child with SEND, on the rapid growth in need, and on the urgency of the need for more support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted the link between unmet need and mental health referrals, school exclusions and school non-attendance. He rightly highlighted concerns about the significant unmet need and the trauma experienced by children and their families who live in initial accommodation for asylum seekers across the country.

The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) pointed to the impact of the pandemic in worsening speech and language delay. I recognise that issue from my constituency, but it is being raised by primary schools across the country. She also highlighted the important innovative technique of auditory verbal, which, as other hon. Members said, can be delivered at low cost and used by parents and non-specialists, as well as specialist support staff in schools.

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Education Committee, spoke about the importance of intervention in the early years. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) emphasised the significant impact of long delay on families’ ability to access support, and the vital work of teaching assistants, who often go unrecognised and under-rewarded. We also heard from many other colleagues, and there is wide consensus on the subject.

There are 1.5 million children with SEND in the UK. The number of children on an education, health and care plan is up by 50% since 2016. Those with SEND are overrepresented among pupils eligible for free school meals, black pupils and looked-after children. The support for many children with SEND is insufficient. Parents often have to battle for a diagnosis, then they battle again for support, often multiple times at each stage of their child’s education.

I pay tribute to everyone who works with children with SEND: speech and language therapists, SENDCOs, specialist teaching assistants, educational psychologists, specialist teachers of the deaf and of visually impaired people, and many others. It takes dedication and commitment to train as a specialist, who often act as the gateway to the whole of a child’s education. The work of SEND specialists is vital, but it often goes unseen and unrecognised.

Research from the Disabled Children’s Partnership is damning. In response to a recent survey, seven out of 10 parents said that their disabled child’s health had deteriorated because of lack of support. Only one in three disabled children have the correct level of support from their education setting. Only one in seven families have the correct level of support from social care, only one in five have the correct level of support from health services, and only one in five felt that they received the support needed for their child to fulfil their potential.

That overall context disguises a huge diversity of need. SEND needs include autism, ADHD, speech and language delay, vision impairment, hearing loss, foetal alcohol syndrome, cerebral palsy and Down’s syndrome. That means that detailed workforce planning is required. There must be staff working in mainstream education and health settings who can identify and diagnose additional needs as soon as they are evident, available support in every school for children with needs that occur commonly, and specialist support available to draw down for low-prevalence conditions when they occur.

Securing a specialist workforce matters. For mainstream settings to be truly inclusive, teachers must have knowledge of and access to a broad range of specialist skills. Recently, I visited a secondary school and met the brilliant team who support children with special educational needs. Their care and commitment to every single child was inspiring, but they spoke about how hard it is to obtain a diagnosis for children whose needs had not been fully identified earlier in their education because of a shortage of educational psychologists.

Specialist support is vital to keep children in school. Children with additional needs are over-represented in the data on school exclusions and in alternative provision. Ensuring the right support is available can help to avoid exclusions, but for 13 years the Government have failed to plan for the SEND workforce. The number of specialist teachers of the deaf has declined by 19% since 2011, and there are more than 67,000 children on the waiting list for speech and language therapy. There are simply not enough therapists to meet the need. There is a national shortage of educational psychologists, with 70% of local authorities having to rely on agency staff.

Behind those sobering figures are children—children whose needs are not being met, who are unable to access education, whose mental health is declining because they are not properly understood at school, and who are simply disengaging from education. Alongside each child are parents and families—parents who spend hours each week fighting for support, who are being called at work to pick up their child from school, who are suffering the distress of knowing their child is unhappy and not fulfilling their potential, and who, like the parents I met in my constituency recently, feel that they need to give up work so as to educate their children at home.

The shortage of professionals and the lack of support result in unacceptably poor outcomes for children with SEND. The Government recently published their response to the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper. The Opposition welcome the fact that the Minister has listened to Labour’s call for a focus on the early years. Identifying children’s needs early is vital, and the evidence is clear, but the Government have not said how they will build SEND diagnosis and support into an early-years sector that is fragmented and diverse, and within which nurseries in particular take widely varying approaches to inclusivity.

Families who have a child with SEND find it hardest of all to find suitable childcare, but allocating more money to a broken childcare system without reform, as the Government have announced this week, will not deliver a step change in the availability of SEND support, particularly as 5,000 childcare providers have closed since 2021.

The SEND and alternative provision improvement plan has the aim of reducing the number of EHCPs through improving support in mainstream schools, but the Government have not set out a clear plan to achieve it. There is no overall workforce plan. Meanwhile, the Government are expanding the number of special schools, which are needed, but there is weak data on which types of school are needed, and where, and no detailed plan to improve the inclusivity of mainstream schools.

A fundamental weakness of the Government’s approach is that it is characterised by pilots, rather than a national roll-out, and progress is set to be far too slow. Much of the plan will not come into effect until 2025 or 2026, leaving families to continue to struggle in the meantime, and more children going through the whole of their education journey without the support they need.

Children with SEND and their families need a workforce plan to deliver the support they need, wherever they live in the country. A Labour Government would work with professionals and families to deliver a SEND system that works for every child.

10:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing a debate on this incredibly important subject. It is wonderful to see so many people in agreement about what is needed, and to have seen the expertise on show today. I hope people can see from our SEND and alternative provision improvement plan the seriousness of the Government in trying to respond to the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities across the country.

The hon. Member rightly talked about the importance of early language, which we know feeds into children’s overall learning and literacy. He talked about the importance of education and health working together, and I am pleased to say that we jointly published that report, and that the Department of Health is very much working hand in glove with us on the plans. He also spoke about the importance of all-teacher training, which is crucial, early identification and getting a diagnosis, and recruitment and retention. I confirm that I would be delighted to meet with him, and we will talk about dates. I shall touch on some of those subjects in my speech.

I have had the privilege to meet some of the galaxy of professionals, as the hon. Gentleman said, who support children and young people with SEND. Whether they are in early years, schools, colleges, health and care settings, or specialist and alternative provision, those are some of the best visits that I do; it is a joy to meet a group of people who are so dedicated, skilled and passionate about meeting the needs of their children and young people. Hon. Members mentioned investment in the specialist workforce a number of times, and I am keen to engage with all the charities and organisations that have expertise in this issue as we take our plans forward to the next stage.

The SEND and alternative provision improvement plan is meant to support the entitlement set out in 2014 through a much clearer local and national focus on the strategy for how we can plan to meet those needs, whether that is through best practice guides for teachers or local inclusion plans, which mean that each area will have to assess and work out how to meet those needs. The funding has increased by more than 50% over the last few years. The idea is that all those parts of the system will be looked at and will hopefully work better together to meet rising need, improve access and build confidence in the system. A number of Members talked about the fact that there is not enough alternative provision, that there is not enough early years support or that there is something specific in their area such that needs are not being met. I hope that the whole system change that we have set out will go a long way to addressing those issues.

Through our consultation process, we heard too many stories from families who are frustrated by the system and battling to access specialist support. We also heard that reform is not possible without a strong, capable workforce with a specialist skillset. I want to assure everyone that we have taken those comments on board and are working hard to make the reforms a reality.

I want first to talk about the specialists who work so hard to provide extra support. They will be key to ensuring that we can do what we need to do for these young people. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly mentioned the importance of educational psychologists and children getting through the EHCP process. He mentioned that educational psychologists can provide professional advice to children and young people and drive better life outcomes. I completely agree with his emphasis on them. He is also right that I used to be a Treasury PPS; I had fewer opportunities to agree with him then, so it is nice to be able to do so today. We have announced an additional £21 million to train more educational psychologists. We increased the number of people coming through the system in 2020 and, because of the training time, some of those people are coming through now. He is right that this issue will be crucial in ensuring that we can meet needs.

It is also important—I will touch on this later—to improve broader teacher confidence. In the case of something such as speech and language support, if we had better confidence and evidence-based interventions in mainstream settings, we would have a reduced need for educational psychologists and EHCPs.

[John McDonnell]

All of us will assist the Minister through representations to the Treasury about the required early investment that eventually saves money further downstream. I am happy to engage in any lobbying of Treasury Ministers to get that message across, as some of them have not yet fully grasped it.

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I would slightly disagree with him. When I was in the Treasury in 2019, I worked on the increase, which we are starting to see, in the high needs funding block, which has gone up by 50%. There is also the £2.6 billion that we are spending on specialist places and the £20 million, which I have mentioned, that we have set out for educational psychologists. We have backed a lot of reforms with funding over the past few years, but I will gladly work with him on anything in this area.

We have also committed to working with the Department of Health on a joint approach. The hon. Member for Swansea West talked about engaging with the specialist sector in health, and we are definitely planning to do that. We do not want to reinvent the wheel; we want to work with people who have expertise in this area.

Access to speech and language therapy has rightly been mentioned. I know the hon. Member for Swansea West has a deep expertise in that, and I am particularly passionate about it. In the improvement plan, we announced that we will partner with NHS England to include early language and support for every child pathfinders within our £70 million change programme. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) mentioned meeting to discuss that, and I would be delighted to do so. The plan for those pathfinders is that they will trial new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech and language communication needs. We are also looking at family hubs. We have support for Nuffield early language intervention in primary schools, and we are putting support in place with home learning environments. In 2020, there were 620 acceptances to speech and language therapy programmes in England. That was an increase of 28% from 2019. We are working with the NHS on a long-term plan, which will look at therapists, and we are also working on the steering group that we will set up this year.

On the mainstream workforce, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), whom I am meeting later today to discuss this issue, rightly said that inclusive schools make for an inclusive society. We will be looking at the initial teacher training framework and early career framework, but, importantly, we are setting out best practice guides, starting with autism, mental health and wellbeing and early language, to ensure that the wider workforce all have that specialist ability as well. It is really important to understand different conditions and what can be done.

Members have mentioned that we are introducing the new SENDCO NPQ, which will replace the existing qualification That will be Ofsted and Education Endowment Foundation assured. Members, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), have mentioned teaching assistants. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), mentioned his sister. Teaching assistants are vital. We are starting a research project to develop our evidence base on current school approaches, demand and best practice.

[Mr Robin Walker]

Our specialist schools face a challenge because they must have very large numbers of teaching assistants to provide individual support for pupils, so when funding increases to reflect pay awards in the teaching space, it does not keep pace with the increases for teaching assistants. In her conversations with the Treasury, will the Minister ensure that it understands that specific challenge and ensure that, as we see the welcome rise in the living wage, our specialist education sector is supported with the cost of that? They are very real costs and are needed.

[Claire Coutinho]

I will happily go away and look at that, but I would also make a point on the additional funding we have put into the mainstream sector so that it can cope with all sorts of rises in demands and costs.

As well as setting out best practice guides, we are training 5,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators to help with early identification. One thing I have found from early-years settings is that there is a real desire to know more about this area. That is very welcome.

A couple of Members mentioned the transition stage into adulthood. I have visited some excellent places recently, including Weston College, which is a centre for excellence, and the Orpheus Centre in my own constituency, which is trying to build that sense of independence in our young people as they reach adulthood. We have also heard mention of teachers of the deaf, and I am really delighted that we have been working with the National Deaf Children’s Society to deliver that apprenticeship, which will be very helpful, particularly because it attracts levy funding.

I would like to turn briefly to mental health, which has been a real challenge. We have been working very closely with the NHS on this. It is investing a lot of money for hundreds of thousands of extra children. We know this is a difficult area, which is why one of our first best-practice guides will be on this topic. We will also roll out mental health support teams in schools.

[Geraint Davies]

In mental health diagnosis, it is often thought that someone has a mental health problem when, in fact, they have a speech and language problem. Will the Minister think about ensuring that, when these assessments are made, particularly when people are actually incarcerated, speech and language therapists are on hand to ensure that there is no misdiagnosis?

[Claire Coutinho]

I will happily look at that, and raise it in my conversations with Health. That is quite right. There are lots of other issues as well, particularly autism in girls. A mental health challenge is often diagnosed when, actually, if the underlying autism were addressed, outcomes for young people would be improved.

I will close on this, so that the hon. Member for Swansea West has enough time. I am sure he will want to say quite a lot. Improving access to the right professionals, whether they are teachers, teaching assistants or the specialists we have talked a lot about today is a key part of our plans for reform. I thank everyone who has brought this matter forward for their detailed stories.

[Jim Shannon]

I was hoping the Minister might deal with this—I requested that she share conclusions in relation to the mainland with the relevant Department and with the Minister back home.

[Claire Coutinho]

I would be delighted to talk to the relevant Department and the hon. Gentleman’s Minister about how we can share best practice. I know people rightly care about this area. Everyone here is grateful for the work of all the professionals across the education, health and care systems who work tirelessly to support our children and young people.

10:55

[Geraint Davies]

I have a surprising amount of time, but I will not take all of it. First, I would like to thank everybody who took part in the debate, with consensus about this massively important issue, which affects 1.5 million people across Britain. We welcome the Minister’s sentiments. The point has been made that we need to speed up and deliver for the people who are seeing their children’s life chances ebbing away in many cases, as we speak.

[John McDonnell]

Since my hon. Friend has a couple of minutes, one issue raised by the Minister was the role of the voluntary sector. I know he was speaking on behalf of a coalition of groups, but one issue we have not examined is the funding of those individual organisations. Many of us have concerns about the drying-up of funding from local government to the voluntary sector. We might now need to put that back on the agenda in discussions with the Minister.

[Geraint Davies]

We all know money is tight. As has been said, core funding to local authorities has been cut. It may be that many members of that coalition could do a lot more with additional funding, so that it would go further than it would by giving to it to other organisations. Clearly, that is not a perfect situation. We also heard about the importance of teaching assistants. It is a failure of budget management to reduce the amount of support for teaching assistants, who are on the frontline.

Coming back to the point about timing, voluntary organisations, teaching assistants and existing provision need to be supported now, as we support a strategy to move forward on training a specialist workforce. We are looking at designing what we hope will be a very good system as we move forward in the next couple of years. In the meantime, we need to deliver on the ground. I pay tribute to the 1,800 people who contributed to this debate. There would have been thousands more, if they had known about it. They want to tell us about their child. Everybody looking at their child’s needs is frustrated, saying that Jane, John or whoever, has needs that are not being addressed, and the deterioration is clear.

We have heard examples of cases where the lack of early intervention meant greater intervention at higher cost later. As we have discussed, downstream we end up with lower life chances, lower tax revenues and higher social costs, a lot of which is avoidable. We need to work together to speed up the system. The people in this room and beyond would be happy to lobby Government about priorities and timing, to support the Minister to bring forward more ambitious and quicker action. That would support so many people and make such a difference to their lives. Thank you all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered a specialist workforce for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Solar Rooftop Installations

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of solar rooftop installations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. I am glad to have secured this debate about solar rooftop installations. Monday’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change left us in no doubt about the urgency of tackling the accelerating climate emergency, and one of the fastest, most effective ways of doing so here in the UK is to step up plans to decarbonise our housing stock. In this short debate, I want to focus on rooftop solar in particular.

There is no doubt that the number of solar rooftop installations has soared in the last decade or so, and I applaud that achievement. I am also happy to applaud this Government’s ambition to increase solar from its current capacity of around 15 GW all the way up to 50 GW by 2030 and then 70 GW by 2035. I am sure we are all united in recognising that achieving and, indeed, surpassing that target is vital.

Solar Energy UK estimates that, of the 15 GW of solar power capacity currently in place, around two thirds is on the ground, and the remainder is on residential and commercial roofs. This morning, I want to make the case for the installation of solar panels on all suitable new-build homes to be made mandatory and to explore how to overcome some of the obstacles to domestic solar.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In my constituency, we are very keen to endorse this. Does she agree that solar roof panels can enhance the value of a property and that, for large families who use lots of hot water, the savings generated and the benefit to the environment can make the up-front cost worth while?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member makes my point beautifully. This is a win-win policy: it is good for householders and good for the environment, and it is good to get people’s bills down too. I thank him for that intervention, with which I entirely agree.

Some 80% of the buildings that we will have in 2050 have already been built, and we must work hard to retrofit them with renewables, but the remaining 20% have still to be built, and maximising the deployment of on-site solar generation in new-build homes could be a real game changer. If we are serious about continuing and accelerating what has been achieved to date and generating a successful rooftop revolution, we should be mandating that all suitable new homes come with solar panels as standard. The Government have an opportunity to do that with the new future homes standard.

I echo the recommendation made by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) in his net zero review that things be put in train to ensure that there are no delays to delivery by 2025. However, I would go further and argue that we do not need another consultation on whether to introduce a requirement for new homes to be built with solar, because we know that the British public are already behind the idea. A YouGov poll just a few months ago found that 80% of people across the UK would support the Government in making regulations to ensure that solar panels are the default on appropriate new-build houses. Only 9% were against that idea.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this interesting debate. It feels a bit like groundhog day, because in September 2017 I had a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject. Had the Government followed her suggestion, we would have 1 million new homes with solar panels today. Does she agree that making this compulsory would not only lead to 150,000-plus houses per year getting solar panels but would, in time, lead to price reduction, making it cheaper, and innovation?

[Caroline Lucas]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his leadership in this area. I am continuing, I hope, the great work that he did, and I agree with him entirely that there are so many wins. It makes economic sense for people, and it also makes sense for supply chains, because if they had the certainty of knowing that this was going to be a mandatory requirement, they would be able to gear up for it.

As I say, the British public are behind this idea—no wonder when, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, such a policy would save homeowners money. The figures that I have are that they would save between £974 and £1,151 a year on average on their energy bills. Solar Energy UK has found that installing a residential solar system on a new build property is 10% cheaper than retrofitting one.

There are a host of MPs from different parties behind this idea, including the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who tabled an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that would make it a requirement for every home built after 1 April 2025. I agree with his analysis of the multiple benefits of such a policy, including for the economy, jobs, consumer bills and energy security.

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I completely understand—obviously—that not every individual site is suitable for solar panels. In their response to a recent petition on this issue that attracted over 15,000 signatures, the Government cited the importance of being able to tailor requirements to individual sites as one of the main reasons why they did not back the proposal that all new builds should be required to have solar panels as a condition of planning permission. However, clearly nobody is suggesting that solar panels should be put on roofs that are not suitable; it is simply being suggested that they are put on roofs that are suitable.

During an Environmental Audit Committee hearing last week, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero put forward some other objections to this proposal. I think that they can all be countered successfully and I will take a little time today to try to do just that.

First, the Secretary of State said:

“We know that there are many different ways to skin a cat; decarbonisation, heat pumps, whether ground-source or air, could be a solution. If you start to say this is the only technology you can use and the only solution you use, you are in danger of losing out on a potentially better solution in that particular location.”

That is what he said. However, insisting on solar panels is not akin to saying that they are the only renewables allowed, as the Secretary of State seems to think; in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. On a practical level, having solar panels to generate electricity for a home does not preclude, for example, having an air or ground-source heat pump as a renewable source of heat. Of course, solar panels are often used to help run heat pumps, because they are much cheaper and greener from an energy consumption perspective than using electricity generated by fossil fuel. From a legislative perspective, mandating solar panels on new homes is a bit like insisting that car manufacturers install seatbelts. It does not mean that they cannot also install a whole range of other safety measures.

Secondly, the Secretary of State expressed the concern that insisting on solar panels would push up the cost of a new home. However, under the Government’s changes to part L of the building regulations and, indeed, the future homes standard, house builders already have to incorporate energy-saving and low-carbon heating technologies when they are constructing new homes, which will have a cost attached.

The average price for solar panels is around £5,000; if someone wants batteries on top, the cost is between £1,200 and £6,000, according to the Energy Saving Trust. However, that is a relatively small fraction of the cost of a new home and it would quickly be more than offset by the many benefits and cost savings across the economy, including lower bills for the householder, as the hon. Member for Strangford has indicated. There is evidence that solar panels add value to a house—an average of £1,800. In addition, there are ways for the Government to mitigate any increases for house buyers, which I will say a little bit more about shortly.

Moving on, the next obstacle that the Secretary of State came up with was that mandatory solar panels would apparently cause an additional housing crisis, because of the problems with global supply chains for things such as critical minerals. Again, that argument does not really bear scrutiny. Evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee earlier this year made it clear that if there was the right political will it was perfectly possible to source materials outside China, where the current problems lie, and that alternatives to silicon exist, such as perovskite, which can be sourced and supplied outside regions of conflict, and at low cost, to the capacity of 30 TW. Our expert witness, Dr Case, the chief technology officer of Oxford PV, said to the Committee:

“It is not a material that would be a problem if we pushed forward with deploying this technology in the future.”

Finally, another reason that the Secretary of State came up was that this proposal would stifle innovation. He said:

“To answer your question as to why we should not just simply mandate solar as the solution in, for example, the future homes standard, my answer would be that as soon as you do that, you take away innovation.”

Again, that argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The Government have relied heavily on the smart export guarantee to drive growth and innovation, but Solar Energy UK has made it clear that we will need something more than that to reach 70 GW. Self-consumption makes much more sense, particularly with the economics of solar being where they are now, than selling the electricity that is generated back to the grid.

In its REPowerEU plan, the European Commission explains how the policies that it advocates, including the solar rooftop initiative, will make technologies such as solar more sustainable, as well as focused on innovation right across the value chains. There is also potential for mandatory solar on homes to generate the conditions for a regulatory sandbox, with the industry working alongside house builders to trial new innovations—something that the European Commission is, again, encouraging.

With the UK seeking to build 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s, the industry would have a steady market, creating the conditions for innovation, greater efficiency and therefore lower costs. That would be in marked contrast to the stop-start approach that the right hon. Member for Kingswood identified in his net zero review as a significant barrier to the investment needed to meet our renewables target.

At the risk of pre-empting the Minister’s response, I want to say a few words about mandating versus the presumption that future homes will come with renewables baked in. Actually, I just want to say one word: predictability. From successive Governments since 2010 we have had the zero-carbon homes standard, the code for sustainable homes, feed-in tariffs, smart export tariffs, the energy company obligation and green homes grant. It is no wonder the net zero review found that lack of confidence in “inconsistent” Government is a huge barrier to renewables investment. That needs to change. As we know, house builders will build to the regulations.

The Government need to get fully behind solar and to help create the conditions for the industry to grow, for houses to be built with solar roofs by default, and for all that renewable capacity to be fully realised. As the Aldersgate Group highlights, providing regulatory clarity to business is also how to accelerate innovation. Governments should not just rely on markets. They need to continue to play a leadership role.

Rooftop solar installations are a British success story; when it comes to research and development, we are world leaders. Although there have been some ups and downs because of the stop-start policy framework, the rate of installation has rapidly improved in recent years. The Minister knows that last year saw more than 130,000 rooftop solar arrays installed in the UK—more than double the number installed in 2021. The industry estimates that we need a further doubling of the current pace of installation for consumer-scale systems to meet the solar power target set out in the Government’s energy security strategy. To put it another way: we need an average of 4.3 GW per year of solar to be installed, compared with the 3.2 GW installed last year. That is clearly achievable if we step up the pace. In fact, it would be less than in 2011 and 2012, at the height of the feed-in tariff era. As I hope I have successfully argued, equipping every new home with the capacity to harvest the sun’s abundant energy will drive the next stage of solar’s growth.

In the meantime, I recognise that there are still some obstacles, most notably the restricted availability of equipment and an acute skills shortage. I want to say a little about each of those and propose potential solutions.

When the Secretary of State appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee last week he referenced capacity issues in supply chains. I understand those concerns and agree that steps must be taken to diversify and develop regional supply chains, including transparency standards, but that needs to happen anyway, whether or not new homes are automatically fitted with solar. That kind of requirement would spur things on.

Overcoming the skills shortage is equally important. It demands a skills and training revolution—a solar army. The industry estimates that the 70 GW target could take us to 60,000 jobs in the UK. The previous peak was in 2014, when solar had 20,000 employees. But those new jobs need people to fill them. At present, from manufacturing to construction and engineering, from maintenance to data analysis, there is a growing gap between what is required to deliver on solar and the skills base that is coming through our training and education pathways. Solar builders are also competing against the wind and automotive industries for workers.

Requiring solar on all new homes could create an extra incentive to address the bottlenecks and, for example, unleash the huge potential there is to retrain workers from the energy sources of the past, so that they can transition to the renewable sectors of the future. Around 70% of oil and gas jobs have some skill overlap with low-carbon roles, and across Europe there are examples of good practice in using the closure of coal-fired power stations as an opportunity to draw on a new potential talent pool. For example, more than 120 people from a coal-fired power plant near Rome are being given solar panel installation training right now. Others in the industry are setting up their own training centres; Svea Solar opened three in Sweden, Spain and Germany in 2022, for example, training around 600 people.

Here in the UK, London-based Solar Skills is an example of how industry is aiming its efforts at career switchers and secondary school leavers, with bootcamp-style introductory training workshops and online training, as well as interview opportunities with existing solar companies and the potential to progress on to apprenticeship schemes in London-based solar businesses. The Trafford-based Green Skills Academy is doing exactly as its name implies, offering a number of training courses in green technologies, including solar, to support Manchester becoming a zero-carbon city by 2038. From the global accounting firm PwC to the think-tank Green Alliance, there is consensus that more people must be attracted into green energy in order to deliver on the UK’s targets.

I acknowledge that the Government are aware of the problem, but their response to date has been piecemeal. The Minister will know that the apprenticeship levy, for example, is still underspent. I hope he can say something today about an approach that is more joined-up, strategic and comprehensive.

I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on how the Government will be tackling the traditional under-representation of women and ethnic minorities in the energy industry so that, as the sector expands, that does not become more pronounced and exacerbate the skills gap challenge. Working with the sector to ensure that the workforce receives regular training to keep up with rapid technical and legislative changes must go hand in hand with addressing the skills shortage. Will the Minister tell us whether that forms part of his discussions with the solar industry? All those issues need addressing if the pace of rooftop solar installation is to keep up with the demands of consumers and the climate crisis.

My last point is about finance. The organisation 100% Renewable UK has calculated that mandatory solar panels and heat pumps in new homes would add around £8,000 to the cost of a new home, with that amount decreasing as installations gather speed. That is no more than a 4% increase on average new house prices of, as I said earlier, around £180,000. Of course, if they wanted, the Government could offer interest-free loans for this technology. They have already said that they are looking at

“options to facilitate low-cost finance”

to make it easier for retail lenders to drive rooftop deployment. What progress has there been with solutions such as property-linked finance or green mortgages, which have been identified as tools to help consumers with the capital cost of installation, or with regulation, for example, to incentivise low interest rates for green mortgages?

When I asked the Minister about solar at the last Department for Energy Security and Net Zero oral questions, he said he wanted to “go further and faster”. During last week’s Budget statement, the Chancellor proudly proclaimed that he was fixing the roof while the sun was shining. Both of those signs are encouraging, so I hope the Government will back solar in an even bigger way, starting by making it mandatory on all suitable new homes. It is a win-win policy, lowering bills and those all-important carbon emissions, while massively boosting our thriving renewables sector, improving energy security, creating hundreds of thousands of good-quality jobs and helping to level up, all at no cost to the taxpayer. That is what a rooftop revolution looks like, and that is how to ensure targets get delivered.

11:18

[The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)]

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this important debate and giving such an impassioned, well-informed, moderate and fair speech. I say that all the more so because I think I chided her the last time we were in this Chamber. She has continued to be a champion for rooftop solar, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), and that is a passion that I think we all share.

Deploying commercial and domestic rooftop solar is a key priority for the Government, and it is one of the most popular and easily deployed renewable energy sources, with 1 million homes now having solar panels installed. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion graciously referred to the progress that has been made, and I was delighted to see that. There were 138,000 installations last year—nearly as many as in the previous three years combined. In addition, we have around the same level of solar capacity as they do in the sunshine-radiated country of Spain, and more than that of France, so, on a comparative basis, I think we have been doing pretty well. I have rehearsed this fact many times, but it is always worth sharing that just 7% of our electricity came from renewables in 2010, before we had a Conservative-led Government, and it is now heading towards half. I am proud of that.

However, I agree with the hon. Lady that that is not enough. If we are to fulfil our net zero pledges and Government aspirations in this area, we need to go further. Solar can benefit households and businesses by allowing them to reduce electricity bills significantly and receive payment for excess electricity generated. Warehouses, distribution centres and industrial buildings with high electricity demand can also offer significant potential for solar deployment, which can rapidly pay for itself through energy bill savings. Projects can be installed quickly and relatively cheaply, and that creates new local jobs and contributes to a green recovery.

The British energy security strategy affirms that the Government will aggressively explore renewable technologies, including rooftop solar, to contribute to a net zero-compliant future. As the hon. Lady said, the report out this week, which gives us the latest update on the science, shows even more starkly how important it is that we and others move in a net zero direction. We expect a fivefold increase in solar deployment to 70 GW by 2035. That builds on the 14.5 GW capacity already deployed across large-scale ground-mounted solar and rooftop installations in this country.

The Government already support rooftop solar through the smart export guarantee introduced in 2020, which the hon. Lady referred to. It enables households to receive payment for excess electricity generated, which is then sold back to the grid. In December 2021, the Government introduced an uplift in energy efficiency standards, which came into force in June 2022, and we expect that, to comply with the uplift, most developers will choose to install solar panels on new homes or use other low-carbon technologies such as heat pumps.

On the SEG, I was pleased to see just yesterday that an energy supplier, Good Energy—it is worth naming it for doing a good job—has launched a new market-leading smart export tariff for households with solar panels. It is “Power for Good”, and it will pay 10p per kWh—significantly more than rivals. That is worth highlighting, because it is exactly the kind of competition we want to see for green consumers, and I believe it will also transfer into higher deployment.

In 2022, the Government removed VAT on solar panels and on solar panel and storage packages installed in residential accommodation in Great Britain. We are also providing fiscal incentives to encourage businesses to install rooftop solar—for example, through tax relief and business rate exemptions for installing and generating solar power. We also have the Government’s energy efficiency schemes, such as the social housing decarbonisation fund, the home upgrade grant and the energy company obligation, all of which include solar panels as an eligible measure, subject to certain requirements. That all makes rooftop solar even more accessible.

As I said, whatever our record to date, we want and need to go faster. That is why, just last month, the Government published a consultation on changes to permitted development rights, seeking to simplify planning processes for larger commercial rooftop installations, and introduced a new permitted development right for solar canopies, enabling more solar installations to benefit from the flexibilities and planning freedoms that permitted development rights offer.

We have not stopped there. As part of the consultation on the future homes and buildings standards, which will be published later this year, the Government will explore how we can continue to drive on-site renewable electricity generation, such as rooftop solar, where appropriate, in new homes and other buildings.

Notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s understandable impatience—she says that we should just get on with it—in that consultation and that process this year, we have the opportunity to take forward the arguments that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle have deployed.

[Caroline Lucas]

Unsurprisingly, the Minister sings the praises of what the Government have done so far, but he does acknowledge that it will not be enough. I wish to come back to the industry estimate that we need a further doubling of the current pace of installation for consumer-scale systems to meet the Government’s own target. Why are the Government setting their face against all the arguments that have been amassed about making solar mandatory? He has not said why he is against doing that. As well as having this debate just now, I wonder whether he would be prepared to meet me in the coming weeks so that we can get to the bottom of why the Government do not want to go down that road.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady anticipates what I was going to say, because I was about to suggest that I would be happy to meet her and discuss these matters. As she said, the Secretary of State gave a number of reasons at the Environmental Audit Committee as to why mandating might not be the right thing. The hon. Lady has addressed some of those by saying that no one is suggesting that solar should be imposed on buildings where it is not suitable. It is about defining that, making sure that it is right and talking to all the various stakeholders. That is why, if we were to choose to go down that route, we would need to go and talk to people and get their inputs as well. I am all ears, because, as the hon. Lady says, we want to drive this forward and to do so in the most appropriate way.

As I said, our record to date is pretty good comparably, but we must consider what we need to do. It is not enough to be in the lead. Looking at various assessments of policy, we may be just about the only economy that is aligned with net zero by 2050 at the moment, but to stay on track we have to move ever more ambitiously forward.

[John Stevenson]

I commend what the Government have done. They have done a huge amount over the past 10 or 12 years, which is entirely to their credit. Interestingly, genuine cross-party consensus is emerging and Members do support what is being suggested. I tabled an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which did not go to a vote, but if were to come back from the House of Lords as an amendment to the Bill, would the Minister, given that there is quite a lot of support across the House from all parties, look seriously at reconsidering the Government’s position?

[Graham Stuart]

As I said, we are under a legal obligation to meet our net zero obligations, and we have set a target of that fivefold increase by 2035. We are open to argument, but we want to get the policy right. It is not our position that mandating solar on all appropriate roofs is the right policy now, but we are very open, and I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and others to discuss this further. I look forward to developing arguments to get this right, and I am sure that that is what we all want. It is not about an obsession with mandating; we want to do that which will most increase the take-up of solar in an appropriate way.

There is more to be done to meet the opportunities that rooftop solar provides. As an example, we and Ofgem recognise that connection costs and timescales can be a barrier to the deployment of rooftop solar. Currently, rooftop solar projects are required to contribute to any distribution network reinforcement needed to accommodate the connections but Ofgem has decided that, in future, for connection applications received from 1 April, rooftop solar projects will no longer be liable for such costs where the solar capacity is less than the demand on a site. Where the solar generation exceeds site demand, projects would still contribute less than they have previously. As well as reducing connection costs, this should accelerate connection times for rooftop solar.

I understand that up-front costs of solar might prevent households from installing, which is why the Government are working to facilitate low-cost finance from retail lenders for homes and small business premises, aligning with the recommendations in the Skidmore review on net zero. I meet regularly with financial institutions that have signed up to net zero and that are looking to work with us to come up with the right methods to provide the answer to the finance question, which was one of the hon. Lady’s points.

I have very little time left, but let me look down at the questions that the hon. Lady gave me to see whether there is anything to which I can usefully respond. On skills, I entirely agree with her. I am the co-chairman of the Green Jobs Delivery Group. We have refined that, and we have met a number of times. We have reduced the membership to make sure that we are focused on action—action this day, as Churchill would put it—and that we get the data from industry so that we can carry that to the Department for Education and other colleagues to make sure we have the bootcamps, the apprenticeships, the T-levels and the rest of it to prepare people for what will be a significant pipeline of future jobs—good jobs, I hope. I liked the seatbelt analogy that the hon. Lady used, with one thing not necessarily being a barrier to another, but, of course, there is always a limited amount of capital available.

In conclusion, the Government have already taken decisive action to encourage the deployment of rooftop solar. We will strive to push even further over the coming year to make sure that rooftop solar plays an even more active part in meeting our decarbonisation targets. It helps to alleviate energy costs at this time, when energy security is at the top of the public mind, and it reduces reliance on imported energy.

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate, for the way that she has conducted it and for the arguments she has put forward. Working in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I am sure we can meet and take this matter further.

Question put and agreed to.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

International Child Abduction

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins in the Chair]

14:33

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Before we start, I welcome members of the public to our proceedings. I remind Members here to err on the side of caution so as not to prejudice any live cases in this country.

14:34

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of support for parents affected by international child abduction.

Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mrs Cummins. The subject matter of this afternoon’s debate encompasses some enormously difficult issues for our constituents affected, many of whom are with us today, arising, as it does, from matters of family breakdown and often a history of drawn-out and sometimes painful litigation.

I think I need to be clear that it is not for us, here in Parliament, to rehash the arguments on either side of individual cases, nor to seek to make any kind of judgment about the merits of the family and sometimes criminal proceedings that have played a part in the situation that our constituents now face. Having served as a magistrate myself, I have confidence in the due process of law in all of our courts, and in the soundness of their judgments in respect of my constituent and others. The purpose of the debate is to seek action to bring about the enforcement of the decisions of our courts in international law where due process has been followed but not consistently respected.

This starts as a matter drawn to the attention of the House in the Justice Select Committee’s third special report of Session 2017-19, which covers the legal implications of Brexit for our justice system. The report highlights the risks of not having effective means to put into effect legal judgments where children have been abducted. As ample evidence and research demonstrate, the longer the duration of the abduction, the greater the negative impact on all concerned, so time is clearly of the essence.

I want to place on record my thanks to other Members —some are here to contribute to today’s debate—in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who has similarly affected constituents and who has taken an active interest in the issue and helped me to understand how we might support our constituents more effectively. I appreciate that, due to a prior commitment relating to the Westminster bridge terror attack, she is unable to be here today, but she has made points that I have incorporated into my remarks. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), and the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who have approached me to express an interest in the matter because they have constituents affected by it.

In respect of the cases that have been brought to the attention of Members by constituents, it is important to state, without going into the detail of any of them, that due process in the UK has resulted in a parent having custody, sole or shared, of their child, and the children have then subsequently been removed without the consent of the parent—in the case of my constituent to Poland. As Members might be aware, one objective of the convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, which was concluded at The Hague on 25 October 1980 and is known as The Hague convention, is to protect children in international law from the harmful effects of wrongful removal, or retention away from the parent with whom they should live, and to ensure that procedures are in place to ensure their prompt return to the state of their habitual residence. That convention, which entered into force on 1 December 1983, was ratified by all European Union member states.

Article 1(a) sets out

“to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed…or retained in any Contracting State”.

Article 2 states:

“Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures”—

appropriate measures is an important phrase—

“to secure within their territories the implementation of the objects of the Convention.”

It goes on:

“For this purpose they shall use the most expeditious procedures available.”

It is important to note that The Hague convention is not the only legal basis that parents of abducted children may use. We hear Brussels II and IIa often mentioned as legal avenues that can be pursued, which are subject to the proceedings having taken place when the UK was an EU member state. Following the same principle as The Hague convention, it is essentially mutual recognition of the orders of each other’s courts being embodied in the treaties that underpinned membership.

Mutual recognition requires each country to respect the integrity of due process in another’s territory. Given the time-critical nature of child abduction cases, the so-called non-appealability, or finality, of such decisions is an important feature. As a matter of course, the UK respects such judgments, as do almost all the countries that are signatories to The Hague convention.

The Justice Committee’s report states that child abduction is among the issues to which the Brussels II provisions apply. It refers to the very complex relationship with The Hague convention, but also sets out that the provisions take precedence in setting out a legal means to bring about a swift resolution of problems when they arise. The report goes on to set out what type of arrangements there might be and what expectations there would be of member states to ensure that those expectations were swiftly met.

Disappointingly, what is very clear is that many Members present have been contacted by their constituents once it is clear that what should be a transparent, straightforward and extremely swift process has not been followed by the authorities in another country—in my constituent’s case, that was Poland—and they are seeking the assistance of the UK Government to enforce the law. This is not a request to go beyond anything that is already enshrined in law; it is simply a matter of enforcing the law that our international agreements recognise.

While there has been considerable ongoing engagement with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Ministers, including meetings with, among others, the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), and the British ambassador to Poland, the response and assistance from the Polish authorities in particular has been very disappointing. That is particularly true at the local level, where the enforcement of court orders by the police and court-appointed curators is critical to ensuring the successful return of children. Unfortunately, the experience of my constituent is not unique. We can see from the number of Members present and those who have expressed an interest that there appears to be a common theme, particularly where the children have been taken to Poland.

On 26 January, the European Commission launched an infringement procedure against Poland by sending a letter of formal notice to it for its failure to fulfil its obligations under the Brussels IIa regulation. That infringement case concerns the non-conformity of Polish law with the Brussels IIa regulation, specifically to the provisions relating to the enforcement of judgments or orders that require the return of abducted children to their country of habitual residence. So, at EU level, the situation has reached a point where the Commission considers there to have been a systematic and persistent failure of the Polish authorities to speedily and effectively enforce the judgments to which they have committed under international law and order the return of abducted children to EU member states. This is not simply a problem affecting our constituents here in the UK; it is a matter of some moment across Europe.

Separately to this case, a matter has been heard in the European Court of Justice, where a Polish court of appeal asked the ECJ whether, in accordance with the Brussels II provisions and The Hague convention, it could provide an additional stage of appeal, which would in effect result in an automatic delaying tactic in Poland. It would mean that the enforcement of a final return order, which under international law should be expedited, would be at best delayed, on a simple request by one of the various authorities lodging such an appeal.

In January, the response of the advocate general of the European Union argued that, by adopting such a provision, the Polish legislature had exceeded the limits of its competence and had rendered the return proceedings ineffective. That is the source of the enormous frustration that so many of us are facing with our constituents. Due process of law in the United Kingdom and other countries has resulted in an outcome—an outcome where we are not required to judge the merits, but where we can have confidence in the due process of law—and yet that outcome is simply not being respected.

Given these cases before the European Union and matters that have been dealt with in the UK, it is perhaps not surprising that constituents are approaching their Members of Parliament. They have little faith that the due process of law will result in the relevant authorities delivering on the required court orders to return their children to the United Kingdom.

As well as the legal issues that I have set out, we need to recognise that the extensive delays and the enormous cost of engaging this process have placed a huge and sometimes nearly intolerable burden on many constituents. International law, and law in general, is there to ensure that justice is done and wrongs are put right. It is very clear to date that we are not seeing these significant wrongs put right.

The question then becomes: what recourse do our constituents have when they face such a situation? The legalities are very clearcut. It is highly likely that a case that was taken to the European Court of Human Rights would result in a finding against the Polish authorities, but that is of no comfort when the situation of the abducted children remains exactly as it was before, and a compensation payment and note of wrongdoing simply do not bring about anything like the resolution required by the affected families.

The proceedings brought by the European Union are likely to take a long time to reach a conclusion, and they will certainly test the limits of what power the European Union has when a member state simply refuses to abide by a treaty that it has freely signed. In the circumstances, we must pay tribute to the determination of all these parents—mums and dads—who are continuing to fight for the return of their children in a truly remarkable way. Yet we simply cannot treat each as an isolated case when there are so many consistent themes emerging.

I will move to my conclusion. While my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham set out to welcome the support that the Government have provided thus far, the fact is that in the case of her constituent, as well as a number of similar cases linked to other Members, the children are still overseas, despite court orders for their return, and there is still much work to be done to reunite them with their families here.

Poland is an old and important ally of the UK. Our friendship dates back many years, and my constituency and local area is home to many of Polish heritage. The nearby Polish war memorial in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency celebrates our shared military endeavours in world war two. We should not face a situation where a trusted and valued ally refuses to reciprocate the respect that we show to the judgment of their courts, as required under international law. My ask of the Minister is this. We need to take seriously the plight of our constituents and their abducted children and, in the spirit of what is and will remain a strong and friendly relationship with an important ally, place the evidence before their Government and seek swift and just compliance, with the decisions arising from the due process of law, as our international legal framework requires.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call our first Member, I remind Members to err on the side of caution in order not to prejudice cases that are live in this country.

14:47

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on securing the debate and setting out, in his usual clear and methodical manner, the issues that we will deal with.

I know that other hon. Members, without crossing any sub judice rules, will want to talk about individual constituents’ cases, and to use them, as I intend to, to illustrate this serious matter. I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman said; this is about where proceedings have taken place and due process has been followed, often at great expense, and where, almost invariably, one party is unhappy with the outcome—normally litigation—but resolves that simply by not following the rules and by taking children out of the jurisdiction. The question is: what happens then? Does the system work? If it does not work, how can we make it work?

I wish to focus on a rather specific area of the issue, with its own particular problems. I have given notice to the Minister and the shadow Minister that I will raise issues that specifically relate to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where there are all the usual problems and more—that is, children being taken out of this jurisdiction to that jurisdiction without the consent of the responsible parent. Perhaps we should call it an unintended loophole as, because the children are taken to the TRNC—if I may call it that—against the direction of the courts, and because northern Cyprus is not a signatory to The Hague convention on child abduction, the systems break down almost immediately. Our Government rightly do not recognise the TRNC, but there is therefore no co-operation, even from stage one, in organising the return of the children, even though, as I say, due process has been followed. I appreciate that there are particular problems with other countries; Poland has been mentioned already. There are always problems in child abduction cases and I think that all Members present today will have dealt with quite a number of them, but with northern Cyprus we do not even get to first base.

The constituency case that has been brought to my attention, which I think illustrates the issue well, is that of a father whose children were taken to northern Cyprus in 2018. The two parents separated in 2011. Residence proceedings began for two brothers who were then aged four and two years old. There were seven years of litigation, which again is not uncommon, because one parent made it as difficult as possible for the court to do its work over that period. There were many court hearings and appeals, and much turmoil, and a final appeal decision in 2018 unambiguously granted custody to the father.

The children, who were four and two at the beginning of the process, were 10 and eight at the end of the proceedings in this country. They were then taken out of this jurisdiction and are now aged 15 and 13. They have spent most of their lives embroiled in litigation or its consequences, because on the day before the final appeal decision was handed down, and in knowledge of what that decision was likely to be, the mother fled to the TRNC with the two children, following a convoluted route that went from Scotland to Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland to Turkey and then finally to northern Cyprus. One can infer from those facts that she knew exactly what was happening and that there was a disregard for the law in this country. The father has not seen his children since and has had no contact with them. He continues to instruct counsel in northern Cyprus, again at further significant personal cost, to try to arrange some visitation rights. However, any attempts to have his children returned to him have encountered immovable barriers.

All the proceedings through all the UK courts are not taken into consideration. I think they will be read for reference, but clearly they do not apply in northern Cyprus. There is likely to be some bias towards resident rather than non-resident parents; clearly, neither the father nor the children is at fault for that. There is also no role for child welfare—that is, it is a pure consideration of rights of visitation. The whole process is starting again, with the time and the costs and everything else that that involves.

A return order is in place. The UK authorities, like the father, are aware of the children’s location in northern Cyprus, but there has been no action. The courts in England and Wales recognise the father as the legal guardian of the children, but they are powerless to bring them home unless the mother co-operates with the return order, which all her conduct so far has shown that she will not, or unless—this is the point of my taking part in the debate—the UK authorities are able in any way to intervene. This is not an isolated case. As I am sure the Minister has been made aware, other parents face a similar ordeal to be reunited with their children with little or no support or guidance on how they to do that.

It is easy to find out, simply by internet research, that some organisations give advice and assistance to help those who wish to leave this jurisdiction to do so, and a number of parents have specifically gone to northern Cyprus because they know of the jurisdictional problems —or fracture—and that it is therefore a place where they can more easily escape the enforcement of judgments by UK courts. The Government should be particularly concerned about that, if there is an organised flouting of court orders that brings the whole process into disrepute. I am told that this has been going on for more than 10 years.

As I have said, there are now a growing number of cases—word gets round, people find out. In my experience, this is quite an unusual form of child abduction. It is going to a location with which the errant parent may have no connection. It is not, as is often the case, somebody taking a child back to their own country of birth, or where they have existing contact links or other family. This is about purely using a jurisdiction that is unlawful in the eyes of many countries, including the UK, in order to escape attention.

To be honest, it is not good enough for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to say that there is nothing that it can do about this, and, effectively, that is what it says. If we look up the TRNC on the FCDO website, we will see that there is a specific footnote to say that there is nothing that it can do in child abduction cases. That is not satisfactory. It may be that the Minister cannot give a full response today on what legislation or other steps would be needed, but I hope that this is at least the start of a dialogue that will look at that. I would like to hear from the Government what their thoughts are on this matter. I would also like the Minister’s agreement that we can go away and look at the cases of children taken to the TNRC specifically against the rulings of the courts in this country.

Perhaps I should add that there is some below-the-radar contact between the two jurisdictions. There have been examples in serious criminal cases of co-operation between the law enforcement agencies of both countries. I am told that we recognise the qualifications gained through the education system in northern Cyprus. I know that in this country property is advertised for sale in that area and, indeed, that many holiday companies in the UK will offer holidays there as well.

I understand the Government’s dilemma that they do not want to give plausibility or credibility to a country that has been illegally occupied for a number of decades, but the fact remains that it is in people’s humanitarian interests—and, it appears, in commercial interests, as well as, in some cases, law enforcement interests—for business to be done in that way. I would say that child abduction cases are certainly as serious a matter as commercial dealings and recognition of qualifications. It is clear that there are practical means, as well as some legal means, that can deal with this situation.

Before I conclude, let me suggest one or two other things that could be done. The first is that there is no legal aid available for non-Hague convention cases, which seems a double unfairness. Many parents fighting to bring their children home face huge pressures on their finances and, no doubt, some simply cannot afford to continue. Such proceedings can be ruinously expensive and can run on for years—often through deliberate delay in the courts. Unless there is some financial assistance—this should not be a matter of how deep people’s pockets are—it may be that some families will never be reunited and children will remain separated from their parents.

I would also like the FCDO to look at how we engage specifically with individual countries and jurisdictions on the issue. Clearly, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. It would be useful to have a clear procedure that applies to the TNRC as well as to other countries where there are particular problems. It would also help if there were a more proactive role for Government to work with parents in that position to identify pathways for the return of their children. To prevent what happened in this case, the Government could consider the suspension of children’s passports during residence proceedings to limit the chance of children being taken abroad to avoid complying with court orders.

I will leave my remarks there. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) says. What I am looking for from the Minister is an acknowledgment that there are particular problems with the TRNC and such countries, and that they are not being addressed now. I would like some idea of what the Government think can be done. If there are other matters that can be raised in correspondence after this debate, then so be it, but I would like to see a willingness to engage with myself and my constituent, as well as other people who have been affected in the same way, to address the issue.

The problem has been going on for far too long now. It has been put into the “too difficult” column because of political and jurisdictional issues. However, as a consequence, court orders made in this country are being flouted, and, more importantly, children are growing up without seeing parents because one parent does not like the judgment they have been dealt. I hope we can make some progress today, although I realise it is the beginning, rather than the end, of the matter.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask Members to keep their remarks to around seven or eight minutes, then we can get everybody in.

15:01

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who gave an outstanding introductory speech. He and I have spoken about the issue on a number of occasions, as we are two Members with constituents who are affected. It is an incredibly difficult and complex area. As he alluded to in his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who unfortunately cannot be in the Chamber, has been incredibly helpful, and has covered a lot of ground on this. We have followed in her slipstream to try and make progress in this incredibly complicated area.

Parental child abduction is a dreadful act that is unfortunately more common than we anticipate in our society. In such complicated and emotive cases, it is crucial that the welfare of children is at the centre of all our discussions. Too often, the legal and moral questions become a battle of wills between parents, and leave a vulnerable son or daughter displaced, manipulated and stranded from the life they were due.

I want to raise the case of my constituent John Fletcher, and his daughter Maya who was abducted by her mother to Poland in 2018. Maya was born in November 2014 and is now eight years old. Despite court orders in both the UK and Poland, Maya’s mother took her to Poland in 2018. An appeal at The Hague found in favour of Mr Fletcher, yet the Polish authorities have not assisted in locating and returning Maya to the UK. He has tried his best to have the court’s decision enforced multiple times since 2019, at great personal and financial cost, but to no avail.

The Polish authorities have not been co-operative and have given spurious reasons for their lack of assistance. Mr Fletcher believes that the Polish authorities are siding with the mother. As a result, Maya is currently residing with her mother in Poland, despite a court order saying she should be returned to the UK to live with her father. That is legally and diplomatically incredibly difficult.

I do not wish to return to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the way in which he outlined the legal situation, but I will touch on two areas. First, I am from Polish stock; my mother’s father was very proud of being Polish and I have always had a great affinity with that country. As has been alluded to in more than one speech, Poland is a great ally of this nation on many fronts. I appreciate that we recently left the European Union—there was a bit of news about that—which has changed the relationship in some ways. Nevertheless, diplomatically, I feel that parental child abduction is one of the great sore points in our relationship with that great nation.

I appeal to the Polish authorities and indeed the Polish Government to take stock and think. If the shoe were on the other foot, would a similar reaction be acceptable? Various legal procedures have been followed by many of our constituents, yet they still are not getting anywhere. I am great friends with the Minister. I know that she is always assiduous in researching every debate that she responds to, but I ask her directly whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is giving enough resources and priority to these cases. It feels to me as though we are finding officials at a very junior level, but the engagement that is necessary at a more senior level is perhaps being denied to our constituents.

I would also like to touch on what it is like emotionally for the parents involved. I mentioned the great financial and personal cost; Mr Fletcher sold his house, moved back in with his parents, moved jobs so that he can work more shifts and has gone out to Poland almost once every six weeks to try to retrieve his daughter. He spends every pound that he can gain on trying to return his daughter. It is really important to say that he loves his daughter very much. She is his world. He has lost not just his marriage, but the thing that came from his marriage that he is so fond of. When we have these debates, we must cover the technical, legal and diplomatic aspects, but we must also remember the individuals behind the stories.

I am not prone to hugging the constituents who come to my surgeries. I think I would have even fewer attendees if it was well known that I did. But I have to be honest; I spent half an hour with Mr Fletcher, who I had met previously, and I had nothing helpful to say to him beyond, “I will try and I will work with other hon. Members who are dealing with similar situations.” In those circumstances, we need to remember those individuals. A hug is meaningless in a surgery unless I can stand here and tell the Minister that this is what we are facing and unless she can go back to her Department and all those officials who speak to the Polish Government and others on a regular basis and make it a priority, because Mr Fletcher really needs our help.

15:08

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I warmly congratulate my London colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), on securing this hugely important debate. It will not be top of the headlines today, but this issue is of high importance to many families across the country. When we talk about crimes, we describe some crimes as being high in number but low in impact and others as low in number but very high impact, and that is what we are talking about today.

It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on this issue. I hope this debate is a watershed moment for those parents suffering because of this injustice. I hope that it acts as a wake-up call to Government to right a wrong that was done—inadvertently, I believe—over the time of Brexit and can be put right.

We are talking about children who are settled in school, settled in their communities and with their families, including their wider family. I am here on behalf of a constituent who is a wider family member, not a parent. That shows the impact that child abduction has; it impacts not just the parents and the close family, but the wider family.

These children are seeing their mother and father on a regular basis in accordance with what the UK courts agreed and stipulated, but then, without the consent of one of the parents, the other parent suddenly, and illegally, takes the children, or the child, from that stable home and community, and relocates them in another country. Twenty-eight days pass and the children are still not home. At this point, under UK law, such actions become a criminal offence called parental child abduction. The parent knows where their children are and who they are with, and they know that a criminal offence has taken place and that their children have been taken illegally. They try all the legal procedures and remedies one by one, but they have been failed and let down by them, and then they are left without their children, without justice and without help and hope. I cannot imagine the despair felt by those families.

The sad reality is that, in 2021, over 1,200 cases involving child abduction were considered by the UK courts. That is not just a handful of children. But the core problem, and the reason why we are here today, is that Brexit left a gaping hole in the legal framework that is supposed to protect children and parents from this crime and ensure that children return to their settled homes. There is a human right to a family life—a human right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact, which is being contravened by the situation at the moment.

Up until the withdrawal agreement, families could rely on the Brussels II regulation. That piece of EU law provided greater protection for victims of child abduction by ensuring the reciprocal enforcement of family court orders. In matters of child abduction, if the child is not returned under the 1980 Hague convention, the court in the country from which the child was abducted can make its own finding as to whether return is necessary, which is automatically enforceable in the other country. The process is generally quick and completed within a matter of weeks, and it enables that human right to be upheld, but this vital protection was stripped from the statute book after Brexit and has not been replaced.

The most frustrating thing is that, in the intervening years, the Government seem to have been tone deaf to the problem and have not yet worked out a solution, so I have been reading the views of the current Secretary of State in various pieces of correspondence. What he has said so far suggests that he has not really turned his full attention to the issue or worked hard to get a solution. For instance, he said that:

“The Government is satisfied that the 1980 Hague convention provides an appropriate mechanism to seek the return of children wrongfully removed from the country of habitual residence.”

However, I do not agree with that and neither do victims. It is not what we are seeing from families coming to us. It may be true of certain countries, but there is huge variation in how rigorously the convention is applied. The UK and Australia may be held up as examples of good practice in returning children swiftly, but some countries rarely return children promptly, if at all.

We have focused on Poland today, and I agree that Poland is a strong ally and a friend of our country. I have many Polish constituents who are a valuable part of our community, but Poland seems to be one of the problem countries in this regard. Estimates from Polish family lawyers suggest that less than 5% of all abducted children are returned, and a look at the latest publicly available data shows that the number of returns from Poland is consistently below the global average. Last year, legislation was passed in Poland that allows the return of a child to be suspended if the prosecutor general, the commissioner for children’s rights or the commissioner for human rights issues an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. For whatever reason, there seems to be growing resistance in the Polish courts to return children under The Hague convention, which is why it is important to hold this debate now and to solve the problem before it becomes embedded.

It was very concerning to read the Secretary of State’s view that the UK must respect the jurisdiction and laws of Poland. I agree that we must respect those laws, but the Polish courts need to respect the decisions of our courts and the rights and welfare of British children who have been taken from their home. The Government may well argue that additional protections exist in the form of the 1996 Hague convention, which reinforces the 1980 convention by underlining the primary role played by the authorities of the child’s habitual residence in deciding on matters that affect the child in the long term. In short, it helps with enforcement, but there are big problems with this option too.

First, it is far slower, usually taking around a year to be processed. A year of young children’s lives is a year far too long. Secondly, the 1996 Hague convention allows the country to which children have been abducted to exercise discretion. The destination country may choose to ignore this on domestic policy grounds. Therefore, in certain countries, where there is resistance to returns, the return of abducted children may be near impossible, and that cannot be justice.

The main takeaway from this is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulations has left victims of child abductions and our own courts worse off. I end with some questions to the Minister. Why are the Government dragging their heels on reinstating the Brussels regulations? Can she provide any good reasons for their doing so? Will she recognise the serious pitfalls and inadequacies in The Hague conventions? What discussions has she had with countries with a low return rate, such as Poland, and will she recognise the fact that that is the situation? How can we ensure that their courts respect decisions made in our courts? Will she meet hon. Members who are here today, in this debate, to look at the particular cases that we are raising? I implore the Minister to show common sense and justice, and restore Britain’s participation in the reciprocal enforcement of court-ordered child arrangements under—

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. This sitting will be suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House, or 25 minutes if two Divisions are expected.

15:16

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:27

On resuming—

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate may now continue until 4.17 pm. I call Fleur Anderson to conclude her remarks.

[Fleur Anderson]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins.

To conclude, the main takeaway is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulation has left victims of child protections and our own courts worse off. There was a legal regulation in place, but that legal regulation now needs to be put into our own UK law. There were supposed to be Brexit benefits, not exactly the opposite. Back in 2017, the Justice Committee said:

“We recommend that the Government should seek to maintain the closest possible cooperation with the EU on family justice matters, and in particular to retain a system for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.”

That is exactly we are talking about now.

Surely no one intended the UK’s withdrawal from the EU to remove our country’s ability to protect British children from abduction. The absence of this protection from the withdrawal agreement is yet another oversight in a deal that was far from “oven-ready” and that has exposed families such as that of my constituent, and of the constituents of other Members, to the pain and trauma of abduction. That cannot be left to diplomatic fixes and to the whim of which ambassador will work with us in another country; instead, there must be a legal fix for justice to be seen. It can and must be fixed.

15:28

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on securing the debate.

During my time as the Member of Parliament for Hendon, I have supported several parents in my constituency in cases of international child abduction. I have raised cases with the Foreign Office, Interpol and even the ambassadors of the countries involved. In every instance, apart from one, eventually we have been successful in getting the abducted children returned to the UK and reunited with their illegally deprived parent.

One case, however, remains outstanding—that of my constituent, Beth Alexander, and her estranged twin sons in Austria. Beth has been fighting for custody of her sons for the past 10 years. More recently, she has been fighting simply for contact, which she has been deprived of by Austria’s courts. I do not suggest that the UK should dictate to the courts of another country how they should run their legal system, any more than I would accept another country dictating to us how to run ours, but I am shocked and indeed disappointed that the Austrian system has permitted this case to perpetuate to the point where my constituent has had little or no contact with her sons for a number of years.

Beth continues to seek access to her children, as all of us here would expect, but the Austrian judge overseeing the case has not only rejected Beth’s legal efforts, but barred all contact between her and her children, saying that that would not be in the interests of those same children. That that should be happening in a fair, civilised country, which has signed The Hague convention on child abduction seems extraordinary.

The purpose of the convention is to secure the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed to, or retained in, a contracted state, back to their place of habitual residence. That is in order to protect them from the potentially harmful effects of international abduction by a parent, and to organise or secure the effective rights of access to the child. Regrettably, there seems to be an imbalance in the way in which contracting states apply the convention, and the deprived parent can find themselves confused by the process, sometimes in a country where they do not speak the language, are uncertain what actions they should take, and are at the mercy of foreign systems.

This afternoon, we have heard about different countries, including places occupied by foreign aggressors, in the case of Cyprus. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) for raising the case of his constituent, Mr Fletcher, and his trials and tribulations. We need to be aware that parents will do anything for their children, and it must be an almost Kafkaesque nightmare to be unable to access their child, because of another state’s legal system.

Contracting states should be required to be transparent in all their actions, but a real risk—as stated by other Members—is that the convention is used by some to protect the abducting parent’s actions. If parents are to have confidence in the fairness of the convention, it is time to consider whether it is meeting its aims and purpose effectively. From the stories we have heard this afternoon, I do not believe that that is happening. The case of my constituent is a tragedy, and it is time that it is brought to an end.

15:32

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like my colleagues, I believe that this is an important topic, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate.

First, I welcome the supporters of the group Hague Mothers, who are attending the debate. As we know, the 1980 Hague convention was intended to ensure the quick and safe return of children removed from their primary carers and taken abroad by their non-custodial parents. In that regard, the convention is highly effective. Hague Mothers, however, points out that about 75% of the parents brought before the courts are mothers with the primary care of their children, most of whom are fleeing domestic abuse or trying to protect their children from abuse.

There are limited options under the convention for mothers to oppose orders for the return of their children, and in most cases the courts decide that the child must return. The only defence available under the convention that could apply to domestic abuse is the article 13(b) defence that provides that the court may not order return of a child if the person opposing return establishes that

“there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

The courts of most contracting states interpret what constitutes a “grave risk” very strictly. Most cases of domestic abuse are not considered to give rise to a “grave risk” or “intolerable situation” for a child. In particular, it is almost impossible for mothers to prove that coercive and controlling behaviour, which has rightly been a criminal offence in England and Wales since 2015, constitutes the basis for an article 13(b) defence. Despite the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 stipulating that children who see or experience the effects of domestic abuse are victims in their own right, those same children can be and are returned to the country and often the care of the abusive parent.

Mothers escaping domestic abuse across borders are therefore left in the terrible position of having to choose whether to return with their children or to send their children back on their own. Most mothers decide to return and face continued, or worse, post-separation abuse; sometimes, they face destitution, homelessness, isolation or even criminal proceedings. They frequently have little or no family, social, financial or legal support, which provides a perfect context for continued abuse.

I want to bring the attention of the House and the Foreign Office to the case of my constituent Nataly Anderson, who is appealing for assistance from the UK Government in bringing her twin boys safely to the UK from Croatia.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. I take it that the hon. Member is not referring to a live case in UK courts.

[Mr Lord]

It is not a live case.

Nataly Anderson says that her British-Croatian twin boys, who are now nine years old, were taken back to Croatia on the pretext of a holiday by their father in 2016, just as the family had been establishing their life in England, including schooling for the children. She requests that the British Government escalate her complaint about Croatia with the bodies of the European Union, and warns that parental alienation claims can be used to cover up child abuse, including child abduction, to award custody to abducting or abusive parents, and to stop mothers and children moving to locations where they would have more favourable living conditions. She believes that is what has happened to her and her children in Croatia. She believes, further, that mothers and children who are not protected properly from domestic abuse have a human and legal right to asylum in another country, and that those rights should be upheld and enforced. She asks that the phenomenon of mothers and children fleeing across borders to escape from abuse be considered a humanitarian crisis and advocates for the approach advanced by the Hague Mothers project, as one that could be easily implemented and would do much to support the safety and welfare of mothers and children in this situation.

In her own words, Nataly Anderson says:

“This is now a child welfare matter. These are vulnerable children and it is unconscionable that the Croatian authorities have been violating their rights, wishes and welfare needs for so long. I am appealing for the urgent assistance of the UK Government in bringing my children safely home.”

She requests that the British Government raise the question of her case with all the relevant bodies of the European Union.

I have been trying to help and assist my constituent. I am grateful to the Foreign Office and the Passport Office for correspondence I have received. I know how assiduous our Foreign Office, embassy and consular officials are and often can be, but I appeal to the Foreign Office Ministers to have one further look at this case. I will not take up any more time today, but this is an important debate and I have been interested to hear about the other cases that hon. Members have brought forward today.

15:39

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship again, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on securing this important debate. His contribution was incredibly reasoned and he set a very measured tone for the debate, which appears to have cross-party support. He referred to his constituent and the disappointing engagement from the Polish authorities. My thoughts are with the family and the child; I sincerely hope they are reunited.

I have been taken aback and moved by the stories raised by hon. Members from across the House about the cases that their constituents have faced. The Public Gallery is pretty full as well. We must do whatever we can to ensure that we prevent these horrific crimes. Although I do not have children, I can imagine that child abduction is every parent’s worst nightmare, and that nightmare is worsened when there is an international dimension.

As the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Woking (Mr Lord) highlighted, the horror of an abduction is only intensified by the serious logistical and legal difficulties that parents face in being reunited with their children—be it the need to seek consular support or reliance on the legal system of a different country. The hon. Member for Bolsover was completely correct when he said that we cannot lose sight of the fact that children and individuals are at the heart of this issue. I genuinely hope that John Fletcher is reunited with Maya soon enough.

This is a global issue, impacting families across the world. Each abduction, regardless of where it occurs, is one too many, and causes untold levels of suffering and misery. The charity Missing People estimates that the approximate number of children who go missing in the UK each year is 215,000. However, that is only a snapshot of a global problem. Many countries, particularly those in the global south, do not have readily available statistics. This is an under-recognised issue, which is difficult for Governments across the globe to monitor.

The transnational nature of these crimes means that they are challenging to deal with effectively. Save the Children produced some incredibly alarming and distressing—but at the same time, vital to know—statistics about the scale of global child trafficking. That is not necessarily what we are talking about today, but it is important to highlight. The charity estimates that at any given time, as many as 1.2 million children are being trafficked, of which two thirds are girls. Many of those children are trafficked for use in forced labour or sexual exploitation. One missing or abducted child is one too many. This international crisis warrants a co-ordinated and international response.

Although we are here to discuss support for parents on international child abduction, we cannot ignore the fact that the problem is exacerbated by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Just last week, we reached an extraordinary milestone, whereby the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, including the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.

The anguish that is caused when a child is abducted is unimaginable. We must therefore use any available mechanisms to put an end to these abhorrent practices. Although we have conventions designed to tackle them, particularly The Hague convention on international child abduction, we still do not have universal adoption and ratification. Currently, only 101 countries have signed The Hague convention. As an international approach is needed, it is vital to ensure that countries that have not signed the convention, such as China, Kenya and Nigeria, do so.

If countries fail to sign up, families living in the United Kingdom lose the legal mechanisms to secure the prompt return of their child. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) stated, that has a significant impact on young children who are in the middle of custody battles between parents. We have recently seen that in Scotland, where a father has been unable to secure the return of his children. They are believed to be in north Cyprus, which, as non-signatory nation, has no obligation to co-operate with international authorities.

As the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) stated, there is a wider impact. These are children who have lives here: they go to school here; they have friends and family here. The hon. Lady said that she was raising a case not necessarily involving an immediate family member, but where there had been ramifications on the wider family.

I urge the UK Government to use their position in the international community to push for the universal ratification of the convention. It is not a fix-all solution; some argue its biggest shortcoming is its failure to anticipate that many abductors will be victims of domestic violence fleeing their abuser. However, any shortfalls merely emphasise the need for Governments to implement robust legislative measures that would ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not punished for fleeing an abusive relationship, and not accused of child abduction or abandonment because they decide to remove themselves and their child from an abusive environment.

The hon. Member for Woking also raised the issue of abusive relationships and domestic abuse, and I hope the Minister will acknowledge that in her response. He spoke about Nataly, and her children, who were taken to Croatia under the pretence of a holiday. As I have said to other Members, I sincerely hope that they are reunited.

England and Wales have specific legislation designed to tackle international parental child abduction. In Scotland, it is covered by its own Act—an Act to which the Scottish Government are currently considering amendments. The SNP remains committed to the need for reform in this area to ensure that parents of abducted children have the support they so desperately need, which is so important. It was distressing to hear the hon. Member for Hendon raise the case of Beth Alexander, who is not allowed contact with her children in Austria. This is clearly an issue that is impacting people from all across these four nations.

We must do all we can to eradicate child abduction, especially when there is that international impact. I am glad that we are here today as cross-party colleagues pressing for action in this area. This debate has been incredibly important in raising an often under-recognised issue that has devastating consequences for families.

15:47

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Cummins. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing this important debate and bringing his constituent’s distressing case to light. I welcome the productive contributions that have been made throughout the debate, and am reassured by their positive tone.

The parental abduction of a child is one of the most painful experiences any parent can endure. It is a hugely distressing matter for the family members affected. On behalf of the Labour party today, I send my heartfelt condolences to anyone who has suffered this ordeal, particularly the constituents whose cases were raised by the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and for Woking (Mr Lord).

As the leading charity in this area, Reunite International, sets out so eloquently,

“The modern world is increasingly interconnected.”

With the development of affordable international travel and new methods of instant communication with people across the world, it is only natural that relationships are becoming more and more international. Many children are born to parents who hold different nationalities, and some children are born in a country that is not the country of birth of either of their parents. Whole families relocate to new countries to explore new opportunities, and some parents end up living in different countries from their children for a variety of reasons.

Unfortunately, while this greater global interconnectivity can have its benefits, it also has its challenges and risks. For many parents, the increasingly international nature of their lives greatly adds to the unusual relationship tests and strains we all recognise and know—for example, when parents cannot agree on where they should live, when moving involves one parent giving up a promising career to support another, or when one parent does not want to move abroad at all. Naturally, for some, these trials and tribulations will eventually become too much, and relationships will break down and come to an end.

These situations are undoubtedly incredibly difficult, but in the majority of circumstances, the partners will come to a mutual understanding—a compromise—on who should accept the day-to-day responsibility of the child and what role the other parent will play in the child’s life. If there is an irreconcilable dispute, it might in some cases be necessary for the courts to decide what arrangements should be put in place, bearing in mind the age of the child and what would be in their best interests. In thankfully very few cases where no compromise can be reached, one parent may resort to taking unilateral action to forcibly move their child to a different country, without the consent or knowledge of the other parent. That is what we consider as international parental child abduction.

It is quite difficult to gauge just how prevalent this problem is in the UK today, although some data does exist from the last few years. For instance, using freedom of information requests, the British charity Action Against Abduction found that 227 children were abducted by their parents in 2016-17 in England and Wales alone. As for international child abductions, the most recent statistic I could find from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office comes from 2013-14—almost a decade ago—when 553 unique international child abduction cases were logged in the course of the year. However, it is difficult to get numbers on the scope of the problem today, which is disquieting for an issue of this importance.

To get a better sense of the problem, I spoke to the British charity Reunite, which informed me that it had logged 515 new abduction cases in 2022. Although that charity emphasises that that was not a perfect measure of the scope of the problem, it makes it clear that parental child abduction is a serious problem that requires a serious response, not only by us as a country but with our international allies.

Because there is no such thing as a “typical” family, there is also no such thing as a “typical” child abduction case. Yet in the broadest terms, an international parental child abduction occurs when a parent or other connected adult takes a child into another country against the wishes of another person who has a parental relationship with the child. That presents a unique enforcement problem, because the child is now in a country with different laws from those in the country that the parent who is making a claim to have them returned lives in. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner emphasised this situation in relation to Poland, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). These cases are serious and unique and require great care.

Luckily, the international community came together and, in an inspiring example of the international rule of law, created The Hague abduction convention in 1980. The convention standardises across countries rules for dealing with cases of child abduction and streamlines the procedure to reunite children with the parent who should have parental responsibility. Of course, as we have heard throughout today’s debate, there are problems with that framework. Those were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and also mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). Hon. Members have today presented the most serious problem: that too few countries have fully ratified The Hague abduction convention as we have done in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the specific rules regarding when a child becomes “habitually resident” for the purposes of the convention are not easy to understand and not always clearly applied. In some places, they are not able to be applied at all.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) about his constituent whose partner took their child to occupied north Cyprus, which is rightly not recognised as a state in international law and seems to have become a haven for those wishing to avoid law enforcement. My colleague suggested a number of measures, which I would ask the Minister to consider, but perhaps there needs to be a strategy for dealing with territories, such as north Cyprus, that are not internationally recognised as states.

Another problem, of course, lies with the support networks available to mothers and fathers who find themselves at the heart of child abduction cases. The FCDO can provide much-needed support to British nationals affected by international child abduction. Consular officers can advise left-behind parents of the most effective ways to contact the legal authorities of the country in question and make them aware of their parental responsibilities. Should that fail, the FCDO can liaise with local authorities and, with the permission of the UK courts, present authorities with court orders served in the UK. Consular officers can also recommend lawyers who may be able to support the parent, should the case require specialist legal advice. Finally, consular officers can put families in touch with trusted organisations that have become expert in this area and can offer specialised support and mediation services. Yet we must remember the limitations of what support FCDO consular officers can offer.

Although the FCDO can offer support and advice, we must remember that it is not a law enforcement body and nor can it offer its own legal advice. Similarly, although the FCDO can draw the attention of foreign courts to legal orders issued in the UK, it is unable to enforce these orders in foreign courts. Likewise, it is unable to compel foreign jurisdictions to accept or comply with legal obligations, whether in national or international law. This leaves a gaping hole in our national response mechanism to these types of events, particularly when children are taken unlawfully to a country outside The Hague convention.

With that in mind, I look forward to hearing what the Minister feels the Government can do to improve the support that we can offer parents and families who have a child that has been abducted. What more can we do as a country domestically to support parents in this situation? Might the provision of additional funding to wonderful charities such as Reunite and Action Against Abduction, who are so brilliant in this area, be part of the solution? Should the Government be doing more with our international allies to revisit The Hague convention and update it, in order to close its loopholes and better reflect the realities of modern family life? Could the Government put more effort into increasing the ratification of The Hague convention to ensure greater global coverage of its provisions? Finally, will the Government follow Labour’s lead in calling for a legal right to consular advice for British nationals in distress that would replace the current discretionary consular advice?

I thank colleagues from all parties for their thoughtful and measured contributions to this serious debate. As we have heard many times today, for a parent there is nothing more important than knowing that they will have continued and safe access to their child, whatever country they or their child find themselves in. The current international efforts to achieve this are laudable, but we all agree that more can and must be done to prevent more families from suffering the enormous pain of child abduction.

15:56

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing this debate on an important and difficult subject. I thank him for the work he does with the important and effective all-party parliamentary group for children.

I am grateful to other hon. Members for their contributions; they have represented their constituents with impassioned speeches. I fear that too many colleagues have felt as frustrated as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). Indeed, I have had a number of such cases in my time as an MP.

I will try to respond to all the points that have been raised, but to protect the interests of individual children I will limit my comments to Government actions so as not to share any personal information about specific cases. Hon. Members should continue to contact Ministers if they wish to discuss their individual cases in more detail, and my officials are always available to discuss details privately, or in writing if that is more appropriate.

International parental child abduction is heartbreaking and highly distressing for all those affected, and the UK Government take it extremely seriously. We are a party to The Hague convention of 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction, and we operate the convention with over 75 countries in order to facilitate prompt returns. Ultimately, of course, decisions about returns are a matter for the courts in the country to which the child has been taken. Such decisions will depend on a number of factors, including habitual residence, as colleagues have set out, and whether the child objects to the return. Decisions about the long-term future of the child are to be made where the child is habitually resident.

The UK has clear measures in place to seek to prevent international parental child abduction in the first place. Concerned parents can get a specific issue order or prohibited steps order to prevent a child from being taken out of the country. Our courts can order the Passport Office to temporarily not issue a British passport to a child at risk of abduction, and our police can issue a port alert if a parent is concerned that their child is likely to be taken abroad without their consent within the next 48 hours, and that will remain active for 28 days.

Our charity partner, Reunite International, which we part-fund, has published prevention guides to help parents to navigate the options and support available to them, and those have been translated into several different languages to assist families across the UK.

When a child with British links has been abducted and taken abroad, our consular staff across the world are trained to provide ongoing support to those involved—work that is incredibly challenging for them. I have met many on my travels and they are, to a man and woman, exceptional in their commitment to try to support and find solutions. They are able to provide families with practical advice about travel, local customs, services and procedures. Of course, they can put families in touch with partner organisations, such as Reunite International, with which we work closely, to offer such specialised support. Our staff can also facilitate in-country contact with relevant authorities and courts to ensure, for example, that those courts are aware of any UK court orders. Where appropriate, the FCDO can officially “express an interest”—that is a formal term—in a case with the relevant authorities in-country.

As colleagues have mentioned, where a child has been abducted to or retained in a country with which the UK operates the 1980 Hague convention, and an application for the child’s return is made, the relevant UK central authority will liaise closely with foreign counterpart central authorities and the applicant until the final decision on return has been made.

As the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) has highlighted, the FCDO is not a law enforcement body, so there are limits to the steps that we can take. We cannot interfere in court proceedings in another country and we are unable to compel foreign jurisdictions to enforce UK court orders. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) outlined, it would not be appropriate to be seen to be trying to influence foreign courts by expressing a preference for a particular outcome. We cannot physically rescue a child from abroad, or get involved in any illegal attempts to bring a child back to the UK.

We recognise that not all countries with which we operate the 1980 Hague convention operate it effectively. There can be lengthy delays in the return of abducted children to the UK, and in those cases we lobby Governments at the most senior levels, and make it clear that the UK expects both the spirit and the letter of the convention to be enforced.

The hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) raised the issue of north Cyprus in particular. I am afraid that the UK does not operate The Hague convention with north Cyprus, with which we have no formal relationship, and it does not share any information with our high commission on minors subject to UK court orders. Our high commissioner is therefore unable to ensure that those minors are safeguarded.

If the UK does not operate the 1980 Hague convention with a country to which a child has been abducted, the FCDO is still able to provide some assistance. We can, of course, provide a list of English-speaking lawyers in-country and can give basic practical information about the customs and procedures of the country to which the child has been taken. If necessary, we can support and offer guidance on finding accommodation locally as parents try to find solutions. As I have said, where appropriate, the FCDO can express an interest in the swift resolution of court cases, but we cannot interfere with court proceedings.

The FCDO can also help with contacting the relevant in-country authorities and organisations when the left-behind parent is overseas. If that parent would like the FCDO so to do, it can contact the relevant UK police force to ask about progress in tracing an abducted child and find out whether they have contacted the police overseas to assist in finding that child or children.

I will try to tackle some of the specific issues about certain countries that have been raised by hon. Members, but only in a general sense, without highlighting particular cases.

[Andy Slaughter]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about TRNC, and I am not sure whether she said that the police would talk to the law enforcement authorities there. As I have said, there clearly has been co-operation in a number of respects. Can she say any more about those contacts? I understand that we are not going to establish diplomatic relations, and I am not advocating that, but at the moment the prospects are bleak because there is literally no redress. Can she shed any more light on what can be done?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, the reality, I am afraid, is that we do not have a relationship because that country is not formally recognised. We do not have any formal mechanisms with which to work.

In response to questions about specific countries, and without referring to specific cases, Poland is a close partner in many ways, as my hon. Friend for Bolsover set out, and especially in recent months as it has supported Ukraine following Russia’s illegal invasion. We are working very closely together in lots of matters relating to that. It is one of the countries with whom we have the largest number of Hague return orders, and we recognise that Poland has not enforced the 1980 Hague convention return order on several occasions. As affected hon. Members will know, we have raised that with Ministers in the Polish Ministry of Justice at every available opportunity, and we will continue to do so. Indeed, the Minister for Security raised those cases with the Polish Ministry of Justice just a few weeks ago. We are also planning exchanges between our experts to share knowledge of the management of Hague return orders, and we are co-ordinating with other countries that share our concerns about Poland’s enforcement of return orders.

A number of Members have raised the question of Brussels II. I am afraid the reality is that Brussels II does not provide a cure-all for these troubling cases, and current EU member states are still not able to solve similar cases through that mechanism. The reality is that we have non-return situations, which are difficult to manage.

We support countries that are struggling to enforce the convention owing to capacity constraints. For example, today in Brazil, our consular staff, along with a representative of our judiciary and staff from the Central Authority, which represents England and Wales, are participating in a knowledge-building conference on parental child abduction, which we are part funding. Delegates from the US, Canada, Australia and the UK will share knowledge that will help Brazilian judges to navigate parental child abduction cases and bring them to a swift conclusion. That builds on work we have undertaken over the past six months with our charity partner, Reunite International, which has provided training in mediation between parents as an alternative remedy to formal court processes for judges in Brazil.

In Japan, UK officials recently met legal representatives in a successful Hague convention return case, as part of our ongoing commitment to learn lessons on how different countries undertake Hague 1980 proceedings, in order to improve the support we provide to left-behind parents and to try to resolve more cases as needed.

Supporting British nationals overseas remains the primary public service of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We continually seek to improve the professionalism, scope and nature of our assistance, in accordance with the Vienna convention on consular relations, and we compare our consular services with those provided by comparable countries.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked whether there is legislation we should consider, and I will ask my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), within whose portfolio the matter formally sits, to invite Members with concerns to perhaps discuss it with him at a policy level in due course.

Our expert consular staff at home and abroad work extremely hard to support victims of parental child abduction, and we take every case very seriously. We recognise absolutely that the situation is very distressing for those involved, and our staff work with empathy and do their very best to offer the help needed to resolve these cases as quickly as possible.

Consular staff are sadly not lawyers, medics, police detectives or social workers, but they try to do all they can to ensure that British citizens have the information and support they need to help them to deal with the incredibly difficult situation that they face. They use their expert knowledge of the countries in which they operate to try to help parents to navigate new legal systems, signpost them towards support services and ensure that ongoing support is provided to left-behind parents.

I know that, for every parent still waiting for the safe return of their child, this is an impossibly difficult situation. The FCDO, with all the resources we have, will continue to do what it can, in-country and with other countries equally frustrated by non-compliance with The Hague convention, to try to reduce the number of cases still on the books and bring those children home.

16:08

[David Simmonds]

May I start by sharing an apology and a thank you for the patience shown by the many who have come to listen to today’s debate? We have had to break off a number of times to vote, but it is great that Members have returned to the Chamber and continued to engage fully in proceedings.

I also say thank you to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Woking (Mr Lord), and the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for their contributions to the debate. I was heartened to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon that he had enjoyed some success in supporting constituents with returning abducted children to the UK. Particularly when dealing with such a difficult topic, it is really positive to hear examples of that.

The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to the challenges for parents where children have been removed to countries that have different laws from those that apply where the parent is habitually resident. In many of those cases, and certainly in my constituent’s case, the country does not have different laws; it is part of an international legal framework, intended to mutually recognise each other’s orders. However, the challenge is that there are examples of countries—some of which are part of that framework, such as Croatia, Austria and Poland, and some of which, such as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, are not—that are simply not fulfilling their obligations.

Due process is totally clear: a court has found in a particular way, and the challenge now is ensuring that the outcome of that legal process is respected. As the hon. Member for Putney referenced, some countries, such as the UK and Australia, are seen as exemplars for respecting their international obligations and ensuring that children are returned, usually within a six-week period of the order needing to be enforced. In Poland, the rate is around 5%, which demonstrates that there is a significant challenge, which is a consistent theme running through the cases of many in the Public Gallery today.

I will conclude by addressing a point that a number of Members have highlighted: the enormous burden that this situation places on family members. We have heard lots of examples of people, including my constituent, who had to sell their homes to finance the legal battle simply to enforce a legal judgment that should be respected under international law. We have heard examples of the effect of that on people’s health and wellbeing, and on the wider family, grandparents and extended family members.

What is clear is that, while my constituent has my absolute deepest sympathy—as a father of young children, I feel for him—he does not need my sympathy. What he needs is for us to ensure that the political and diplomatic challenge of persuading countries that are our allies to carry out their obligations under international law happens. We must not allow a situation to persist for a moment longer where too many parents, who may be part of shared custody arrangements, have their children unjustly deprived of their loving care.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of support for parents affected by international child abduction.

16:11

Sitting suspended.

Family Court Reform and CAFCASS

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and family court reform.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins.

Family breakdown is never easy. Disputes are inevitable and often bitter. Children are caught in the middle of a tug of war between parents. In those conflicts, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, or CAFCASS, plays a key role. Child arrangements orders, prohibited steps orders and a host of other key rulings in the family courts often hinge on the reports provided by CAFCASS and the assessments carried out by its workforce. CAFCASS is in desperate need of reform, and it requires funding to protect children subject to care proceedings.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 stated clearly the role of CAFCASS. First and foremost, it has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children affected by family courts proceedings, yet it is falling far short of the standards required. In 2020, the Ministry of Justice published a damning report on the performance of CAFCASS. The findings were shocking, including failures running deep into every area of the organisation’s work, poor handling of domestic abuse allegations, wilful disregard of children’s voices and an obsessive pro-contact culture that puts unfit parents’ demands ahead of children’s best interests. That was the Government’s own verdict.

The reality is that that is simply an exacerbation of a problem that has engulfed the family courts since 2010. The Government’s cruel decision to remove legal aid from the majority of such cases has led to ugly and disordered scenes in courtrooms nationwide, as parents are forced to represent themselves without sufficient support or understanding of how the system is supposed to function.

Diminishing access to legal aid has only caused further delays in the courts, and denies victims justice. To address the backlog, the Government should properly fund civil legal aid and restore legal aid for early advice for family cases, so cases can be resolved more efficiently.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

There is often a financial disparity between parties. Sometimes, parties use the issue of parental alienation to drag things out longer and to add more expense to the disadvantaged party in those proceedings. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that CAFCASS, the courts and judges were better trained in the issue of parental alienation and how it is used as a tactic to prevent court cases dragging on longer than they need to?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I absolutely agree, and parental alienation is an issue I will come to later in my speech. Reform is desperately needed.

Will the Minister outline what steps the Ministry of Justice is taking to increase the funding of legal aid? Will he update us on when we can expect the civil legal aid review?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is right to bring this debate forward and to highlight the disadvantages of legal aid. Does she agree that when it comes to ensuring that every person in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the same opportunity of representation, the Government must step in to support those people who do not have money and cannot pay for the legal representation to which they are entitled? That should happen not only in England and Wales; the Minister should endeavour to have discussions with the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland so that people there have the same legal aid opportunities.

[Taiwo Owatemi]

Absolutely. Proper legal representation needs to be available to everyone in the United Kingdom.

The large backlogs in the family court are creating delays and uncertainty for families and, most alarmingly of all, for vulnerable children. No child should have to witness this sort of conflict, anger and grief played out before a judge. The children caught up in these cases are now suffering as a result of constant failings in leadership from Ministers in this Government.

The most damning aspect of our family court system is false accusations of parental alienation. Too often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) says, a wealthy parent can, in effect, purchase custody of a child through certain legal loopholes. Denounced by the United Nations as a “regressive pseudo-theory”, parental alienation is an argument whereby one parent claims that another is making false abuse claims or is otherwise manipulating the child’s view out of hostility towards their ex-partner. The concept has little to no evidence to support it, but is none the less often accepted, resulting in children being placed with an abusive parent.

I pay tribute to the team at the University of Manchester, whose recent research has revealed the dark and rotten roots of that commonly employed tactic. It was invented 40 years ago as a means of aiding perpetrators to cover up the physical and sexual violence to which they had subjected their spouses and children, yet in Britain the strategy is being given free rein in our family courts. Not only are utterly unqualified individuals being allowed to testify as supposed experts in such cases, but CAFCASS has overseen the rise in such false allegations.

I have spoken with many constituents about their treatment by the family courts. One case summarises everything that is wrong with CAFCASS: the dangers of parental alienation and the risks posed by a blind insistence on contact even when a parent is evidently unfit to have any responsibility over a child. My constituent married a foreign national a decade ago. They had one son, who is now eight years old. Until recently, he was being brought up by his mother in the comfort of a loving, caring home alongside his extended family. Having had the courage to escape the sexual and physical domestic abuse inflicted by her ex-husband, my constituent was granted sole custody of her son. Occasional contact with the father was enforced by the court and complied with by my constituent, despite the clear distress that those sessions caused to the child, yet, when the arrangements broke down, the father was able to launch false alienation proceedings against his ex-wife to remove the boy from her custody. That was supported every step of the way by CAFCASS. He has now succeeded in depriving my constituent of her only child, despite the rigorous investigations by social services at Coventry City Council that concluded that she was an exemplary mother.

Thanks to the deeply imbedded pro-contact culture of CAFCASS, long since identified but allowed to run unreformed for years, an eight-year-old boy is now in the clutches of a man who beat and sexually assaulted my constituent throughout their marriage. Despite mountains of evidence proving his unfitness to have custody of the child, everything was pushed and CAFCASS took his side, placing the blame on the boy’s mother.

What is perhaps most concerning is that despite the child’s distress, a litany of domestic abuse and the detailed reports compiled by Coventry City Council in support of my constituent’s parenting were all cast aside in the family courts. Deploying parental alienation allegations as his chief legal tactic, the boy’s father has now won sole custody, leaving my constituent utterly bereft.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The interests of the child should be paramount—that was written into the Children Act 1989, many years ago—but there seems to have been a clear failure of that policy. Allegations of parental alienation often cause great distress not just for the parent, but for the child at the centre of the case. Does my hon. Friend agree that in cases such as the one she describes, CAFCASS needs to return to focusing on the paramount interests of the child?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

Absolutely. The role of CAFCASS is to protect the child during family proceedings, but it seems to be failing in that role.

The tragedy is being multiplied in the thousands nationwide. A self-reported survey suggests that allegations of parental alienation are made in up to 70% of family court cases in England and Wales. The scandal has been allowed to go on for far too long. It is time for CAFCASS and the family courts to be held accountable. When will the Government legislate to bar unqualified so-called experts from the family courts? When will guidance be published for judges on the admissibility of family alienation allegations as evidence in these cases?

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I cannot thank the hon. Member enough for securing the debate and I am only sorry that I cannot stay to give a speech myself. I had a long career in family law. I have acted for mums and dads, husbands and wives, and families where domestic abuse has ripped them apart, and I have seen courts used not only to help people, but to continue the abuse and control of some. What the hon. Member’s constituents would have experienced, no doubt, is that a lot of the delay plays into the hands of parents who want to use the courts, in particular if they have the child living with them at the time. One thing I have been campaigning for is to get the Ministry of Justice and the Government to focus on keeping cases out of court, especially where litigants are in person, where it is safe to do so. That will free up court time to deal with the more complex cases that she is talking about more quickly and urgently, so that we have the resource and proper space for CAFCASS and people such as that. Does she agree that that is important, and will she join me for a coffee to discuss it? I would love to get her on board.

[Taiwo Owatemi]

The hon. Member speaks from her varied experience. Absolutely, I am more than happy to support her in her campaign and to have a cup of coffee to talk about it in further detail—[Interruption.] I am sure everyone in the Chamber would love to have a cup of coffee to talk about it as well.

I ask the Minister, why has CAFCASS remained largely unreformed almost three year after its shameful shortcomings were exposed for all to see? I wrote to the Ministry of Justice about my constituent’s case on 2 September 2020. It is a damning indictment that CAFCASS has failed to make any progress in the matter. Will the Minister therefore meet me to discuss the case further?

Until the promised reforms of CAFCASS are completed, until parents can be sure of proper representation and support in the courtroom, and until the family courts start to put the needs of children ahead of the vanity of wealthy individuals who can rely on expensive solicitors to exploit a broken and underfunded system, the tragedies will only multiply. Inaction is no longer an option—frankly, it never was.

16:42

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I stand here to give a general primal scream on behalf of what I will say are thousands of cases that I have seen over the past seven years of victims of domestic abuse being, not to put too fine a point on it, abused by the family courts. We allow the system to go on largely in secret, shrouded in total secrecy, but it is opening up slightly now thanks to the efforts of some incredibly good investigative journalism and some incredibly brave victims of rape who allowed their cases to be the test cases to enable that transparency.

I cannot sit in front of another mother who has been beaten, raped, abused, coerced, and has had a court in our country take her children from her and given them to the man who raped, beat and abused her. It must be about five or six years ago that Women’s Aid produced a report called, “Nineteen Child Homicides”, which cites cases from the previous 10 years of 19 children murdered following the decision of a family court to place them with a violent and abusive father. I pay huge tribute to the families who were involved.

We are two years on from the harm review—it might be longer, but the covid years make it hard to remember how many years it has been; I am really only 39, because I do not count the covid years. Everyone working in this building was pleased to see the harm review, which came out of a very extensive piece of work by the Government. I take my hat off to them for doing it. However, it dodged one vital issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), to whom I am grateful for securing the debate: the issue of a pro-contact culture. We need fundamentally to undermine the idea that it is better for a child to have contact with both parents when one of them is abusive and violent. Often people will say to me, “These people aren’t necessarily abusive and violent towards the children”, but I think you are a bad father if you are abusive and violent towards the mother of your child. That is fundamental for me.

In the vast majority of cases that I have handled in my lifetime, which are into the tens of thousands, mothers want fathers to have some form of contact with, or access to, their child. It is not until we come to the family courts that that becomes completely and utterly distorted, and women are cited for being insane. If I had been raped, beaten and abused for decades, I might take medication for anxiety. That has not happened to me, but I do take medication for anxiety, which could be used to remove a child from a mother. She will be called mad, hysterical or bad in a family court, even though social services might consider her to be an exemplary mother. In the family courts, fancy lawyers—as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), it is unfortunately still the case in the world we live in that men have more money than women—argue that women are mad.

We have allowed the situation to get to the point that any woman who tries to protect her child from a violent and abusive partner will be accused of parent alienation, which will work against her, so what we are now asking women to do is not safeguard their children in order to have access to them. There is a perverse incentive in the system that says, “If you and your children are being abused by this man, don’t mention it, because if you do, you will have parent alienation thrown at you.” There is absolutely no efficacy in what is being described as parent alienation.

On efficacy, I wish to point out that the people on whom we rely to make the judgment of parent alienation might as well be my milkman. That is literally how qualified they are. My milkman is a lovely fella who has six kids, and I would trust him more. We have specialists being paid huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, and operating in courts across our country—with a specific focus, it seems, on the south, which I presume is because people have more money to spend on such things down here—who are not psychologists. It might as well be my milkman, but they are saying, “Yes, we’re seeing signs of parent alienation”, and there is no regulation of this. The head of the family courts division has made it incredibly clear that it is up to the Government to deal with this issue. It is up to the Government to ensure that there is regulation of expert milkmen—I feel like I am taking milkmen down now, but they are perfectly good people—and expert witnesses in our family courts.

[Siobhan Baillie]

It is always important to listen to the hon. Member. One of the things that the president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has done recently is open up the family courts for reporting pilots. That is an incredibly good step, because it will shine a light not only on what is going on with people having representation or not having representation, but on the experts who are being put forward. Even though there is work to be done, there is active effort from the top of the family division to make changes, and I hope she can see that.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. Sir James Munby, in his final year as head of the family division, seemed to do a sort of swansong in which he said, “I am going to do something about this, recognising that the many brilliant legal minds who work in the family court know where the problems are.” In fact, it is not just victims I am representing and speaking for in this primal scream, but the hundreds of solicitors and judges who get in touch with me all the time to tell me about the terrible, broken problems in our family court system.

As McFarlane has laid out, the Government have to undertake a piece of work. The family court’s hands are tied, and it is for the Government—the ball is in their court—to say what they are going to do about unregulated experts. Members should bear in mind that I am a genuine expert on domestic abuse, with years and years of training, and I have been refused entry to family courts when I have sought to attend with victims—maybe I would get in if I did a milk round.

I am fairly certain that, in my time in this building, I will, alongside others, advance changes around domestic abuse. I feel confident about that, but I am starting to lose confidence that we will ever do enough to change the family courts. The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) mentioned the pilots, which I am sure the Minister will address. They are just pilots at the moment, and they seem to be working well, but I think that they need to go further. There needs to be a change into the gladiatorial; there needs to be much more sense of ongoing inquiry throughout such cases.

Practice direction 12J, which states that there is no presumption of contact in cases of domestic abuse, is not worth the paper that it is written on because it is hardly ever used. If it is not being used in cases involving convicted rapists, we have to ask ourselves serious questions about whether the situation that we have at the moment is working.

I just want to know from the Government when we can expect the outcome of the review into a pro-contact culture, and what the hold-up is. Why has a single point, on pro-contact culture, taken two years in the harms review? I have written to the Justice Secretary about this, and I have not yet heard back—I will cut him some slack, because it was only about two weeks ago, when McFarlane said it—but I also want to know when we will stop the use of unregulated experts in our family courts.

My point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West began with, was about legal aid. Although the Government have—through an amendment that I moved initially—stopped the cross-examination of victims by perpetrators in the family court, I am afraid that the roll-out of advocates who are meant to be doing that work seems to be underfunded, and the work is an unattractive prospect, meaning that, from what I can tell—from the cases that I have seen and reviewed, and from the members of the Family Law Bar Association I speak to—the system is faltering at the moment.

I want to know and feel that there is some progress, and that I will not get another email— inevitably I will tomorrow, but maybe not next week or next year—about a mother who has been beaten and abused, has just had her child removed, and is allowed only supervised contact because some man has managed manipulate the systems in our country to make them feel as if she is mad and bad, and that he is an absolute angel. If I had a penny for every such case that I have seen, I could rebuild the family courts.

16:54

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is an extra special pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Cummins. I apologise to you and the House for arriving a few minutes late for this debate. Similarly, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), but I congratulate her on securing this important debate.

We have had a couple of powerful and persuasive speeches today that demonstrate the urgent need for further reform to the family justice system so that victims of abuse and the children at the centre of proceedings are given the protection from harm and risk of harm that they both need and deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke in her usual strong and blunt fashion in defence of the victims and the pleas for change. I do not know if my speech will add any additional value to what we have heard this afternoon, but I say to her that she should not lose confidence in the work she has championed in this place, because she needs to be doing it. I never thought I would manage to make my hon. Friend blush, but today I have succeeded.

It has been more than two years since the Ministry of Justice published the harm report, “Assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases”. The panel that wrote the report said that the extensive evidence submitted to it

“unveiled deep-seated and systemic problems with how the family courts identify, assess and manage risk to children and adults.”

While we of course welcome the changes brought in by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including the ban on cross-examination of victims of abuse by their perpetrators in the family and civil courts, it is clear that much more needs to be done.

Women’s Aid conducted research with specialist support services and survivors of abuse who have been involved in private child proceedings since the Government’s implementation plan for the harm report recommendations was published in 2020. It found that the optimism and hope that the publication of the report had brought have been destroyed by Government inaction and that lack of progress on the report’s findings has left them disillusioned and disappointed.

Women’s Aid also found that for many family court practitioners and professionals, their understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour and how perpetrators can and do use family court proceedings as another form of post-separation abuse is still insufficient. Survivors of domestic abuse are left feeling as if their experiences are ignored. The report from Women’s Aid notes that they feel that

“as mothers they are trapped within a continuum of blame, facing contradictory accusations both of failing to protect their children from the perpetrator, and failing to facilitate contact between child and perpetrator.”

The report also identifies serious concerns with parental alienation, and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West and for Birmingham, Yardley have addressed that this afternoon. Indeed, several of the survivors Women’s Aid spoke to in its research have had their children removed from them as a result of accusations of so-called parental alienation or alienating behaviours when they raise concern about unsafe contact arrangements for their child.

As we have heard today, this apparent belief system has come under increased international scrutiny. Indeed, several countries now refuse to recognise it as a result of the risk it poses of placing a child with an abusive parent. Following a recent survey of more than 4,000 court users in England and Wales, it is estimated that allegations of parental alienation are made in nearly 70% of family court cases in England and Wales. That astonishing number underlines the necessity for immediate Government action. In these cases, unregulated, self-declared experts, such as milkmen, are invited to give evidence, even though they have little to nothing in the way of formal qualifications to do so. In fact, they may have a vested financial interest in diagnosing so-called alienation, which they may then be paid to treat. Only last month, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the family division, commented in the case of Re C that there was a “need for rigour” and “clarity” when instructing psychologists to give expert evidence in family cases, but claimed that stricter regulation was ultimately for Parliament to take action on.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West on bringing this matter before the House, and I am aware that she has made other representations to the Ministry of Justice on the matter, to which the Minister has responded, claiming:

“It is a matter for the judiciary to determine which experts may be instructed to provide evidence in family law proceedings.”

This impasse is totally unacceptable. There is a potentially high risk to already vulnerable children in this area. Loud alarm bells are being sounded, and the Government should be taking action now to investigate. Instead, they are once again demonstrating the dangerous inaction and lack of forward planning that have become their hallmark.

On the other hand, Labour wholeheartedly supports the calls for an urgent inquiry into the use of unregulated psychological experts in the family courts made by the Victims’ Commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, alongside lawyers, academics and charity leaders. My colleagues, the shadow Minister for victims and youth justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and the shadow Minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, have co-signed those representations to the Ministry of Justice.

In government, Labour will put Jade’s law on the statute book, ensuring that men who kill their partners will automatically have parental responsibility removed so they are not able to have a say in their children’s lives. That will prevent them from continuing to perpetuate controlling and coercive behaviour on their children and the victim’s family, who are likely to be caring for those children. Will the Minister introduce that law?

The Minister’s Department has been active in addressing concerns regarding post-separation abuse through the family courts in recent years, as evidenced by the publication of the harm report in 2020 and the Domestic Abuse Act, which received Royal Assent in 2021. Why is the Department stopping there when it was beginning to take some really positive steps forward? Will the Minister commit today to action that will help to begin to resolve the ongoing crisis in this area?

I now turn to the wider challenges faced by our family courts. As across the rest of the courts system, the backlog in family courts is unacceptably high and, as a result, vulnerable children are left in precarious situations for months on end. The most recent data shows that private children’s law cases are taking on average 45 weeks —nearly a year—to reach a final order. Cuts to legal aid, which others have raised today, in family cases have led to a huge increase in the number of litigants in person, who have been forced to represent themselves and end up costing the Government a significant amount because they take up much more of a judge’s sitting time than a represented individual normally would.

Back in November 2021, I was pleased to hear the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, when he appeared before the Justice Committee say that he was

“in the market for something quite drastic and bold”,

particularly in private law family cases, but I am sad to say that ambition appears to have disappeared. Instead, the backlog in the family court continues to rise, creating substantial anxiety and stress for families and, most importantly, for vulnerable children, at what is already an extremely difficult time in their lives.

I have spent a lot of time recently reflecting on how we can reduce the pain and suffering of going through the family court process. The debate we are having feels particularly timely, as I have met a number of family court practitioners, including at the north-east family drug and alcohol court, which I visited on Monday. I was hugely impressed by the work it is doing. I saw at first hand the value and benefit of a greater use of non-adversarial and problem-solving approaches in the family court.

I also had positive feedback regarding the pathfinder pilots in Dorset and north Wales, which are exploring a more inquisitorial approach in private family proceedings. An additional strength of the pathfinder model is that CAFCASS does substantially more up-front work in the process, which the court benefits from as it moves through the proceedings, but we have heard today about the resource challenges for CAFCASS that would currently prevent this positive work from being rolled out nationally.

Finally, many experts I speak to stress the importance of access to early legal advice in these cases, to ensure they end up in the most appropriate part of the system. One arm of that is ensuring that cases that do not need to go to court are kept out of it by early referral to mediation services and alternative dispute resolution. The other arm is ensuring that those cases that do need to go through the legal process are referred to it at as early a stage as possible.

These cases deal with challenging and highly emotive circumstances. Even the most straightforward family separation causes pain and anxiety. The impact these cases have, especially for the children involved in them, can last a lifetime. I hope the Minister will provide reassurances that the urgent issues raised today are being worked on by his Department, but also I hope that campaigners can take confidence in the fact that Labour takes these issues extremely seriously and fully supports the call for an urgent inquiry into the regulation of experts in the family courts.

17:03

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for securing a debate on this important subject.

The family court must always act in the best interests of children. CAFCASS plays an integral role in England, both representing children in the family court and advising the court on what is safe and in children’s best interests. It is CAFCASS that ensures that children’s voices are at the heart of the family justice system. CAFCASS is the largest employer of qualified social workers in England and supports over 140,000 children each year, speaking up for those children at what can be an extremely difficult time.

I appreciate that Members wish to raise cases where things do not go right, but it is also important to pay tribute to the work that CAFCASS does, as well as the hard-working social workers who support 140,000 children. It is wrong to suggest that the whole of CAFCASS is failing children in this country. That is simply not fair on the organisation, and the social workers who have a very difficult job to do. That is not to say that mistakes are not made or that things do not go wrong, but to paint the whole service as a failure is simply not correct.

[Taiwo Owatemi]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Freer]

I will make some progress. I point Members to the recent Ofsted inspection in January this year. Ofsted said that CAFCASS was “highly effective”. The service has meant that the children at greatest risk continue to be promptly allocated a children’s guardian or family court adviser. I do not take issue with the problems that hon. Members have raised, but I wanted to put on record that the description of CAFCASS as a dystopian organisation getting everything wrong is simply unfair. There are many people there working in very difficult situations, doing a lot of good work for children.

I will move on to some of the things that we are doing to ensure that CAFCASS has capacity and funding. On additional funding and coping with the pandemic backlogs, we have ensured that the CAFCASS budget was increased by over £8.4 million, to a baseline of £140 million. We are also ensuring that the sitting days for both elements of the family court are increased.

I do not want to dwell on the particularly dry bits of what the family courts have to do. I appreciate that Members have raised specific questions, which I will do my best to answer. Where I cannot answer them, I will see that my colleague, Lord Bellamy, who covers this portfolio, provides more detailed answers. If hon. Members wish to meet Lord Bellamy to go through the issues in more depth, I am happy to facilitate that. I appreciate that I do not have the depth of knowledge that other Members or Lord Bellamy have.

We spend £813 million on civil legal aid. In the last couple of months, we have increased the amount by £30 million, just to support those people who need legal aid in a situation of domestic violence. It is not true to say that we are leaving victims of domestic violence without legal aid.

I recognise that long-term reform of the family court is needed, and that many of the issues are wide-ranging. Ensuring that vulnerable court users, such as those who have experienced domestic abuse, continue to be supported is complex. We want to continue to build on the response to the 2020 report on the risk of harm in private law proceedings. We have delivered on all the short-term commitments in the harm panel report. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 prohibits the cross-examination of victims by perpetrators, and gives victims of domestic abuse automatic eligibility for special measures in the family courts.

In December 2022, the Family Procedure Rule Committee agreed rule and practice direction changes to ensure that independent domestic violence advisers and other specialist support services can accompany a party into court. Those changes are expected to come into force on 6 April. The Government continue to work closely with the domestic abuse sector to ensure that survivors’ voices remain central to family court reform. I look forward to the upcoming launch of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s monitoring and reporting pilot, which will ensure that we continue to understand the impact of family court proceedings on children and families.

I will touch on a couple of issues raised.

[Alex Cunningham]

Before the Minister continues, could we go back to the issue of legal aid? Not everybody in family court proceedings can qualify for legal aid, but will he conduct an assessment of the time that has been wasted in courts because litigants in person take up so much more of judges’ time? It would save time, and the Government money, if those people had access to legal aid.

[Mike Freer]

As always, I will give very careful consideration to any request from the hon. Gentleman, and I will report back to him on what we can do on that issue. He mentioned family mediation. Obviously, a big driver of the reform is the desire to keep families out of a court process that is not helpful, and away from an adversarial process. The investment of about £7.3 million in providing mediation vouchers has been a success; it is working.

[Jess Phillips]

Would the Minister enter, or want anyone in his family to enter, into mediation with their rapist?

[Mike Freer]

I will tread very carefully here. I grew up in a home with domestic violence, so I understand the issue quite closely. I am very careful to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are able to get justice, but I also accept—[Interruption.] No, hang on a moment; the hon. Lady should let me finish, before she judges what I am going to say. I personally would not want that to happen. That is not my decision. Unfortunately, as the hon. Lady knows, the justice system is never fair. It is often too “processy”. The point she makes has been well landed, and they are points that we will continue to discuss with the judiciary. The process, as she knows, is not always balanced, and it is our job to try to remove imbalances. The point has been well made, and I will ensure that it is conveyed to the judiciary.

I turn to the other issues that the hon. Lady and other Members have raised. On the use of experts, we clearly have a difference of opinion. First of all, the regulation of experts is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, and I am more than happy to take the matter up with the relevant Minister.

The ability, or inability, to refuse a so-called expert is a matter for judicial discretion. If the judiciary does not believe that a person is an expert, it is up to them to say, “We do not accept them as an expert.” Regulation is a separate issue; as I say, I am more than happy to take that up with colleagues in DHSC. However, the judiciary can reject what we would call, in common parlance, so-called experts.

I turn to the presumption of parental involvement. This is an important and complex issue, and we want to ensure that any recommendations resulting from the review are based on a solid understanding of the way that the presumption is applied, and how it affects both parents and children. The review will be concluded later this year, and a publication date will be announced in due course.

Parental responsibilities can already be limited by the courts. On Jade’s law, my understanding is that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), and Lord Bellamy have already met the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) to discuss the case and how these issues can be pursued. If hon. Members want to know more, then I am very happy to write, or to ask Lord Bellamy to write. However, that issue is being explored with the right hon. Member, who has raised it in the House several times.

I do not want to diminish the complexity of the issues raised today, but I did want to put on record that all the issues raised are being dealt with. I appreciate that Members will raise individual cases where they feel that the system is failing, and I cannot diminish individuals’ experience of that, but we need some balance; 140,000 children are supported by CAFCASS in difficult circumstances, and to suggest that it gets it wrong all the time is not fair. However, the points raised by Opposition Members have landed well, and I will ensure that Lord Bellamy and I sit down to review the issues that have been raised. If hon. Members wish to have a meeting with Lord Bellamy, I am more than happy to facilitate that.

17:15

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I would like to start by acknowledging the point made by the Minister. I do not think that anybody in this debate was saying that those working for CAFCASS are not trying their best, or that they get it wrong all the time; we are acknowledging that there are issues that need to be urgently addressed and are causing severe harm to women and the children CAFCASS is meant to protect. Those failures are due to Government inaction. Reforms need to happen, and there needs to be proper funding of the judicial system.

I thank everybody who participated in this debate, beginning with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has detailed the problems with parental alienation and unqualified experts. She has long campaigned on that important subject, and rightly calls for reform. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who is no longer in his seat, for highlighting the importance of protecting vulnerable children. A lot of Members spoke or intervened, and I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who raised concerns about the lack of access to legal aid in the court system, parental alienation and unqualified experts, and the courtroom backlog. No mother should be penalised for safeguarding their children, so the Government desperately need to address the failures of CAFCASS and reform the family courts system.

I end by noting two key points. First, I notice that the Minister did not answer all my questions; I look forward to receiving a written response from him on those that he did not answer. Secondly, I look forward to meeting the Minister—hopefully very soon—to discuss some of the issues that I raised today. I look forward to reviewing the review that he spoke about, once it is published. Finally, I stress that after 13 years of failure, the criminal justice system is on its knees and in desperate need of funding and reform. Only then can victims such as my constituents get justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and family court reform.

17:17

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Written Statements

Wednesday 22 March 2023

UK-Gulf Co-operation Council Free Trade Agreement

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)]

The third round of negotiations for a free trade agreement (FTA) between the UK and the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) took place between 12 and 16 March.

The round was hosted by GCC in Riyadh and held in a hybrid fashion. A number of UK negotiators from across the Government travelled to Riyadh for in-person discussions and others attended virtually.

Draft treaty text was advanced across the majority of chapters. Technical discussions were held across 13 policy areas over 30 sessions. Good progress was made and both sides remain committed to securing an ambitious, comprehensive and modern agreement fit for the 21st century.

An FTA will be a substantial economic opportunity and a significant moment in the UK-GCC relationship. Government analysis shows that, in the long run, a deal with the GCC is expected to increase trade by at least 16%, add at least £1.6 billion a year to the UK economy and contribute an additional £600 million or more to UK.

The fourth round of negotiations is expected to be hosted by the UK later this year.

His Majesty’s Government remain clear that any deal we sign will be in the best interests of the British people and the United Kingdom economy. We will not compromise on our high environmental, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that during these negotiations, the national health service and the services it provides are not on the table.

[HCWS663]

Digital Economy Act 2017 Debt and Fraud Powers: Consultation on Effectiveness

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:

Minister Burghart and I are pleased to announce the launch of a consultation on the effectiveness of the Digital Economy Act 2017 Debt and Fraud Powers.

The Debt and Fraud Powers, as contained in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 respectively, allow specified public authorities to disclose information for the purpose of managing and reducing debt owed to a public authority or to the Crown and combating fraud against the Public Sector.

These Powers must be reviewed, three years after their operation, for the purpose of deciding whether they should be retained, amended or repealed. As part of this review, I am required to consult certain persons and publish a report on the review’s outcomes.

As part of this consultation, I shall engage with:

the Information Commissioner,

the Scottish Ministers,

the Welsh Ministers,

the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland,

members of the Home Affairs Committee,

bodies which have used the Debt and Fraud Powers of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and members of the Digital Economy Act Debt and Fraud Information Sharing Review Board.

The Consultation is now open and will last for a period of six weeks, ending on 27 April 2023.

[HCWS661]

The UK's International Technology Strategy

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

This is a joint statement with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Today we have laid before the House the UK’s international technology strategy. Technological advances bring huge opportunities for our economies and societies and how we collaborate internationally will be critical to realising the benefits of these.

The competition between authoritarian and liberal values will define how technologies shape our future. The integrated review refresh 2023 reiterated the central role of technology in driving growth and ensuring the security of the British people. This strategy sets out how we will work internationally to increase the UK’s strategic advantage in technology, using that advantage to drive economic growth, protect our citizens’ security and ensure our values of freedom and democracy thrive.

The international technology strategy is a cross-Government strategy. It underpins how we deliver internationally the vision set out in the UK science and technology framework.

The strategy defines a set of principles to shape our engagement on technologies internationally—open, responsible, secure, and resilient. It sets out a framework for delivering an ambitious vision and championing our principles on the international stage. Our approach will be guided by six strategic priorities:

Priority technologies and data: artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, engineering biology, semiconductors, and telecommunications, alongside data as a key underpinning enabler of all technologies. We will build strategic advantage in these areas to ensure the UK is world-leading and that they develop in line with our values.

International partnerships for global leadership: working closely with Governments, academia, and industry to support our shared growth and address global challenges.

Values-based governance and regulation: promoting our principles and vision for a future technology order that benefits all by working with partners and through international fora to shape technology governance.

Technology investment and expertise for the developing world: building capacity to bridge the technology divide and support partners to make informed choices.

Technology to drive the UK economy: continuing to drive UK technology exports and promote the UK as the best place for technology companies to raise capital and attract foreign direct investment.

Protecting our security interests: ensuring sensitive technology does not fall into hostile hands and that we retain critical technology capabilities in the UK.

To realise the ambition of this strategy, we will bolster our capabilities across the UK’s overseas network so the right skills and expertise can be deployed. This will include increasing the number of tech envoys, increasing technology expertise across our global network, and uplifting the capability of our diplomats through training, secondments, and recruitment.

A copy of the strategy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS660]

Cyber-security Strategy

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)]

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Markham, has made the following written statement:

I am pleased to announce the publication of the Cyber-security Strategy for Health and Adult Social Care to 2030. The strategy sets out a vision to 2030 for a health and social care sector that is resilient to cyber-attack. It establishes cyber security as a foundational business need to ensuring patient and service user safety. Improved cyber resilience will assure availability of services, protect valuable data, enable quicker response and recovery when attacks do occur, and increase public trust.

The health and social care sector has made good progress in recent years, by making use of the increasing cyber defence and response mechanisms at its disposal, with the sector now much better protected from untargeted attack than it was at the time of the WannaCry cyber-attack in 2017. However, we still have further to go. This strategy will shape a common purpose and an approach that will be applicable across health and social care systems including for adult social care, primary care, and our critical supply chain as well as for secondary care.

Digital transformation offers huge opportunities for the sector and building cyber security into our design will be essential as we put the right technology and controls in place to realise those benefits. The five pillars in our strategy, developed collaboratively across the health and care sector, focus our approach on the most important risks to our most critical systems, while growing our cyber workforce so that we can better tackle threats in the long term. The strategy will be supported by a national implementation plan in summer 2023 which will detail activities and define metrics to build and measure resilience over the next two to three years.

[HCWS662]

House of Lords

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 22 March 2023

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

House of Lords: Regional Representativeness

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Grocott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the regional representativeness of the membership of the House of Lords; and how any such assessment is used when considering nominations for new peers.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

Appointments to the House of Lords are a matter for the Prime Minister, who will take a range of factors into consideration when making recommendations to the sovereign, including any advice from the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Political peerages for other parties are a matter for the leaders of those parties. The Government’s aspiration is that all parts of the UK should feel connected to government, politics and politicians.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that they are succeeding in that respect. Can the Minister confirm that the south-east region, outside London, has 100 Peers, which is 20% of the membership of this House? That is more than the east Midlands, the West Midlands, Wales, the north-west and the north-east combined. I would like to see a bit of levelling up. Does the Minister agree that, at the very least, before any new list of Peers is finalised in Downing Street, the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be consulted on how it will affect the present indefensible regional inequalities?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that levelling up is important, and this Government have many policies pursuing just that. He talks about representation. For me, the House of Commons is about ensuring that every part of the United Kingdom is properly represented in Parliament. There are also devolved Parliaments. By contrast, the House of Lords does not represent particular territories or constituencies; with the help of vetting by HOLAC, it draws on an array of expertise and talent right across the board and from many different sectors of society.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for asking this important Question. Does the Minister agree that having a non-partisan champion for each county, with both residence and long-term community relations in such counties, offers considerable benefits—not least over 800 years of precedence? I note my interest as the Earl of Devon.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Devon is a wonderful county—I always go there on holiday—and it is very nice to have the noble Earl, Lord Devon, talking it up in our House. The House of Lords has a very important job to do in scrutiny, debate and manning and womaning committees to undertake our painstaking work. That means that the House needs to be drawn from experts across many sectors, whether it is administration, lawyers, bishops, business and services or the third sector.

[A noble Lord]

Trade unions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

And, yes, trade unions.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the Bishops do have territorial responsibilities, of course. While I have every sympathy with the thrust of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, we must bear in mind that a lot of Members of your Lordships’ House have come from different parts of the country but have settled in London—

[A noble Lord]

Shame!

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

There is nothing shameful about that. It does not cut off their territorial links, any more than it would if the noble Earl, Lord Devon, decided to live in London.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I could not agree more on this occasion with my noble friend, who does such a good job in the part of the country from where he came—and, of course, in supporting Lincoln Cathedral.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness talks about geographical representation, but what is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that this House better represents modern Britain? It is not just about where people come from; it is also about the colour of their skin and their religion. There are different factors that should be taken into account to ensure the broad representation that the noble Baroness is talking about. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that this range of factors is properly represented in this House?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There are indeed different sources from which representation of this House can be drawn. That includes, of course, former politicians— I draw your Lordships’ attention to the diversity of the current Cabinet. I also ask noble Lords to look around them. I am glad to be one of many women who serve on the Front Bench in this House.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone whose registered address is in London but whose allotment is in Saltaire. Pending the introduction of at least an elected element—directly or indirectly—in this House, would the Minister agree that some of the most effective and useful Members are those who have formerly been the leaders of councils all over the United Kingdom, and that greater attention to nominating Members of this House who had local government experience would be a good thing?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the representation —if that is the right word—of people with a background in local government, such as my noble friend the Leader of the House, who has had a distinguished career in local government. Indeed, one thing I have tried to do in this House, across parties, is to promote the importance of local government, because there are many local services that matter so much to people right across the country.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has more or less asked my question, so I am just going to add a little codicil, which is that we should think of including those people who have been elected from the education trade unions and vocational, scientific and other bodies to make for a more representative democracy.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We have to come back to the point that the recommendations made to the sovereign on appointments are made by the Prime Minister of the day. That has been conventional right across the party divide. Clearly, the Prime Minister of the day will take into account the talents, diversity and skills of many different people.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Surely one of the best ways to ensure regional representation is to keep the 92 hereditaries, who come from every single part of the kingdom: that well-known Lib Dem from the far north of Scotland, through Northern Ireland, Wales, East Anglia and Cornwall. That is surely an argument for why they should be maintained.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend introduces a new argument into this much-debated subject, which is normally, as today, led by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Hereditary Peers continue to be elected by the different party groups and indeed by the Cross Benches. Changes to that, as we know, would have significant constitutional implications, and as yet there is no consensus on change.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, there is plenty of time; I think we can hear from the noble Baroness from the Greens, and then from the Labour Party.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Greens are very good at geographical representation, and when we have 13% in the polls—as apparently we do this week —perhaps we ought to have more representation here in your Lordships’ House. Obviously, if there were more Greens, your Lordships would hear less from the two Greens that you have already. Is that not a win-win?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have to say that I often agree with the noble Baroness opposite, and I agree with her that less is often more. I am very glad that we have two members of the Green Party in this House, because diversity of thought as well as of other aspects is very important to intelligent debate and scrutiny of legislation, in committees and on SIs, and to everything else that we do painstakingly every day.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, now that Britain is a truly diverse and multifaith society, do the Government have any plan to appoint scholars or preachers of other faiths in the House of Lords as they do the Bishops?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We have an established Church, and that is reflected in our Bench of Bishops, who contribute such good challenge to the Government of the day. I have explained the process of putting forward Members of the House of Lords by the main parties and others, and one thing they take into account is religions. Personally, I feel that it is very important to hear from different religions across the country.

Imported Beef

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

15:17

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that all imported beef has been produced using the same high welfare and environmental standards as beef produced in the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. We remain firmly committed to upholding our world-leading animal welfare standards. Welfare standards are considered in all our trade negotiations, and each new agreement will continue to be subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny. It has always been the case that some products produced to different animal welfare standards can be imported into the UK as long as they comply with our import requirements. Those import requirements include the ban on meat treated with growth- promoting hormones.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply but how does this commitment on not lowering standards square with, for example, the recent deal to import Mexican beef, which we know has a higher carbon footprint than the UK’s and is contributing to tropical deforestation, or the deal with Australia, where they use hormone growth promoters that would be illegal to use in the UK? Can the Minister understand why struggling beef farmers issue a hollow laugh when they hear these promises to protect standards, which are simply ignored when our Trade Ministers are desperate to thrash out a deal?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

As I say, they will not be allowed to import beef that has been reared with growth-promoting hormones in it. That is absolutely clear. It is our policy, and it will remain so.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to ask his fellow Minister when I can expect an answer to the letter I wrote to him in my capacity as chairman of the Climate Change Committee, in which I pointed out that the importation of Mexican beef, with its high carbon footprint, would be in contravention of the commitment of the Government both internationally and in the Budget?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will follow up my noble friend’s request. I am mystified by some science that gets thrown at me occasionally in this place which suggests that beef reared 12,000 miles away, transported in refrigerated trucks and ships and then distributed to retailers here can have a lower carbon footprint than beef or lamb produced on grass fields here and going just a few miles to a retailer. When I hear that, one word comes into my head. It is an unparliamentary one and begins with B.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister outlined, the Conservative Party pledged:

“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare … standards”.


But the Australians said of Liz Truss’s trade deal that tariff elimination on such a scale through a free trade agreement was almost unprecedented, and it is not clear what on earth the UK negotiators extracted in reciprocal concessions. The Australians’ welfare standards are lower. They have battery cages for laying hens, still legal, as are sow pens, as is the technique of mulesing on lambs, which I will not go into because it is too distressing. These are not permitted here. Although this deal may not amount to much—Australia is very far away—it is a really dangerous precedent, so can the Government assure the House that we will not be signing any more deals that undercut our welfare standards?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I can assure the noble Baroness, who knows a lot about these matters, that animal welfare and environmental standards will be absolutely at the forefront of all future trade negotiations. I just say that these deals balance open and free trade with protections for the agricultural industry. Australia and New Zealand will remove customs duties on 100% of tariff lines for originating products in line with agreed treatments that will be set out in respective tariff schedules on the day the agreements enter into force. There are huge opportunities, particularly for the dairy sector. Imports of dairy products into Australia and New Zealand have increased by around 30%, and I hope our farmers will be able to benefit from that.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that all beef sold here has to meet the same standards, whether it is imported or domestic? Will he further confirm that no country has ever tried to export its production standards, and that if we were to insist that every bit of imported beef met our production standards—as some in this House seem to want—that would rule out a trade deal with the EU, which does not always match our standards, let alone with the rest of the world?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that there are some different standards in the EU, and we have worked as members of the EU and will continue to work with the EU and other countries through the World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Trade Organization to create greater and higher standards of animal welfare that more reflect what we have here so that there is a much more even playing field in trade across the world.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Government appear very keen to do trade deals with Canada and Mexico, against the advice of the Climate Change Committee, which felt that such deals would compromise UK carbon targets, allowing imported meat with a higher carbon footprint than our own. Why are the Government not prepared to take measures to achieve the UK’s carbon targets? Perhaps they feel they are unimportant.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that we do not. The Climate Change Committee has gone through each department. I am responsible in Defra for making sure that we satisfy the Climate Change Committee’s demands, which are extremely challenging and testing. We have a commitment to get to net zero by 2050. British farming, under the leadership of the NFU, has committed to getting to net zero by 2040, and I can tell her that, as a farmer, that is an extremely challenging thing to do, but we as a Government and the leadership of farming are working together to help farmers try to achieve that. It is a vital priority that we decarbonise, and we understand that there is prosperity in doing so.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. Earlier this month, it was reported that a British supermarket had removed from sale pre-sliced beef marked as British when in fact it came from overseas. Concerns have also been raised about imported meat being labelled as British because it was processed, rather than farmed, in this country, and packaging for New Zealand lamb is giving undue prominence to the union jack element of its country’s flag. What steps are Defra taking to review import procedures and food labelling requirements to ensure that consumers are not misled and that our brilliant domestic producers are not put at a disadvantage?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. This is a really important issue. When we as consumers go into a supermarket, to an extent, we park our environmental and social conscience with that brand because we trust it and want it to be doing the right thing. So if it says that a meat product is UK-produced and it has a union jack on it, we expect it to be so; we expect it to have been produced with high welfare standards and the highest environmental standards possible. If that is not the case, we as a department, as a Government and in this House should raise this seriously, both as consumers and as the Government. We meet retailers on a very regular basis and raise these issues often; I would be happy to give the noble Baroness more detail outside.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. In talking about imports from the European Union, the Minister did not say that there is a principle of equivalence. Although the standards outside this country may not be exactly the same, there is a generality of equivalence between the various standards in various member states. Does it not follow from that that the right way to approach the problem we are discussing is to have transparent, binding farm assurance schemes in the markets where our trading partners produce animals so that there is transparency both in terms of getting through the tariff barrier and other restrictions as well as for the consumer to know what they are buying?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. That is of great assistance to the Government and regulators, as well as to retailers which want to make a virtue of the kinds of products they put on sale. It is also of great help to the consumer for them to make the right choices about the products that they wish to buy.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, not for the first time, I feel sorry for the Minister having to come to the House because I am convinced that, privately, his department must have approached our Trade Ministers saying that this is a bad deal. It is always possible for Defra Ministers to alienate some of their clientele but, today, they alienate farmers, environmentalists, animal welfare people and a big chunk of consumers, all at the same time, for the sake of paltry deals that will have a minimal effect on our standard of living. It seems like a humiliation to me. I hope that, if other deals come up, Defra will be stronger in making its views known.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am always grateful for the noble Lord’s sympathy, but it is unnecessary in these circumstances. We work closely across government; there has been a slightly changed landscape in government, with big new departments appearing. What is really important is that current trade deals, and future ones as they come in, have proper parliamentary scrutiny—there is a process for that—and reflect the high environmental and animal welfare standards that we have achieved in this country, which we want to see continue.

Stroke Rehabilitation and Community Services

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

15:27

Asked by

[Baroness Wheeler]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address staffing and facilities shortages in stroke rehabilitation and community services, and to ensure the national integrated community stroke service is fully resourced to deliver personalised, needs-based, goal-orientated rehabilitation to every stroke patient.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

We are increasing the number of qualified staff and ensuring a widened pool of trained staff who can work across pathways. This will help ensure that the national integrated community stroke service is fully resourced and address the workforce challenges in rehabilitation and community services. I have raised the issue of access to appropriate facilities with the CEO of NHS England, who will engage with NHS trusts to ensure access to appropriate facilities as the pressure on NHS space abates so that physiotherapists can continue their vital rehabilitation work.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, following my previous Question on this issue, I thank the Minister for writing to ICB CEOs on the urgent need for pre-Covid hospital and community rehab facilities to be returned to their former use. Can he tell me what timescales have been set and how this will be monitored to ensure that it actually happens? Strokes cost the NHS £3.4 billion a year and social care £2.3 billion in year 1, with another £2 billion on top of that for every subsequent year. What specific plans are there to expand the national integrated community stroke service, to ensure specialist rehab within five days of a stroke and to tackle the 68% of stroke sufferers who currently do not get an assessment, let alone rehab treatment, after hospital discharge?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and for her tireless work in this space. I have fortnightly meetings with the NHS chief executive. One of the matters that I regularly raise with her is the timing of the return of physio space for this. As for ensuring that we are properly rolling out the services, the national integrated stroke service guarantees people individualised programmes of work and stroke rehabilitation services, in their homes if need be.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister told the House yesterday that the long-awaited NHS workforce plan is due “shortly”, which we are reliably informed is sooner than “soon”. We now wait with bated breath. I know that the Minister cannot speak to the specifics of the plan until it is released but I hope he can comment on its structure. Will it have the kind of detail that we need to see how staff shortages in specialist areas such as stroke rehabilitation will be remedied, or will it be so high level that further subplans will need to be developed so that specialist functional needs are not lost in the mix?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I can confirm that it is a detailed plan. Services such as physio are an important part of that and will be planned accordingly.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who benefitted from life-saving neurosurgery almost 30 years ago, I can attest to the body’s amazing capacity to repair itself, provided that there is timely intervention. Can my noble friend confirm that timely intervention is crucial, that the resources will be made available, and that not doing so would be a false economy?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and agree. When I was looking at the waiting lists of those in need of physiotherapy, I was delighted to see that 80% of people were waiting less than 18 weeks. A plan is being put in place for musculoskeletal priority patients, so that they do not have to wait any more than two weeks. The urgency of putting these things in place quickly is recognised.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the national integrated service. He will be aware that rehabilitation services are very patchy and that, over the last four or five years, the amount of time that professionals have spent with individuals has got less. Will this new integrated care service bring us up to higher standards and see consistent standards throughout the country?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

During the pandemic this was one of the areas that probably did not get enough time, for all the good reasons that we understand. Therefore, I am pleased to see that these pathways are being set out so that we can get back to the standards that we need. I believe this is something that we will see happening now.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that stroke survivors, once in the community, face challenges with long-term rehabilitation and higher levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness than the rest of the community. What assessment have the Government made of arts-based therapies—I declare an interest as I am an adviser currently with King’s College Hospital—to address the whole patient as they recover from a stroke?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We are very much believers in the importance of social prescribing. I was at a reception just yesterday given by the Alliance of Sport, talking about the importance of active lifestyles for people’s mental health and recovery, and in the criminal justice system. It is something that we agree on the importance of. I will come back in more detail on the arts.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister expand upon the encouragement that the Government are giving to people in secondary services, to encourage people to fulfil the exercise programmes that are given to them by the experts? Without that encouragement from GPs and practice nurses, such programmes may seem very difficult and may not happen.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, that is a very important point. Two things have really struck me. When people are in hospital, they lose 10% of their muscle mass per week, which is clearly key in their ability to have an active lifestyle and look after themselves outside. At the same time, they need constant support and reminders to keep up that active lifestyle. It is very much at the front of our mind.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, we know that rehabilitation at the appropriate level is key to the best outcome for stroke patients: some 10% will not have any residual disability, 25% will have a minor disability and 40% will have a moderate disability, but without rehabilitation, 80% will have a major disability. Would it be a good idea to carry out a country-wide audit of what services for the rehabilitation of stroke patients are currently like?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I believe that this is what the national integrated community stroke service is all about. It is the responsibility of each ICS to make sure that there is sufficient capacity in their area. At the same time, it is always good to make sure that that is happening, so I will follow up with the NHS to see what plans are in place to make sure that we really are getting that uniformity of service.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, mentioned the importance of arts therapy for rehabilitation and for other issues. I add to her question by asking about the importance of musical therapy, not only for rehabilitation but to help people address mental health concerns. Could my noble friend the Minister add to his answer specifically with respect to musical therapy?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I say, I see social prescribing as taking in a whole range of arts, music and sport. Given that that is a particular interest of my noble friend, I am happy to follow up on both arts and music.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declared interests. One of the most effective ways to reduce the burden of disease associated with stroke is to intervene earlier in trying to prevent stroke. What approach do His Majesty’s Government take to screening in the community and in populations for risk factors such as heart rhythm disorders, which, once identified, might be managed appropriately and reduce the ultimate burden of stroke?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. The House has heard me mention before that Sir Chris Whitty’s major concern right now around excess deaths is the cohort aged 50 to 65, as they missed out on three years of blood pressure and cardiovascular tests during the pandemic. With that in mind, we are looking at how we can roll out those sorts of services to the community so that they are accessible. You might not necessarily need a GP appointment, but could be tested in shopping malls and places like that, so that those things are picked up.

Social Care: Workforce Strategy

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

15:37

Asked by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reduce their £500 million investment in the social care workforce; and when they will publish their strategy for increasing the size of that workforce.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

The Department of Health and Social Care will shortly publish a two-year plan for how it will reform the adult social care system. That publication will confirm the Government’s commitment to the 10-year vision set out in the People at the Heart of Care White Paper. It will provide specific detail on how we will implement workforce proposals, including funding activity and milestones.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but note that he has not assured me about the proposed or rumoured cuts to the current investment in the social care workforce. As he knows, these rumours have caused great distress to those trying to provide decent care to some of the most vulnerable in our society, against the background of a 13% vacancy rate—so one in eight posts is vacant—with subsequent difficulties in recruitment and retention. The money that has been promised seems very slow in reaching the front line, according to local authorities and carer organisations.

I am very glad to know that we are going to see the plan for the social care workforce; we have waited for it a long time. When we finally see it, which I hope will be before the House rises for the Easter Recess, will it ensure that those who work in social care are properly recognised, rewarded and trained so that, at last, their status is comparable with those who work in the NHS?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I apologise because, in some ways, the timing is slightly unfortunate with the report coming out before the Recess, as is my understanding. I am not allowed to steal much of Minister Whateley’s thunder on that, but I will answer as best as I can. I hope that noble Lords will be pleased that questions around training, recognition of the importance of the service and career structure are all addressed in the report.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, in my experience, many families in need of social care for members of their families find themselves in a form of postcode lottery, where the quality and quantity of social care that they receive is very much dependent on the local availability of social care workers. What further steps are the Government taking to try to ensure consistency of social care provision for people throughout the country?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct, in that this is pivotal to the whole health service and to health and well-being. It is very much the duty of the integrated care boards, and our Ministers are personally holding them to account on this. I have frequent meetings on seven integrated care boards, and this is very much on the agenda. The other six Ministers have 42 in total, seven each, so that we can make sure we hold them to account.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly agreed on the need for increased social care funding when replying to questions in debates. His party set out an ambitious plan for making such an investment in the Government’s Build Back Better strategy of September 2021. How have social care needs changed since then, such that the Government now seem comfortable to cut hundreds of millions from the commitments that they made less than 18 months ago? Does he think that we no longer need more supported housing or better digital services, two of the areas that the reports tell us are facing cuts?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I do not recognise “cuts” in this context. Noble Lords are aware that we have committed to a £7.5 billion increase over the next two years, which amounts to about a 20% increase. We will see record investment and provision in this area.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, the report by the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care was published in January. I am sure that the Minister is aware of this: in fact, I know that he is having a meeting later today with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who co-chaired that commission. We argue for a very bold approach to social care, which puts at its heart the concept of a care covenant, with clear expectations on each of us of what we should give and expect in return, recognising that each of us is a carer and that most of us will need care one day.

I speak as someone representing a region. In the cities of Hull and Middlesbrough, which I serve, I see many people in need of care and not receiving it; I discover that recruitment and retention are appalling; and I find care workers having to use food banks so that they can feed their families. It gives me no pleasure to say that we are in a very distressing situation.

I realise that the Minister is not in a position where he can say much but, surely, at the heart of this, as the noble Baroness said, it is about valuing the care worker in the same way that we value others. Can he give us an assurance that this will be at the heart of what is proposed?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Absolutely. I speak as an ex-carer myself. Caring is part of everyone’s role, as has been quite rightly written about. Part of this is about the people we are employing. I am glad to say that we are managing to increase recruitment, which is not easy in the age of full employment. It is about the parts that you and I—all of us—can play in care in the community, and organising domiciliary care so that we can have a full wraparound service.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, on seeking to increase the size of the workforce, could the Minister give an indication of whether there will be more overseas workers? They have made such an important contribution in the past but have run down in numbers latterly, yet people want to see more coming from overseas.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, and I am delighted to say that it is working. We will have granted 57,000 visas towards that in the last year, which is a big increase on previous years. It is fundamental, and a fine tradition of our health and social care services, that we can use overseas workers.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, when you have very rapid turnover of staff and a high level of resignations, it is not always the staff who need training but the managers. As we make people more valued among the staff, will we ensure that managers learn how to do that and that training goes to all levels of the care-working profession?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. I am aware that some homes have half the turnover rate of staff than others, clearly demonstrating much better levels of management and skills. I agree, and that will be part of the training.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Following the question from the noble Lord opposite about recruitment from overseas, I thank the Government for acknowledging that we will need immigration to fill some of the skills gaps. An issue that has been raised a number of times in this House is visas for social care personal assistants. Can my noble friend the Minister update us on whether visas are being issued for this category of workers?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We recognise the contribution that overseas workers can make here, as demonstrated by the 57,000 visas. I will need to come back to my noble friend in writing with details on his precise point on personal assistants.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, on recruitment and retention, the Minister will be aware that the majority of care workers earn less than £10 an hour. Can he tell us when the majority of care workers will earn a real living wage?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My understanding—I am doing this partially from memory so I will correct it if need be—is that the national living wage will come in shortly, in April. Care workers are paid that. I believe it is over £10, but I will confirm that.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

Further to a number of questions, I point out that the Minister talks about the recognition of the need for overseas workers to plug the gap at the moment, but where is the government strategy to focus on the growing number of British people who are trapped outside the labour market and need further support? This care profession, with appropriate levels of remuneration and support, could be a way to get more people off inactive benefits and into the workforce.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I was very pleased, as I hope other noble Lords were, that the centrepiece of the Budget just last week was the need to get more people into the workforce. The health department clearly plays a key part in that with mid-life health MoTs to help and support people getting back into work, including things such as physiotherapy, which we mentioned just now, to give them the strength and confidence to go back to work.

Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:47

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March.

Motion agreed.

Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2023

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:48

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 February be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.

Motion agreed.

Electronic Trade Documents Bill [HL]

3rd reading
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, on the basis that the focus of the Bill is on modifying the private law of property, which is generally devolved, we are seeking a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament. We continue to work closely with officials in the Scottish Government to ensure that we receive legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament for this Bill.

15:49

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have shown an interest in, and support for, this Bill. It was a Law Commission Bill, scrutinised through the Special Public Bill process, so I thank in particular the noble Lords who sat on the Special Public Bill Committee which examined it. It was chaired most ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and benefited from the membership of the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Davies of Brixton, and my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Lindsay and Lord Harlech. Our work was admirably assisted by our clerk, George Webber. I thank him and all those who gave evidence to the Committee.

Apart from the minor changes made to apply this critical legislation to the whole of the UK, the Bill before your Lordships remains the work of the Law Commission, so I record my thanks to Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission, Laura Burgoyne, Daniella Lupini and Siobhan McKeering, for their diligent work. I also thank Oliver Tones, the Bill manager, and Bobby Lawson, his deputy, along with the Committee’s government lawyers who have contributed to this, specifically Simon Brandon, Louise Dennison and Chris Callan, as well as Nausheen Khan from my private office.

This Bill has global transformational potential and will place the United Kingdom at the forefront of international trade as a thought leader for others to follow. One witness who appeared before the Special Public Bill Committee, when asked what, if anything, he would change about it, said:

“The only thing that I miss is the change from the word ‘Bill’ to the word ‘Act’.”


I hope that that change can be brought about swiftly. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, may I add one word of thanks to the Minister and all the members of the Committee? I am afraid they had to work quite hard learning something that I had the disadvantage, probably, of having done for more than 50 years. The House also ought to thank so many from the industry, academia and the court who gave evidence to us because we scrutinised the work of the Law Commission to make certain that the Bill would meet the demands of international trade and, particularly, the convention produced by UNCITRAL to which this Bill gives effect. I thank all the members of the Committee again.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I certainly learned a great deal about the Law Commission process for scrutinising Bills, and a lot of that was due to the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was an expert and wise chair of our Committee. Great thanks are due to him and to the Minister. It is rather unusual to have a Minister sitting in on the Committee, but he was very welcome nevertheless, along with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I also thank the other members of the Committee who kicked the tyres very effectively on the Bill. Of course, I particularly thank Professor Sarah Green and the Law Commission.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to make digital trade a reality. We sometimes think that our job is done when a Bill goes through and we can think about something else, but it is important that progress is made on the single trade window which will result from this Bill. Can the Minister tell us when the first phase of the single trade window might happen? Will it happen in November 2023? After all, it is a very important part of what we should expect. It is quite complex. It is described as a multi-department programme, which probably sends quivers down the spines in Whitehall. It would be very good to hear that the Bill is going to come into effect very quickly and will lead in the very short term to greater digital trade, but it is a very good Bill and we have scrutinised it pretty effectively.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, it falls to me to add my general congratulations to the Minister, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his work on this, to the Bill team and the advisers who were behind them and, in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, to Professor Sarah Green, who led the way in the evidence and cleared a great pathway for us. The Law Commission should be congratulated on constructing this legislation to which none of us wanted to effect an amendment, and we succeeded in that through many hours of deliberation and consideration, so that is something to be proud of in itself.

I want to add to a point the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, usefully began. Many Bills meander their way through Parliament and disappear, sinking without a trace. I suspect this Bill might do that as well, but it does not deserve to. This is a really important piece of legislation which we should not just be proud of but make something of. Some estimates suggest we can save something like 50% in costs by moving to forms of electronic trade. That is not to be sniffed at in an intensely competitive international trading world. This piece of legislation, which puts us in the lead on electronic trade, is something we should celebrate.

I raised in Committee with the Minister that we should ensure we have a strategy which means that this Bill gets the opportunity to do what it says it is about: facilitating electronic trading. I asked the Minister about this when we were in Committee. He said:

“Following the Bill being passed, many of the precise steps taken to implement and fully harness the benefits of the Bill will be for business and industry to determine.”


That is fine, but we need a clear pathway and strategy from the Government for us to be able as a trading nation to reap the benefits of this legislation. I would like to hear from the Minister—it is something I am sure the House will want to come back to at some point—what that strategy might look like. He later said that there is

“a role for government to play”,—[Official Report, Electronic Trade Documents Bill [HL] Special Public Bill Committee, 20/2/23; col. 17.]

which is the case. However, we and Singapore are the only two trading nations with the benefit of this legislation in prospect.

I congratulate the Government on bringing this forward. It is a fine piece of legislation. It may not be controversial, but it is potentially of great value. I hope this Government can aspire to give this piece of legislation the value it deserves.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lords, who have given the rest of your Lordships’ House a brief snapshot of the good scrutiny the Bill received through the Special Public Bill Committee. It may be unamended, but it is certainly not unscrutinised. I am very grateful to all the other members of the Committee for the work that they did and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly said, to all the academic experts, those from the legal profession and, crucially, from the industries which stand to benefit the most and came to give evidence before the Committee. All of that was much appreciated.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the single trade window. It falls to colleagues at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If I may, I will direct the question to them and furnish him with an answer on the single trade window. Both noble Lords are right that there is work to be done across government. Colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade and at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will take the Bill forward in another place.

As noble Lords have heard me say before, through our presidency of the G7 recently and our role jointly chairing the Commonwealth digital connectivity cluster, we are in international fora encouraging other jurisdictions to follow our lead in this area to align with the model law and avail themselves of these opportunities. They are significant for industry in terms of the simplification and speeding up of trade, the environmental impact and resilience when it comes to unforeseen things such as the pandemic, which brought into relief the importance of this Bill.

This Bill is facilitative, but it will put the UK ahead not only of the G7 countries but almost the whole world. I am very proud that we are setting the approach which other jurisdictions will seek to follow. With gratitude to noble Lords who have scrutinised the Bill in your Lordships’ House, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Committee (7th Day)

Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 12th Report from the Constitution Committee

15:59

Amendment 178C

Moved by

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston]

178C: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendments to constitutional arrangements of statutory bodies consequential on electoral changes(1) Section 67 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (consequential and supplementary provision) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The purposes for which an order may be made under subsection (2) include making changes to the constitutional arrangements of any statutory body with a locally or regionally defined remit which are required as a consequence of the making of an Order under section 59.(2B) An order under subsection (2) made for the purposes described in subsection (2A) may be made by the statutory body in question as well as by the Secretary of State.” (3) In subsection (5), at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (6),”(4) In subsection (6), for “containing any other order under subsection (2)” substitute “containing an order under subsection (2) made for the purposes described in subsection (2A) (even if it also falls within subsection (5)) or containing any other order under subsection (2) that does not fall within subsection (5)”.(5) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) In this section, “statutory body” means a body established by or under any enactment.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable an order to be made to alter the constitutional arrangements of a statutory body if required as a consequence of an electoral changes order made under the local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The statutory body itself would be able to make such an order.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment adds a new clause after Clause 77 and amends Section 67 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. It deals with constitutional arrangements of statutory bodies consequential on electoral changes. In essence, it provides for an order to be made to alter the constitutional arrangements of a statutory body if required as a consequence of an electoral change, and the order can be made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The important thing is that the statutory body itself would be able to make such an order.

I will briefly give some illustrative explanation as to why this is required. The amendment deals with an old constitutional anomaly that can arise when boundaries are redrawn following Electoral Commission reports. One such example is the case of local ward boundary changes for Malvern Hills District Council and the consequential impact on the Malvern Hills Trust, which has elected conservators and is charged with protecting and managing the Malvern Hills and the surrounding commons. The Boundary Commission has changed the Malvern Hills District Council ward boundaries. As a result we will have two wards, with some residents who can vote for conservators and pay the levy while others cannot. This is not an ideal situation, and will probably be subject to judicial review and legal challenge for the returning officer as a consequence. This amendment would allow for the changes to be brought about by the Malvern Hills Trust, and it would bring its boundaries in line with the district lines.

In moving this amendment, I declare an interest: I am a resident of Malvern Hills District Council, and my late father-in-law was a Malvern Hills conservator.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. The Malvern Hills are of course an outstanding place of beauty in the West Midlands, and it is important that the trust is allowed to do its job as effectively as possible. This is yet another example of the way in which the Boundary Commission has been forced do its work, because of the constraints put upon it, where it goes across natural boundaries. In the case that the noble Baroness raised, the management of the Malvern Hills Trust is vital. It is also clearly important that residents have confidence in the arrangements of the trust and in the fairness of any levies they may have to pay. I hope that the Minister may be prepared to take a look at this and possibly come back on Report with a sympathetic response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful. The problem has a wider resonance than the Malvern Hills Trust, although that is important. Coterminosity of local government and parliamentary boundaries is important, as is coterminosity of local government and National Health Service boundaries and, in this case, of the integrated care boards. If the Minister has any influence in other government departments, I ask her to impress on them the significance of residents who may be split between integrated care boards, like residents where I live in the Kirklees district of West Yorkshire, who are now being moved into a new Wakefield parliamentary constituency. This creates more problems than we sometimes recognise. Coterminosity and looking at the local implications of the lines we draw on a map are important and ought to be done only following detailed consultation with local people.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this to our attention. As she knows, I know the Malvern Hills area very well; it is beautiful. It is important that the Boundary Commission respects local boundaries and allows organisations such as the Malvern Hills Trust to operate as they are intended.

Does the Minister agree that one problem we have at the moment is that the Boundary Commission cannot carry out interim or minor reviews, as it simply does not have the resources to do so? That means that any kind of review could take up to 20 years to look at a problem or something that is not ideal, which is clearly not an ideal situation. Perhaps the department could look into this.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 178C and 509ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, seek to enable any statutory body to amend by order its constitutional arrangements consequential on an electoral changes order made under Part 3 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. That legislation enables the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to implement by order recommendations for changes to an area’s electoral arrangements.

I am aware of the specific case at the moment where such a statutory body, the Malvern Hills Trust, considers that the new warding arrangements established by an electoral review order in respect of Malvern Hills District Council is incompatible with its constitutional and governance arrangements as provided for in several private Acts dating back to 1884. It is understandably concerned that such changes might raise questions about the ongoing legality of its constitutional and governance arrangements, and it wishes for something that it can address itself in a timely way.

I fully understand why the Malvern Hills Trust might wish to be granted powers to alter the constitutional or governance arrangements to ensure that they remain lawful and relevant to changing circumstances. However, I regret that we cannot support the amendments to the Bill. While they have the intention to resolve a specific local constitutional issue, the amendments are of general application to any statutory body affected by an electoral review carried out under Part 3 of the 2009 Act. In a practical sense, it is difficult for us to estimate how many bodies may be affected and wish to pass orders of this sort, or the impact on parliamentary time in dealing with them.

As drafted, the amendments would allow for secondary legislation to make amendments to primary legislation using the negative resolution procedure—the lower level of parliamentary scrutiny—and we do not think that this is appropriate. If the amendments were redrafted so that the orders were subject to the affirmative procedure, the potential would remain for significant impact on parliamentary business and on getting vital government business done.

More fundamentally, we cannot accept that it is right or prudent for the Bill to contain provision to allow for non-governmental bodies to be able to make orders that would amend primary legislation, as is the intention of the amendments. That must rightly be the role of government Ministers, except in exceptional circumstances, as with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

The commission is a parliamentary body accountable to the Speaker’s Committee. Such powers are appropriate in the case of the commission, given its status and vital independent role in ensuring fairness and confidence in the local government electoral system. Even if the scope of the amendment were narrowed so that any order could be made only by the Secretary of State, I am afraid that we could not accept it. While I understand that the purpose is to have a provision of general application, the concept used of the statutory body seems to be unclear. For example, does the definition of a statutory body include a local authority? On the face of it, this seems to be the case. If this is so, introducing this new provision would potentially create—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the Minister’s response, which seems to come in heavy on what is a pretty small objective. If it is difficult to do in this way, what could her department do to sort it out?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

If the noble Lord can wait one minute, I shall say what the Government are prepared to do.

For all these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment—but the Government have been talking to senior officials of the trust to understand the issues that they face as a result of the electoral changes order. We have discussed various options that they can pursue, which include the Charity Commission making a scheme under Section 73 of the Charities Act 2011 and for the trust itself to pursue a private Bill to make the amendments that it thinks necessary. We are also exploring whether the Secretary of State has the vires to make an order in consequence of an electoral changes order, to amend or modify primary legislation, such as the Malvern Hills Act 1924. So we are working with the group. In realisation of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response and grateful that the department is pursuing ways of resolving the problem. In the light of that, I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 178C withdrawn.

Schedule 5 agreed.

Amendment 179

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

179: Before Clause 78, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose of Planning(1) The purpose of planning is to ensure that the development of land balances long-term economic, social and environmental benefits, safeguards natural resources, and supports the needs of future generations in respect of land use.(2) When making relevant planning policy or development plans or granting planning permission for the development of land, all relevant planning authorities must have special regard to the need to—(a) contribute to the targets set out in—(i) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target and budgeting);(ii) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets); and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause inserts a “purpose of planning” provision into the Bill. Currently, planning authorities are under no statutory obligation to take climate change into account in the determination of planning applications. This introduces a duty in relation to national and local planning policy and decisions.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 179 in my name, which inserts a purpose of planning provision into the Bill, as well as to Amendment 271, which inserts a duty relating to climate change in planning functions. I declare my interests as a director of Peers for the Planet and as a project director working for Atkins. I also thank my supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

What is really important about these amendments is the need to better enable local authorities and give them the tools that they need to work towards our net-zero and environmental targets. For me, this is one of the key missing links in the whole governance system for net zero and the environment. We have lots of top-level policy from the Government but little guidance or direction for local authorities so that they can play their role. We have many local authorities that really want to play their part but do not have the tools or resources to do so, whether in energy planning or the wider planning system. What this leads to is an inconsistent approach and a patchwork quilt of responses across the many local authorities in their approach to the environment and net zero.

The Skidmore review looked into this area in detail, and it is worth quoting briefly what it stated. It said:

“One of the starkest messages from hundreds of organisations and individuals is that the planning system is undermining net zero and the economic opportunities that come with it. The Review recommends wide-ranging local planning reform—from the introduction of a net zero test to a rapid review of bottlenecks in the system—to ensure that it is fully aligned with our net zero future”.


The resulting action on implementing a net zero test was in its 25 key recommendations by 2025. That is the level of importance here in the wider net zero picture. I also note that the Climate Change Committee said, in its progress report to Parliament last year:

“Net Zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms that are expected as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill”.


The lack of a net zero test is having an impact right now. For example, there is the case of a major solar farm on 75 hectares of land near where I live in Derbyshire. The project involved the production of around 50 megawatts of renewable energy, sufficient for around 13,000 homes or more than 22% of all Amber Valley borough’s households. In December 2022, a planning inspector refused permission on appeal, on the grounds that the project would harm the landscape, character and visual amenity. This case highlights that fact that, in the contribution that the project makes, the delivery of net zero may not always be given sufficient weight and priority, which would be resolved by a net-zero test running through the whole planning system.

My Amendment 179 would resolve this by introducing a “purpose of planning” provision into the Bill; namely, a duty for national and local policy decisions to reference the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. Amendment 271 is a scaled-back amendment that could also be considered by the Government. It would amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure that climate change is given special regard in individual development proposals.

16:15

The Government may make the point that this is considered in the non-statutory National Planning Policy Framework—the NPPF—and that this will be updated as part of the current consultation. Although I welcome the commitments made in that consultation, first, the NPPF is non-statutory guidance and not legally binding and, secondly, no amendments are proposed in the current draft of the NPPF to ensure that climate change constitutes a material consideration in the determination of individual planning applications.

I welcomed the Minister’s commitment at Second Reading:

“The Government recognise the challenge of climate change. It is critical that the planning system must address this effectively”.

The Minister also highlighted that the Bill already includes some provisions whereby some strategies and plans

“must be designed to secure that the development and use of land … contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”.—[Official Report, 17/1/23; col. 1808.]

The words of the Minister and the existing provisions in the Bill are very welcome, but this is not the same as a clear net-zero test that links to our specific climate and environmental targets and permeates all planning decisions. In the same vein as this is the current statutory duty to contribute to the mitigation of and adaption to climate change in relation to development plan documents under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Many years ago, I started my career as a systems engineer, helping to manage complex engineering projects and ensuring that the various elements were considered as a whole, rather than as disparate elements, which is essential for the success of any large project. Net zero is perhaps the ultimate systems problem that we have to deal with. I remember a meeting that I attended last year with Patrick Vallance, where he stated:

“This is a systems … problem. It affects virtually every part of every department and, therefore, you need to think of this as a systems approach”.

These amendments are in the same vein. Rather than the current piecemeal mentions of climate change and planning policy scattered throughout the legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework, this is a really good opportunity for the Government to update the Bill to fully embed these targets within statute and ensure that there is a coherent thread running through the whole planning system.

This is the prime opportunity to clarify in statute our planning system’s role in delivering on our climate change and environment targets and removing the ambiguities and inconsistencies of the current system. I hope that the Government will agree that now is the time to seize this legislative opportunity, because there will not be another in the short or medium term. Now is the time to act.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak next as I have an amendment in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his excellent speech on his amendments and for meeting with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to discuss the Bill. I was pleased that he mentioned Peers for the Planet; I am not yet a member of that group but I will be a very enthusiastic joiner. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has greatly encouraged me in that respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, spoke about giving local authorities the tools that they need. That is also an important part of my Amendment 179A in this group, which I will speak to. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to the Skidmore review and the Climate Change Committee’s work—which are both crucial to his and my amendments in this group—and to having a net-zero test running through the planning system. That is absolutely crucial, and now is the opportunity to do just that.

We have spoken before about the fact that there are some key strategic omissions from the Bill. Ensuring that climate change is fundamentally enshrined in law in the planning process is one of the most critical. My amendment is designed to address this too, by including it as one of the key purposes of the planning process. Over 80% of councils have now declared a climate emergency, with a pledge to net zero sitting alongside that, so surely it is time that the Government and legislation caught up and helped provide the tools to do that. The amendments in this group are designed to set out: first, an overall purpose for the planning process; secondly, to make absolutely sure that that includes the sustainability of all development; and, thirdly, to ensure that every individual development proposal is assessed to ensure that it is part of the solution to climate change, not adding to the problem.

As far back as November 2021, the Local Government Association commissioned a wide-ranging report to show how critical the local contribution to climate change could be. There are many important contributions recorded in that report, including one from Richard Blyth, head of policy at the Royal Town Planning Institute, who said:

“Collectively local activity and investment (for example on housing, infrastructure, water management) will only contribute positively to the ambition to leave the environment in a better state if there is a shared spatial framework for improving local environments”.


He pointed out that the Environment Act could take this only so far, but some of the measures it contained risked adding to the piecemeal landscape of environmental plans without clear directions for economic decision-making. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to the piecemeal approach that results from some of the provisions in the Environment Act. The only way of ensuring that a holistic approach is taken to environmental issues is to ensure that all the relevant issues are built into local plans and considered for each development, whether that is water, flooding, soil, air quality, transport, access to open spaces, biodiversity, energy, waste or the whole-life carbon impact of buildings. These should all be part of the consideration of planning.

Net zero can be achieved only if decarbonisation happens in every place, everywhere across the country. These amendments would incorporate in the Bill plans for an overarching clause that would do just that. At the moment, if the overarching framework of the national management development plan, whatever it contains in relation to net zero—I am probably not the only one in this Committee who fears that this will be nowhere near ambitious enough in response to the climate emergency—does not have a corresponding network of local plans setting out clearly how development will take a radically new and ambitious approach to this, we will, I fear, continue to move at the current snail’s pace.

Local plans also need to reflect the needs of mitigation of climate change. In a paper from the University of Strathclyde by Dr Hawker and Dr Wade, they say:

“In particular, local planning decisions around land use and infrastructure must be made with acknowledgement of their implications for living with climate change. For example, increasing green spaces can support drainage in urban areas, helping to alleviate future flood risks”.


We have seen some magnificent examples in recent years—for example, pocket parks in high streets, which help with flooding issues—but they are by no means common enough yet. Local authorities often hold large building portfolios, including social housing. If they can be supported with long-term future funding, they can take action now to ensure that properties are energy efficient and much more cost effective for residents.

At Second Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State’s contention was that proposals in the Bill would strengthen environmental protection. He explained that a National Planning Policy Framework document would be published in July—that is July last year—setting out how environmental outcomes were to be driven. As far as I know, that document has not yet been published by the department. So, while we await specific policies on specific aspects of tackling environmental outcomes, fundamentally writing climate change into both development planning and mitigation measures for the planning system of the future is the only way of ensuring that they reach every part of the UK. If we do not do so in this Bill, we will have missed a huge opportunity to align the planning system with the climate change goals that should be right at its heart.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 179 and 271 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I thank him very much for bringing them to your Lordships’ Committee. I will make three quick points.

First, I do not understand why the Government are not using this Bill as a vehicle to embed the approaches that they have signed up to on net zero and climate change targets more generally. Surely this is the ideal legislation to ensure that our planning system supports what the Government say they wish to do.

Secondly, the noble Lord quite rightly mentioned the Skidmore review, which is very telling, and we have also heard from the Climate Change Committee. However, the National Audit Office’s report should not be ignored. It said that

“there are serious weaknesses in central government’s approach to working with local authorities on decarbonisation, stemming from a lack of clarity over local authorities’ overall roles, piecemeal funding, and diffuse accountabilities”.

The Government need to listen to the National Audit Office, because that is based on its expertise in monitoring and evaluating what local authorities are doing and the confrontations they are having on some of these issues due to flaws in the current local planning system and arrangements.

Thirdly, my background is mainly in health, and there is no doubt that unlocking economic growth through planning reform, as was highlighted in the net zero review, could achieve real health benefits by fully aligning our planning system with climate change and nature targets. The point has been made by the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, which says that a healthy neighbourhood can also be a powerful levelling-up tool, leading to better mental and physical health and well-being outcomes through active travel, social connectivity and access to green spaces. Statistics published by the UN only a few days ago show that life expectancy in this country has deteriorated dramatically in comparison with many other countries since the 1950s. We were then one of the top countries for life expectancy; now we are in danger of dropping out of the top 30.

There is such a persuasive argument for tying in strong public preventive health with what must be done on climate change and net zero. Surely the planning system is one of the most powerful levers that we can use to make it happen. I hope we will come back to this very important matter on Report.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I was thrilled to add my name to my noble friend Lord Ravensdale’s Amendments 179 and 271. It is seriously important to make sure that the planning system is aligned with our climate and nature targets; this also goes to the heart of whether we will meet our net-zero targets. Currently, our planning system is not doing enough, yet it is one of the most important single levers we have.

All too often we see the degradation of natural habitats caused by housing and other infrastructure, from high-carbon development being approved to homes being built that will later require expensive retrofits. The Environment and Climate Change Committee has just done a report showing how expensive and difficult that process is. It could all be solved in one go. Natural England commented to our inquiry that nature and climate are at risk of further and irreparable damage from a range of pressures, including the need for new housing, which is currently not up to scratch.

It is welcome that the Government are currently consulting on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to make sure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible, but it is only guidance. Government must send a strong message about the importance it places on achieving our climate and nature targets.

Fully embedding climate and nature within planning also brings, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, great outcomes through green jobs, sustainable economic growth, improved health and well-being, helping to reduce the cost of living in lots of instances and making us more resilient to extreme weather. It is extraordinary that we still build houses in known flood zones; those will only get worse, not better.

At the local authority level, most local plans do not contain any comprehensive or robust policies on climate change mitigation or adaptation, yet lots of local authorities want just that. At the individual decision-making level, ambitious local councils often have their plans refused by the Planning Inspectorate because we have a completely unaligned system. It does not work as a thought-through process from beginning to end, but the Bill provides the perfect opportunity to address this gap.

16:30

Amendment 179 would add a net-zero and nature test to all planning decisions. It would apply not just to big decisions but to little ones as well. To quote again—as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, did—from the Skidmore review:

“the vision of the planning system on net zero is not clear”;

it is

“A system that appears ambivalent to net zero

and therefore incapable of delivering the change that we need. That could not have been put more clearly, and is from a review that the Government themselves commissioned.

The Government commented in their recently published consultation on the proposed environmental outcome reports that:

“These reforms will deliver a streamlined system which works for everyone and delivers better environmental outcomes”.

The consultation also notes:

“We want to ensure we break the cycle where developments struggle to reflect how they address matters that are of national and global scale and importance.”

What better way to do this than through these amendments? This could work cohesively with the environmental outcome reports, which the Government have said will

“amplify government initiatives such as Biodiversity Net Gain and Local Nature Recovery Strategies.”

There is simply too much scope for inconsistency in the current system. This is a critical decade, as was pointed out in the IPCC report this week. The Government have to be clear that all developments must have at their heart a special regard—a legal regard—to the need to contribute towards net zero. This net-zero test will shift us closer to climate-positive and nature-positive development. I hope the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I think we all know that the planning system does not function very well at the moment. It has become more and more complex over the decades, and is now a morass of rules that many of us do not understand. The Bill is an opportunity for a lot of things, but it is an opportunity to put that right and make sure that, as other noble Lords have said, the planning process actually works for people, residents and communities and is not just made up of rules that make no sense anymore. We can use it to make sustainable, healthy communities—why on earth would anybody disagree with that?

I know that some people deny that climate change is happening, and I am sure there are some who think that the IPCC report is not worth taking into serious consideration. But, of course, a lot of people in Britain are incredibly anxious. As we have seen, houses are still being built on flood plains and in ludicrous places where they will be damaged and probably will not be able to get insurance.

One of the lessons from Covid was that people do better when they are out in nature, so we need to include green spaces and that sort of environment to allow people to exercise, walk, and be with their dogs and their children.

One of the things I found when I was on a local planning committee when I was a councillor—for four very long and hard years—is that the officers abide by the rules. You can be as green as you like as a councillor, but that comes to absolutely nothing if you run up against the rules. Officers know the rules, and they insist that we act by them, so we need strong rules and good clear guidance.

In the other place at the moment, a former Prime Minister is struggling to keep his temper, apparently, as he discusses rules and guidance, what he knew and did not know, and so on. We should not do what we did during Covid and have a whole collection of quite confused rules, guidance, recommendations and even advice. We should make this clear and make the planning system fit for the sort of country we want to be.

Of course, if we want to take pressure off the National Health Service, we should be thinking about everybody’s well-being and about how everybody lives. At the moment, the planning system is not fit for purpose. I completely support all these amendments and agree with everything that has been said so far.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, although perhaps I would not want to align myself with my friend’s sentiments about the complexity of the Covid rules currently being examined at the other end, I support this group of amendments.

Net zero and adaptation to the impacts of climate change are getting more and more difficult because they are more and more pressing. We have to deploy every tool in the toolbox, and the planning system is a pretty powerful tool if it is properly pointed. It is true to say that the National Planning Policy Framework requires local authorities to address climate change, but when push comes to shove, housing targets tend to get the upper hand. If a local authority lays stringent requirements on developers about net zero or adaptation to the impacts of climate change, the viability test immediately gets rolled out, as well as challenges about developments being not viable under the rules that the local authority is laying down. Local authorities have to have some sort of protection against that kind of challenge, by being able to point to strong guidance and a statutory requirement to deliver net zero and adaptation to climate change.

As my noble friend on our Front Bench said, it is good that a large number of local authorities have declared a climate emergency, but they now need help to make that reality. There are already a few hooks in planning legislation that local authorities ought to be able to rely on, but they are clearly not sufficient because planning inspectors are overturning development proposals and local plans on the basis that the planning authorities have gone too far. We have to make sure that they are not going to be subject to those sorts of local challenges for doing the things that need to be done to tackle this emergency.

These amendments have some considerable strength. As has been said, they deal not just with plans but with planning policy, and indeed with individual applications. They talk not just about net zero but about the very real need for local planning authorities to take pretty stringent steps to ensure that there is adequate adaptation to climate change on a local basis.

If noble Lords really want to break their hearts some evening, they should go and read the successive reports of the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee, very nobly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, who is not in her place. It would break your heart to see how little progress we have made in making our local settlements, infrastructure, and other important things for the quality of life and of the economy in this country resilient in the face of climate change. We really have to get a grip of that one.

Other excellent features of the amendments are that they cover climate change and nature, and are about mitigation actions, as well as adaptation. It would be extremely helpful to planning authorities, developers, and those who care about climate change and climate adaptation for these amendments, or some variant of them, to be accepted at Report.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing them in front of noble Lords today. I want to focus on just one aspect of this. It is about not just whether the Government agree to these amendments and facilitate all the action which noble Lords have already spoken about but whether they back away from the current position, which is putting a ceiling on the ambition of local planning authorities in achieving net zero, and indeed in trying to set a purpose that is in any way in alignment with the nationally set targets of getting to zero carbon by 2050.

Many local authorities are straining at the leash to make their communities zero carbon and to ensure that they take steps to protect the well-being of their residents from flooding and extreme weather events, and from the costs and harm that they can see happening now and foresee coming in the coming decade or two if they do not take vigorous action to tackle climate change and mitigate the worst consequences of it. Unfortunately, time and again, via the Planning Inspectorate or government pronouncements, local planning authorities are prevented from taking those actions by the imposition of a national framework which is not in alignment with the equally national statutory framework to reach zero carbon by 2050.

If the Minister feels that, somehow or other, the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not the right one, that is fine, but can she, in the first instance, say that she and her Government will not continue to deliberately suppress the ambition of local authorities to achieve that national target and come forward herself, or encourage her Government to come forward, with a way to facilitate progress along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has so well set out today?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with the amendments in this group and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing our attention to this issue before we start addressing the clauses that concern national and local planning policy.

Strategic planning depends and rests on planning legislation such as this and on national and local planning policies. We need to provide the tools in planning legislation and at national planning policy level to produce the focus and levers that we require at local level to pursue net zero—which I have not heard a voice against in this debate so far. We all know how important it is, but we need the levers and tools at local level to achieve it.

That is not going to be as simple as it sounds. Planning is a forward-looking approach: it is for new development or change to old development and does not do as much for the existing built environment. I hope that when we discuss the national management development policies the Government will indicate where they will provide a strong policy in favour of achieving net zero through planning legislation and policy. Currently, the National Planning Policy Framework has the goal of

“presumption in favour of sustainable development”,

which is about 10 to 15 years old, and it was the start of the journey towards achieving a firm commitment to tackling climate change and achieving the Government’s aims of zero carbon by 2050. We need a step change in planning policy if we are to achieve that. Unfortunately for the Government, the tools they put in planning legislation and policies are cross-departmental if they are going to achieve anything.

For example, housing development requires highways infrastructure. Is such infrastructure going to enable more traffic? Even if we have transferred to electric-generated vehicles, that will still create considerable carbon emissions, both in the production of the vehicles and in the production of the electricity, for the foreseeable future. What is the policy going to be there?

16:45

What is the policy going to be around renewable generation in respect of domestic properties? The Government could have a policy on that; currently, there is not one. What is the policy going to be around balancing the use of land for housing or economic development and, for instance, green infrastructure and biodiversity? The policies currently within the NPPF and planning legislation provide some clues, but they are guidance rather than requirements.

Then there are issues such as water management. That concerns not just flooding; for instance, areas of the south-east will not be able to sustain more housing development because of the lack of a water supply. Where is the big policy on water management, including water supply and wastewater? Where is that going to feature in our planning policies?

The difficulty here—this is where I am slipping over into a future debate on the national development management plan—is that this area is currently an empty space in legislation. If the Minister is able to fill that empty space with clear indications that climate change will be at the heart of national planning legislation and policy, we will have achieved the aim of the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 179 and 271 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seek to introduce a duty for planning authorities to consider climate change when developing planning policy and in making planning application decisions by adding a “purpose of planning” provision to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and a complementary duty in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Government recognise the great challenge of climate change and that the planning system must address this effectively. Through the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government have committed to reduce net emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels by 2050. We have also committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it. We passed the Environment Act, which sets ambitious, legally binding, long-term targets to restore nature. The Government published their second environmental improvement plan in January this year, setting out the actions that will drive us towards reaching our long-term targets and goals.

Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already sets out that local planning authorities must design their local plans

“to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”.

This is restated in the Bill and is found in proposed new Section 15C of the 2004 Act, to be inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill. Similar requirements are included for other types of plans, such as waste and mineral plans and neighbourhood plans.

Alongside this, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should support climate change mitigation and adaptation, and that plans should be prepared in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. The framework also makes it clear that plans and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment more broadly. As a matter of law, the framework must be taken into account when preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Its effect on decisions will be enhanced through this Bill, through the provision made for a suite of national development management policies that will have statutory force.

More broadly, the National Planning Policy Frame- work couches the role of the planning system quite firmly in the terms of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, recognising the environmental, social and economic dimensions of this and the inter- dependencies between them. It is not clear that a statutory purpose for planning would add to this in any meaningful way. We recognise that more can be achieved, though, and that is why the Government recently consulted on immediate changes to the framework relating to renewable energy and sought views on carbon assessments and other changes, which would strengthen the framework’s role in this vital area. A full review of the framework, taking the responses to this consultation into account, will take place following Royal Assent, and we will review the strategic objectives set out in the planning policy to ensure that they support the Government’s environmental targets under the Environment Act, the net zero strategy and the national adaptation programme.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the Skidmore review. We will publish a response to it very shortly. As committed to in the net zero strategy, we intend to do a fuller review of the NPPF to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation. Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit of these amendments, the Government do not feel able to support them, given the existing legislative obligations and current and future requirements in national policy, which will be given added force as a result of other provisions in this Bill.

Amendment 179A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, looks to define the purpose of planning and the meaning of “sustainable development”. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, this can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As part of achieving the three overarching objectives of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—the framework sets out policies on good design, sustainable transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, and community services and facilities. It recognises the importance to health, well-being and recreation that open spaces and green infrastructure provide. It also contains policies for how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places.

So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to meet the needs of the area, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, and mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects. It also means that the strategic policies should provide for housing needs unless protected areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for restricting development—for example, green-belt land. To reiterate, the framework must, as a matter of law, be taken into account when preparing development plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I accept what the Minister said about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. She listed the things that have to be balanced, but the issue is how that balance takes place. In my experience as a local councillor, climate change is often at the bottom of that balance; economic development and the need for growth and jobs are at the top, and housing development is there, but climate change is much less important in the eyes of planning policies, planning inspectors and local plans. Can the Minister explain how the climate change element will be given greater importance and priority?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, to begin with, I do not agree that local authorities across the UK are not taking net zero and sustainability seriously. We know that local authorities across the country are making great strides towards our net-zero future. There are some brilliant examples of local action, innovation and excellence in this area, so I do not agree with the noble Baroness. When we get national planning policies that make these issues important nationally, councils will have to take them seriously and align their local plans with them. I would not want anybody to think that local government is not taking this seriously, because it certainly is and it is doing a huge amount to deliver our net-zero targets.

In December we published a consultation on updating the national planning policy, focusing largely on changes to housing policy that we intend to make in spring. This consultation closed on 2 March this year. We also sought initial views on some wider changes, which we will take forward into a fuller review of the framework. This fuller review will consider the scope to go further on a range of areas, including ensuring that the planning system capitalises on opportunities to support the natural environment, respond to climate change and deliver on the levelling up of economic opportunity—so there is more to come.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response so far. Can she pick up the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and I made about the piecemeal nature of how this works and the legislation that informs planning? The Minister herself set out some of the many pieces of legislation that come together to drive forward the statutory framework instilling this in planning, but at the moment that makes for a fairly piecemeal approach that requires drawing together. These amendments were tabled to enshrine in legislation the overarching purpose of building sustainability into the planning system.

I think everybody who has spoken has made the point that the National Planning Policy Framework is not statutory; it is guidance. Different planning inspectors will interpret the local authority’s interpretation of that guidance differently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and others outlined, sometimes the most ambitious authorities find themselves coming into conflict with their planning inspectors in this respect, because they do not accept the ambition that has been put into their local plan. Can the Minister pick up those points?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

A number of pieces of legislation from a number of different areas of government and beyond have an effect on net zero, sustainability and climate change. That is going to happen. I know that this was brought up in our meetings with noble Lords prior to the Bill, and it is a complex area. I will once again try to show your Lordships how this all fits together to ensure that we are all working in the same direction and delivering what we know we want for climate change, net zero and sustainability.

17:00

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

The Minister said that everyone is moving in the same direction. Since the big building companies such as Barratt and Taylor Wimpey have not come up, can she enlighten the House on what kinds of conversations she has had with such companies about their willingness to adopt a statutory policy about net zero into their building targets?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have certainly had no conversations with those people, and I do not know whether the Housing Minister has. I will make sure to ask and find out. That is the whole idea of planning: if the policy requires it, the developers need to act within planning policy in order to develop.

I reiterate that the Government will be reviewing the strategic objectives set out in planning policy to ensure that they support the Government’s environmental targets under the Environment Act, net zero, and the national adaptation programme. This comes back to what the noble Baroness opposite was saying: are we joining it up? Yes, we are checking it with the Environment Act to make sure that we will deliver through the planning system everything that we agreed to in it.

While I appreciate the essence of this amendment, it is not one that the Government feel able to support, given the clear purposes for planning already set out in national policy.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a very illuminating debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, this is all occurring against the backdrop of the recently issued UN climate report. That highlighted all the progress that has been made, but we need to do more to move further, faster. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the planning system is one of the most powerful levers that we can pull in that respect, so we need to make sure that we make the most of it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, set out well the aspirations of local authorities and councils in wanting to help with declared climate emergencies. It is all about the tools to enable them to do that. Her Amendment 179A is very closely aligned with mine, so I look forward to working with her.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out many of the wider benefits to health and levelling up from looking at the planning system. The Minister set out all the various mentions of climate change scattered throughout the legislation and the various framework documents, but I think that noble Lords have strongly made the case for aligning all this and pulling it together in the legislation in the form of a net-zero test. I hope that she will consider that as we move towards Report. I look forward to further discussion with her but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 179 withdrawn.

Amendment 179A not moved.

Clause 78: Power in relation to the processing of planning data

Amendment 180

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

180: Clause 78, page 88, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this Chapter may require relevant planning authorities to process data in accordance with approved data standards relating to the number and nature of—(a) second homes, and(b) holiday let propertiesin the planning authority area.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable planning data regulations to provide for the collection of data to national standards about second homes and holiday lets.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group cover the issues of data and data sharing for, as well as the registration of, and safety standards in, properties available for short-term let. It is not my intention to speak on registration, with the exception of two brief comments. I will happily leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, with his great expertise as chairman of the Built Environment Committee.

My two comments are simply these. I note that the consultation on registration ended in September last year, and to date we still have not had any response from the Government. That clearly would have been very helpful to have had in time for our deliberations today. I also comment that, although I entirely accept that registering and licensing can be used interchangeably, I certainly would prefer to have licensing and a licensing regime rather than a registration regime.

I turn to my Amendments 180 and 445A, which address data issues. I believe very firmly that Clause 78 is very important and, indeed, welcome, because it requires local authorities to use data standards when they process information in connection with a planning function that are designed to ensure that planning data is comparable across local authorities and formatted in the same way so that machines can collect and process it, making it much more useful for research and innovation. It is an important and welcome clause, as is the equally welcome creation by the Government of a digital planning programme, a spatial data unit and various support systems to enable local authorities to use the data to best effect in preparing local plans and policies.

However, in earlier amendments I proposed the creation of new use classes for second homes and holiday lets. I will not repeat the case I made then to justify that— I suspect others may comment on that—but I note that there was widespread support for the establishment of new use categories in the way I described. In the hope that the Government will either accept my proposal for new use categories or collect the relevant detailed data in relation to those categories through the licensing or registration scheme, I have simply tabled Amendment 180 so that data that is collected, by whichever means, would be processed in accordance with the same national standards. This seems important because consistent and comparable data about second homes and holiday lets is, frankly, woefully lacking, as many people pointed out in our earlier discussions, not least the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Indeed, data on holiday lets is patchy, as it is for second homes.

Building on the point that the noble Earl made at the time, I say that although some official information is available on second homes via council tax records, in those authorities that do not offer the council tax discount for second homes there is no incentive for owners to register them, so it is likely that the council tax records significantly underestimate the scale of second homes in some areas. This data deficiency makes it difficult for researchers to track developments in both classes and the effect of second homes and holiday lets on, for example, house prices and local economies, and for local authorities to enforce regulation and taxation. Hence the benefit of the new use classes, coupled with data collected and processed to national standards, as proposed in this amendment, thereby ensuring robust, comparable and usable data on second homes and holiday lets, enabling better analysis and local regulation of these types of usage and adding to the department’s valuable work to improve local spatial and planning data.

However, to maximise those benefits, the data collected must come from as many sources as possible, including not least the platforms that offer holiday lets. Frankly, it is almost impossible to enforce licensing restrictions without, for example, rental data on how many days each property is actually let. We heard in earlier debates about London’s 90-day minimum period for short-term lets, but the Mayor of London himself has said that it is near impossible for councils to enforce it due to the lack of access to booking data from platforms. Indeed, Councillor Matt Noble from Westminster City Council very recently told your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee:

“If we were to have a data-sharing agreement with the platforms, that would be incredibly useful so that we could access and identify those issues of non-compliance with the hosts.”


I absolutely accept that platforms are not keen to hand over this data unless they can be sure it is kept confidential and used only for specific purposes; hence, as proposed in Amendment 445A, the need for data-sharing agreements—something that has already been adopted across the European Union.

I accept that Clause 210(5)(i) addresses data collection but, as I read it, it does not cover data sharing, so I look forward to the Minister either correcting me or commenting on how data sharing will be covered, given the clear need for it. I point out that I raised enforcement in an earlier group and at that time the Minister did not respond. I hope she will at least agree that data-sharing agreements will help enforcement.

I turn now to Amendments 445, 445B and 457, which address aspects of safety in short-term lets. Clause 210(5(c) as it stands would allow the registration of short-term lets to be conditional upon the safety conditions being met, but that clause lacks any detail about what is going to be required.

Analysis by the Centre for Public Data shows that many Airbnb and other short-term let listings appear to lack basic safety features, such as smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. The analysis by the centre found that in 2022—last year—9% of listings, excluding tents, yurts and campsites, were described as not having smoke alarms, 44% were described as not having fire extinguishers and 41% of properties with heating were described as not having carbon monoxide detectors. Airbnb does not check that listings have fire alarms, extinguishers or carbon monoxide detectors, or even require hosts to certify that they provide them. It does not ask hosts to confirm that gas safety or electrical checks have been carried out; hence Amendment 445, which addresses electrical safety, and Amendment 445B, which addresses safety issues in relation to gas, fire and carbon monoxide.

I will illustrate the need to specify in the Bill what more detailed requirements are needed by considering the issue of electrical safety, because I referred to this at Second Reading. I said then that Electrical Safety First points out that there is an alarming situation where short-term lets are not covered by the same electrical safety regulations as traditional holiday accommodation, forms of rented accommodation or short-term lets in Scotland. There is a loophole in the law that I believe Amendment 445 would plug.

The amendment is needed because 54% of guests in short-term lets have experienced some form of electrical safety issue: 19% of guests have reported being in properties with broken sockets or light switches; 50% have reported staying in properties where there was exposed wiring; and 13% have experienced scorching or burn marks around sockets or light switches. Amendment 445 deals with the electrical installations in the property and the portable electrical appliances provided in it.

17:15

In relation to the installations, the amendment would require the hosts of short-term lets to have an electrical safety inspection carried out at least every five years by a competent and qualified person and to possess an electrical installation condition report. This is already required in other forms of rented accommodation. Given that 89% of electrical fires are caused by electrical appliances, the amendment would also require that a portable appliance test—a PAT—on such appliances is carried out, from electric cookers to hairdryers. That must be done as part of the letting. Across all forms of tenure, these products cause 12,000 fires and 3,000 injuries every single year, some of them sadly fatal, as was the case at Grenfell Tower. It is essential that such appliances in short-term lets have a PAT.

It is not surprising perhaps that, based again on the survey from Electrical Safety First, 92% of guests consider it important that the premises they stay in meet formal safety electrical requirements for both the installations and equipment. Adding these safety provisions and those in Amendment 445A to registration conditions would require hosts to pay more attention to their existing legal duties and provide for effective sanctions if properties are found to lack safety provisions.

The Government said they are committed to ensuring that England has high-quality tourist accommodation. Amendments 445 and 445A, together with Amendment 447 which provides definitions, would help achieve this. I believe that these amendments on data collection and sharing, and on safety requirements, are useful additions to the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his introductory remarks. He made some important points. The points I am going to make are slightly different.

I will speak to the four amendments in my name in this group: Amendments 441, 443, 444 and 446. I do so with the cross-party support of other members of the Built Environment Select Committee, as is seen from the names subscribed to the amendments. I am glad to see various noble Lords here who are, or who have been, members of that committee and who may wish to speak in this short debate, which is principally focused on the Government’s proposals in the Bill to empower themselves to introduce a national registration scheme for short-term let properties.

These amendments arise from a short inquiry conducted by the Built Environment Select Committee last year in which we looked at the effects of Airbnb and similar type properties on various localities. It was chaired not by me at that time but by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. As committees tend to, we reached some conclusions we agreed on and had various questions that we wanted to ask the Government about the national registration scheme, which by then we were aware they were bringing forward and proposing. The Government clearly see it as central to their approach to dealing with the problems that have been identified.

One of the things we were able to agree on—here I part company slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, as was mentioned in Committee only two days ago—was that, while there was a problem, the evidence showed us that it was quite localised. It is a problem which exists in particular types of localities, including densely populated urban areas such as central London and in holiday areas. We did not see the case for a compulsory national registration scheme. We did see a case for local authorities in areas that are adversely affected to be empowered to have a registration scheme that they could apply locally.

Beyond that, we had a number of questions. We put our views and questions in a letter to the Government, as one does, and we addressed it—thinking we were doing the right thing—to the Secretary of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Our first surprise was being told, after a little while, that the reply would in fact come from a different department—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. So I first ask my noble friend to explain clearly why a scheme so closely identified with the Secretary of State at DLUHC should in fact be handled, in policy and implementation terms, by a totally different department. It is of course entirely up to the Government to decide how to manage these things, but I think noble Lords will want to know who is in charge, so to speak, and where they should turn if they have views on the matter.

As I said, we received a reply from a Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that was slightly odd in some ways. First, he appeared to think that the Bill in this Committee had already been enacted.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It had of course passed the Commons at that stage, and that may have been the cause of his confusion, but I know that noble Lords here would want him to be aware that the Bill is far from enacted. In fact, it is further from being enacted at this stage in Committee than it possibly was on the first day on which we sat to consider it. The Bill that emerges may yet not be quite the Bill that the Minister thinks is in force, but I am sure that all of this will be sorted out for him by his officials.

In his reply, he referred to the call for evidence that the Government issued last year—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for bringing this up. He referred to it, saying that the Government had gone out and called for evidence, but he gave no explanation of why, months later, we still have not seen the evidence submitted as a result of that call. I am sure it would be immensely helpful to your Lordships, in considering this particular aspect of the Bill, to know what evidence the Government received. So my second question to my noble friend is: can she tell us when we will see the evidence that was submitted to the Government last year, with any conclusions that they might have drawn from it at this stage? In particular, will noble Lords have an opportunity to see it before we arrive at Report, or—this would be very helpful—while we are still in Committee? The essential thrust of what I will say in the remainder of my speech—I think noble Lords might be grasping it—is that we are being asked to empower the Government to introduce a national registration scheme without being given any information on what it might contain.

This brings me to the remaining part of the letter that the committee received in reply to its polite inquiries. We asked some questions about how this would operate, but we were told by the Minister that none of these questions could be answered at this stage because they would all be the subject of public consultation. Public consultation is a very good and necessary thing, and we have no criticism of the Government for committing to undertake public consultation on the scheme, but you have to consult on something: you have to put some proposals to the public in order to elicit their opinion. My question, as a result of reading the letter from the Minister, is: do the Government have any idea at all of what they will put to the public? If they do—I very much hope they do—can my noble friend say what they are?

The content of these four amendments follows from this. I will run through them briefly, because all of them are probing amendments, seeking an answer from the Government to questions raised in our letter. It seemed very good to be able to give the Government this opportunity, in Committee, to answer questions that they were not able to answer a few weeks ago.

Amendment 441 raises the question of whether the Government have it in mind that this should be a national and compulsory scheme or one which has the local discretion which the committee favoured—we would like to know.

Amendment 443 raises the question of what the Government mean by a “short-term” let. It is put down as “90 days” in the amendment, but that is for probing purposes. Do they mean 90 days? What exactly will count as a short-term let for this purpose? If they do not have an exact figure—90 days, 80 days, 100 days—could they give us a range of what they think constitutes a short-term let before they go out to public consultation?

Amendment 444 raises a question about something on which the committee agreed—I should have said that earlier—that any national registration scheme should not apply to rooms being let out in one’s own home. In fact, the Government encourage people to let out rooms in their own home by giving them a tax break on the rental income received, so that appears to be one government policy. Is it the Government’s intention to include rooms let out in one’s principal home in a national registration scheme, and, if so, how does that mesh with the tax credits and the signals given by the tax system to those who do so?

The final question we wanted to know the answer to was: how will this be paid for? Whether it is a national or local scheme, I would have thought that it will almost certainly be implemented by local authorities, or that they will have a major role in its implementation, so how will they be remunerated for this? Fees will no doubt be charged, so how high will the fees be? Will the local authority be able to set its own fees in local circumstances, or will it be limited to charging only on a cost-recovery basis? Amendment 446 proposes cost recovery, but it is not a proposal; it is a probing amendment. This is a chance for the Government to say what they are thinking about fees and remuneration for local authorities.

Those are the four questions to which we did not feel we had received proper answers. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us some assurance and answers on those matters, and on the other matters I raised earlier, when she responds to the group. I add that, apart from this very short debate, I think that noble Lords will have no other opportunity, other than on Report, to have a say on the scheme before it comes to be proposed and no doubt incorporated in a statutory instrument or some other measure. So this is an important juncture—one in which noble Lords, I think, will want to hear some answers from my noble friend, as I do.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan, who is the finest chair of the House of Lords Built Environment Committee since my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe last year. He is a very fine chair, and I enjoy his chairmanship and his speeches. His four questions are entirely reasonable. I declare my residential and commercial property interests, none of which is involved in short-term lets, and that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association —it only took 20-odd years to get there, but I am delighted to have that honour.

I will make a general point, as someone who spent the bulk of their political career in local government as opposed to central government, which I know my noble friend the Minister will understand as a distinguished council leader. Would it not be far better to have a national compulsory scheme that was not a one size fits all? I say that because Wiltshire, which she led so brilliantly, is very different from Hammersmith and Fulham; Shepherd’s Bush does not look like some of the places in Wiltshire. Equally, the problems that have been outlined—certainly from the evidence collected by the Built Environment Committee—are very focal, and they require different solutions. A framework of some kind that enables local implementation seems incredibly sensible to me, and the probing around the definition of a short-term let seems very sensible to me. It is entirely courteous to the Members of this House that, when we deliberate and collect evidence to improve approaches, we take those points on board. I would like the Government to reflect on the fact that this process is really helpful; the Back-Benchers are trying to help get better legislation. Before you consult, it would be nice to know the way in which you propose to consult—and then, I am sure, we will get this right.

17:30

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 441, 443, 444 and 446 on the theme of short-term lettings, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the esteemed chair of your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, on which I am honoured to serve. I also support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on data sharing and safety.

I share the worries relayed very forcefully in submissions to our Built Environment Committee over the loss of long-term rented homes because of landlords switching to short-term lettings—propelled not least, it seems, by a tax and regulatory regime that favours the latter. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has said, our debate last Monday covered a lot of the issues that have been debated in our committee and are now the subject of these probing amendments. Noble Lords gave much support on Monday to earlier amendments that advocated a registration or licensing scheme—the two could look very similar. The Built Environment Committee favoured local discretion in introducing a national scheme locally, since some places have virtually no short-term lettings. It would be very bureaucratic to have a scheme applied there. The Government are also committed, as well as to a registration scheme, to taking a regulatory arrangement forward, and I hope that we can hear news from the Minister of a timetable in this regard.

In addition, there was support on Monday for the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for new use classes, which would enable planning powers to be used to control numbers of short-term lets in each local authority. The Government are consulting on that proposition, which personally I would favour; it deserves attention, alongside some tweaks to remove perceived incentives in the tax and regulatory frameworks, which currently appear to encourage landlords to end longer-term lets and switch to Airbnb-style short-term rentals.

I add to the debate one extra ingredient: the international dimension. In this digital age, the Airbnb phenomenon for accommodation, like Uber for transport and Amazon for retail, is ubiquitous and has caused concern in sectors in most other advanced economies. Many different regulations have been applied in other countries, particularly in tourist hotspots. A report from the Property Research Trust last year, Regulating Short-Term Rentals: Platform-based Property Rentals in European Cities, describes numerous efforts to face this challenge. Amsterdam has a strict permit system, with fines of about £20,000 for failure to comply. Barcelona has banned all short-term rentals, even in private homes. In Ireland, those areas of the country designated as rent-pressure zones have tough restrictions. In parts of the United States, such as San Francisco and Boston, only properties with the host living there during the stay are allowed to be operated as short-term lets. This international perspective demonstrates that we are not alone in facing this problem. We have a greater problem of scarcity of rented housing than most of our neighbours, which suggests that an effort to get to grips with the downside of short-term lets may be overdue here.

I have one final point. Amendment 444 reflects the Built Environment Committee’s firmly held view that new arrangements should not deter any home owners from letting spare rooms on a short-term basis. The current tax-free position, allowing up to £7,500 per annum, encourages the use of underutilised assets and brings extra income that can help with rising mortgage costs. The amendment emphasises the value of continuing that favourable tax regime for owner-occupiers in underoccupied homes.

I hope that the Government will be bold in following the lead of many other countries. We need to address the pain and disruption being caused in particular locations by the growth of short-term lets that replace badly needed longer-term rented homes. I support the amendments.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments, particularly the lead amendment in this group, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, about the gathering of better data. I will try not to repeat what I said last time, other than that I have some skin in the game here in the sense that I jointly own properties that are let on assured shorthold tenancies, as well as short-term holiday let properties.

This is a multifaceted issue. Second homes may, at other times, be part-time holiday lets. Holiday lets may be for leisure trips one minute and for business purposes another, and they may alter from season to season. They may be for a couple of days at one point, or a couple of weeks or three months at another point. It is very difficult to make a one-size-fits-all assumption when you are dealing with short-term lets, holiday lets or even assured shorthold tenancies.

The platforms are also equally variable: it could be booking.com—a very common one—Airbnb, an owner’s own website, word of mouth, a card in the window of the local convenience store, or a repeat booking. They are all means of people getting in contact. I know this for a fact, because the only one that does not affect the properties that I am involved with is Airbnb as we do not use that platform, but I know lots of people who do. In respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the thing about a platform such as Airbnb is its slickness and convenience for users—both lessors and prospective occupiers. That has really made it a benchmark worldwide phenomenon and has driven its operation and popularity as much as any wish to shift from one to the other.

I contacted a local estate agent down in the West Country—not one I use but I knew somebody in the place—and asked them what was happening with short-term lets as against assured shorthold tenancies, for example. They deal with a lot of such tenancies; they are one of the main agents in that area. I was told that, while there is considerable demand for assured shorthold tenancies—often 20 or 30 applicants for each—there were very few cases of an AST being terminated for the purpose of moving the property to a short-term letting. There was nearly always some other reason for ending the AST: it was a pot of money that the owner wanted to put into some other investment, such as extending another house or helping a child with a house purchase in another part of the country.

I do not know, therefore, how frequent this supposed transfer is. Organisations such as Shelter say that they have lots of people coming along saying that they have been kicked out because the owner wanted to do an Airbnb-type letting, but I do not know whether that is an essentially urban phenomenon—it may be—or more general. I just do not think that we have the data. That goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, made: we need better data.

I would worry about attempts to jump to conclusions about what we do here. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the chairman of the wonderful committee of which I am a former member, but I worry about attempts to jump to conclusions, particularly because we have not had the results of the Government’s own thinking on this, and particularly when applying these user types to a range of properties that equally has a very considerable breadth—from a shepherd’s hut at one end through to a static caravan and to a permanent dwelling. Some may be suitable only for seasonal use: I think of the very large caravan parks that—“decorate” is the wrong word—“appear” in places such as the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. I cannot say that I regard them as beautiful or a benefit to the environment, but they clearly fulfil a seasonal requirement.

There are some settlements—some seaside places and holiday hotspots—that are built on tourism. That is what they are there for, almost, and the fact that they empty themselves for parts of the year is not a particularly modern phenomenon. I remember when as children we used to go on holiday to a part of Cornwall on an annual basis, and just about every other house was advertising bed and breakfast. Those bed and breakfasts may have morphed into Airbnb, or a short-term let on some other platform. Noble Lords have mentioned that there are clearly problems associated with an imbalance of property uses, but as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, confirmed—I raised this point on Monday —these are not consistent, geographically or by type. They tend to be associated with hotspots of one sort or another. We need to understand the dynamic.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, picked up on the point I made that we need to flesh out a great deal more what is happening here. If we do not know the purposes and drivers behind what is happening in any given instance then we are not going to get near to creating viable policies for the purpose. Let us make no mistake: this phenomenon is undoubtedly causing problems in certain areas. We had evidence of that in the Built Environment Select Committee when I was privileged to serve on it. What is required here is a degree of localised assessment, but based on consistent, nationally accepted data-gathering principles and analysis, so that we get a proper basis for dealing with this, and can look at and compare like with like and not be comparing apples with pears.

I entirely endorse Amendments 445B and 447, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, because I know for a fact how very important safety is within a property, particularly where there is short-term turnover of occupancy and people are not particularly familiar with the property. It is absolutely important that they are safe, and that things such as batteries in smoke detectors are checked annually and that combustion appliances have proper tests and are serviced. They should be safe and safety checked at regular intervals.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, referred to the business of trying to get at the data on this through council tax records. He is absolutely right that this is a pretty deficient way of dealing with it. I am going to tell a tale out of school here. My wife has written on numerous occasions to the billing authority in relation to a property that has been used for holiday letting for many years, saying, “Look, this is being used pretty much year-round as a holiday unit. Should it continue to be in council tax?” To which answer there came none, and why would there? Why would any clever finance officer of a local authority decide that he was going to forgo council tax—which he collects and keeps in his kitty, thank you very much—and be the collecting agency for business rates for central government, to be redistributed according to whatever the normal formula is? The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned one area where the thing is skewed; that is a second area where there is a perverse incentive not to get things in the right slot.

It gets worse. Under the “check, challenge, appeal” process that business rates operators have to deal with when dealing with the Valuation Office Agency, someone has to formally claim the property for the purposes of being its agent before they can even get the process in train to change the assessment. That is not a sensible way of doing it either. We are completely at sea on this and really need to sort it out.

17:45

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to fees. I am really glad that they have been raised. One of my children has an investment flat in part of south London. The local authority has decreed that they will pay either a registration fee or a licence fee—I do not know which —for the privilege of being a landlord. It confers no inspection or anything else. There do not seem to be any checks, just an address and a £600 fee every year. That is not small beer; it makes the difference between the thing being a reasonably profitable investment and being highly marginal. There is a risk that the fee can be used as a milch cow, which I rather object to for the reasons I made clear when I last spoke on this.

The distribution of second homes and very short-term lettings is not necessarily where people want to live and work. I made this point last Monday; I apologise for making it again, but it is important. We need to get a handle on the distribution issue, along with all the other functional things.

This is not the stuff of simple arithmetic. The Government may be looking hard into all these things but, until we have some qualitative data, going back to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, we will be adrift. We are at risk of making policies that produce an adverse reaction in their target area, because you never know what the intuitive response will be. There will be a disruptive effect, which is avoidable. There is a sensible way and a disruptive way of doing this. I hope we take the former route.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who was a member of the Built Environment Committee when we discussed this issue. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his excellent introduction; I agreed with probably most of what he said, which is quite unusual for me.

There is a housing problem. We are here to talk about the short-term issue and the relationship between supply and demand, the short-term issue and location, as other noble Lords have said. It comes back to the question of where the workers—the term is a little insulting—the people who need to live locally, will live. It varies across the UK. As noble Lords will know, I live in Cornwall and sometimes on the Isles of Scilly. I have a bit of data from Cornwall Council that puts this into perspective. According to the council, we have 13,292 second homes in Cornwall. I am not sure how that was measured or how you define a second home, which is partly what we are talking about now, but that is a pretty high figure.

On the question of where people might live, the same council and its deputy leader have said that there are 6,000 affordable homes in Cornwall which have planning permission, but only 600 are being built. One has to ask why. Is it that the developers are waiting for a year or two so that they can get a better sale price, or what? We need that information.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he did not have any evidence of people being kicked out of their longer-term lets for Airbnb, but there was evidence of this in Plymouth in a local paper article about six months ago. It named the person—I think—and where it took place. It involved a man who was working in some local authority role. He had been there for many years, but one day his landlord, who lived downstairs or upstairs in the house, gave him notice to quit, because he said he was going to sell it. So, the tenant had to leave. I do not know whether he found anywhere else; history does not relate. However, he did keep an eye on the property, and six months later he found it advertised on Airbnb. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it is keeping the availability of accommodation—both affordable and unaffordable homes—in a pretty nasty state wherever this happens. I recall asking the Airbnb witness, when he or she came to our committee, whether they felt it would be all right for somebody to be kicked out like that and for the council worker to sleep on a park bench—that was his alternative. I did not get much of an answer; I did not really expect one.

There is a problem here, but it is only in some places, as other noble Lords have said. There are other places where it is probably not necessary to have legislation, and that is the purpose behind Amendment 441. For me, the most important thing is to have the ability to register these properties when the local authority believes that it is necessary. So, I favour “permitting” in Amendment 441, but if the Government think that it is essential around the whole country, we will have to look at this again.

My worry about Amendment 443 is the inclusion of “90 days” in the definition of a short-term rental, but as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, this a probing amendment. It is easy to ask: would this apply to a rental if it is let for 90 days, or if it is available for let for 90 days? Who is going to check? It is a bit difficult to define something which will probably cover the whole country—ditto my comments about Amendment 444. That amendment talks about one room in a house, which sounds fine. If you have a three-bedroom house and you let one, that sounds fine. However, there may be people who then build a bigger house in order to let multiple rooms—I do not know how many; it could be three, four, five or six—and make a lot of money out of it, and they could get away with it because it is a series of single rooms. All these special exclusions could make it more difficult for this legislation to work.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, are absolutely essential. This is one of the things we discovered with Airbnb, as the noble Lord said: it does not have to comply with any of these regulations. Fire and safety are fundamental to any property that is let. I know many people who run holiday lets, and they moan like anything that they have to get all these certificates. But if you have rented something, whether it is for a week, a day or a year, you still expect the same level of safety. It is amazing that people think they can get away with not having this.

Some noble Lords will have met the people doing the R&R, who told us what is going to happen with the restoration of this building. My first question to them was, “And what are you doing about fire extinguishers, fire monitoring, and extinguishers in the roof in particular, after Notre-Dame?” They said, “Well, that will come later, when we’ve decided what to do and started the work”. We all know that the most likely time for an old building to catch fire is when the contractors are in. That probably applies as much to lets registered or unregistered with the local authority as it does to this place—which we all love, of course.

In supporting all these amendments, my final comment, therefore, is that it is going to cost local authorities money to do these things. We know that. They must have the money and be allocated the money, and they must be able to spend it on what they like. Everybody will then think that this is all fair and above board, and they will sleep better in their beds at night.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking as a former member of the Built Environment Committee; I was a member when the committee’s report was drawn up. I thank the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his committee clerk for sending me a copy of the letter received by the committee this week, I understand, from the Minister who has accepted responsibility for this issue. It is, as it turns out, the Minister from DCMS. Before I go any further, I say that in a previous debate it was extremely frustrating for the Government Front Bench to reply, “Well, that was a matter for the Department for Transport”, and for no answer to be forthcoming. I hope we will not get into that dead end today, because this is a significant set of amendments on a significant proposal in the Bill. As this debate has already made clear, it has a very clear crossover into the housing market and the availability of housing in many areas of the country.

When the committee commenced its inquiry, it consisted of members with a very wide range of views—from those who had an extremely free-market approach to the housing situation and believed that the market would determine it, to those at the other end who thought that the best solution to our housing problem was a state allocation system. So, we had a very wide range of views in the committee, but we received such convincing evidence during the inquiry that it was not that difficult for us to produce a consensus report. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are very much exploring with the Government their response to the committee’s report, and I have signed Amendment 441 in particular. The Government’s wording in the Bill is that the Secretary of State can propose regulations “requiring or permitting” local authorities to do something, but the amendment would delete “requiring” so that the Secretary of State’s regulations can only be about “permitting” them.

I am also privy to what my noble friend Lady Thornhill would have said if she had not tested positive for Covid yesterday: “My first major concern is that there are several ‘may’ or ‘must’ statements in the Bill, which could either require or permit action, and there is a world of difference between the two. We are being asked to agree a general principle and accept that there will be additional shorter consultations to bring forward a set of regulations on the details of how such a registration scheme would operate.” My noble friend Lady Thornhill shares my aversion to the Government having unfettered power and, on this occasion, even being able to restrict the time for consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has spoken about that. I hope that the Minister, despite being from the wrong department, will be able to tell us what the outcome of that consultation process was.

18:00

Both my noble friend Lady Thornhill and I would like to hear what the Government’s current thinking is on whether short-term lets should constitute a change of use and therefore require planning permission, or whether they should not. It is a key element in permitting some degree of local flexibility for any scheme that comes forward.

I am sorry to remind noble Lords that on several occasions so far in our discussions I have had something to say about the plethora of regulatory impositions that the Bill contains, and this has more, of course. I would like to hear whether there is any departmental working—anything in the pipeline—on the combined impact of all these regulations from different legislative provisions on councils’ ability to deliver what they are supposed to be doing. How open are the Government to responding to the fact that the need for action is very different in different parts of the country? Is the Minister fixated on a one-size-fits-all solution, either where everybody must or where everybody is forbidden to license or register as the case may be?

The committee took evidence from south Devon, where there is a serious problem, and my noble friend Lord Foster in the debate at the beginning of the week referred to a village known to him in east Suffolk where a very high proportion of homes are second homes or holiday lets. However, if one turned to the metropolitan boroughs of Knowsley or Halton, one would find, for all practical statistical purposes, that there are no second homes in those two boroughs, and no Airbnb or other short-term lets being advertised. That strongly suggests to me that the right approach is to have a permissive regime, not a compulsory one, and I believe that is soundly based on the evidence that the Select Committee received.

A key drawback of any national or uniform legislative outcome is that it requires resources, human and financial, to set up and run and to monitor and enforce. Several noble Lords mentioned registration fees; they can be set to cover the cost, and one of the amendments which I did not sign said they should be on a cost-recovery basis. However, that works only if there are sufficient homes—some might say too many—that need to be licensed in a particular area. How would the costs of setting up, monitoring and enforcement be covered in areas of low or very low prevalence of such homes? Either the measure becomes a complete dead letter because there are no resources to implement it, or the licence fee charged will have to be wholly disproportionate. We get to the strange situation where the fewer the homes, the greater the charge would have to be to cover providing that service.

Conversely, the evidence the committee took on Airbnb lettings is that they are significantly more lucrative in certain areas to those who own the properties than in others. Do the Government envisage authorising a proportionately larger registration fee to allow councils to cover their costs—including, of course, the costs of enforcement—or not? Quite clearly, the profit from these homes in some areas will be significantly higher than in others.

These points all raise warning flags about not overpromising that this government provision as it stands will be the solution to the short-term letting problem. Indeed, you can ask a whole lot of other questions. Some have been posed by others, and others I could put into play now—but let us not do that.

All this suggests that the Minister might be well advised to try a couple of pilot schemes as a useful first step. Could she tell us whether she would consider that approach, or consider whether Wales has actually provided a pilot scheme because its scheme is discretionary? As I understand it, some local authorities in Wales have commenced a scheme while others have no intention of doing so at all. I realise that the Welsh scheme was not invented here, which may of course make it ineligible for consideration or comparison, but to do that might be time well spent.

I will briefly conclude by saying that I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath said about electrical safety. There seems to be absolutely no reason or argument to oppose his amendments, which would ensure that those who occupied short-term lets and dwellings, or indeed any accommodation, had a guarantee of a safe environment in which they could operate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in an earlier debate on these topics on Monday, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Foster, discussing Southwold, where I spent many happy hours on holiday as a child and which now has, if I remember my figures from Monday rightly, only 500 permanent homes out of 1,400 homes. In that same debate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred, as he did again today, to the fact that have not just a numbers problem but a distribution problem around the country because of the lack of available data.

We are all aware of the considerable issues presented in parts of our country related to second homes and short-term lets. That situation was clearly articulated by my noble friend Lady Hayman in our debate on Monday, when she articulated that communities are hollowed out because of the second homes left empty for large parts of the year, which means that all the community facilities that permanent residents need struggle to be viable. In addition, we see local house prices forced out of affordability for local people as second homes and holiday lets contribute to the housing pressures.

An amendment creating new use classes for second homes or holiday lets was rejected in the other place. Although amendments on the same subject were withdrawn on Monday, I hope that we come back to this, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Best, because it is critical that we tackle this issue. In the House of Commons, the Government claimed that these were not necessary as neighbourhood plans could create principal residence policies. However, I wonder whether the full extent of this issue and its impact, particularly on rural and coastal communities, has been properly assessed and understood. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would enable the collection of data relating to this problem which might help to develop the picture further. However, we should encourage the Government, through the Minister, to consider this matter as urgent; it may already be too late for some of the communities worst affected. Surely we will not abandon these communities to the opportunities they offer for a small number of people to make a fast buck.

On the amendments tabled to Clause 210, which were clearly articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we too are interested to hear the Government’s thoughts on the registration of short-term rental properties. It was interesting to hear about the work of the Built Environment Select Committee in that respect.

In the Commons, Ministers referred previously to the ongoing consultation on this matter—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to it again this afternoon. What is the outcome of that consultation—it has not been published yet—and what conclusions will the Government draw from it? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to this in an earlier debate on this topic.

I was very interested in the comments on the work of the Built Environment Select Committee, and it is fascinating to hear that this issue sits with the DCMS rather than DLUHC. I hope the Minister will respond to that. It is disappointing to hear that a Minister thinks that the whole Bill has already been enacted. In view of the fact that none of these issues has been dealt with, I think we are glad that it has not been so far, and I am sure that noble Lords here will improve the Bill as we go along.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I just briefly say, as a matter of courtesy, that the reply to the letter that I referred to came from a Minister in the other place? I just thought, in all fairness, that I should make that very clear.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, set out the four questions asked by his amendments, and they are all very important questions on which I hope we will hear further from the Minister, particularly Amendment 446, which addresses how this is going to be paid for. That is one of a number of questions on fees and costs that appear about many other clauses of the Bill, so I hope we will have responses to those questions.

The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, largely relate to ensuring that the safety of short-term let properties is not left to chance. It is particularly important that properties left empty for periods of the year are subject to detailed regulation on safety matters. This would also encourage absentee landlords to ensure that their responsibilities are met. Recently, we have seen increasing pressure on social landlords to address safety provision—in fact, there are very stringent new requirements on them—so it is clearly an issue that the Secretary of State takes seriously. We should not have what would amount to an exemption for the owners of short-term let properties in this respect. I hope that may be addressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, also referred to the difficulty of enforcing licensing restrictions without data from booking platforms. Although I agree with him that booking platforms may be unwilling to release that data, it is really important and, without it, enforcement is difficult to address. Local authorities would struggle without effective data collection methods to enforce some of the matters raised in this debate.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the perverse incentives that exist between council tax and business rates. This is really important to data gathering: there is no incentive for councils, because if they collect business rates, they have to send it all off to our good friends at the Treasury, whereas if they collect council tax, they keep it to deliver services to their communities, so there is not much incentive for them to get matters straight here.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the importance of being reassured of the safety of the building, regardless of the length of time of the let. If you stay somewhere, even if just overnight, you want to be assured that the building is subject to the same safety regulations as would apply anywhere else you stayed.

Turning to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is not in her place today and I hope he will send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery. He spoke about evidence to the Built Environment Select Committee from south Devon. I heard a great deal on this from my former colleague on the District Councils Network, Judy Pearce, who is the leader of South Hams Council and has been a powerful advocate of a great deal more action on second homes. The suggestion of pilot schemes—or taking advice from Wales, as I am sure my noble friend Lady Wilcox would say—is always a very good idea.

On 21 March, it was reported that changes aimed at restricting the way that homes can be turned into Airbnbs were being introduced, as the Secretary of State for DLUHC was going to bring them in. He acknowledged a problem with holiday lets preventing young people accessing jobs and homes. Can the Minister give us further information on whether that will come into the Bill as government amendments and when we will see government amendments to this effect?

Those are our comments on the amendments submitted. We support the amendments on registration and we certainly support the amendments on safety.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register as the owner of a second home in Pembrokeshire, one of the three local authorities that is introducing a licensing scheme—actually, it is not introducing a licensing scheme but a 300% increase in rates unless you rent your house out for more than six months, which I generally do.

This group of amendments concerns the operation of the short-term letting registration scheme introduced by the Bill. To start with Amendment 180, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Foster of Bath—I, too, send my good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and hope she recovers swiftly from Covid—I start by acknowledging the important topic this amendment raises relating to holiday lets and second homes.

18:15

Data in relation to holiday lets is vital to support tourism and manage the impacts on local communities, which we can all acknowledge are, in some instances, very significant. I believe, however, that there may have been some misinterpretation on the intent of Clause 78 which may mean that this amendment would not be needed. Clause 78 aims to require planning authorities to process their planning data in accordance with approved data standards, whereas the amendment seeks to require collection of data by planning authorities. Nothing in Clause 78 can require or permit the collection of data by planning authorities, although it can regulate the manner of collection where that is authorised elsewhere.

With that having been said, I add a point of reassurance. Where planning authorities have this data, Clause 78(2)(b) provides the ability for data standards to be set for holiday-let data. As I mentioned in relation to Amendment 166, we are looking to further refine the data available both to the Government and to local authorities in this area. Both the existing data and any further data can then be subject to regulations under Clause 78 requiring local authorities to process that data in accordance with standards set by the Secretary of State. I am sure that we will discuss these powers further later in Committee.

On Amendments 441, 443, 444 and 446, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, he has suggested how certain elements of the registration scheme could be designed, and I am grateful for his thoughts on these important questions of detail. As he will have heard, we intend to consult both on the registration scheme and on the potential for short-term let use classes, and we will need to reflect on the responses to those consultations in coming to a view on the matters he has raised. That will of course, as I alluded to earlier, include giving careful consideration to the interaction between the two sets of reforms. Although the Government wish to move quickly in this area, it is also important that we get this right for the affected communities. I look forward to working with him and other noble Lords as we seek to do so.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify a question that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I put: what are the Government going to be consulting on? Is there a document?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I will be coming to that in a moment.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 445, 445A, 445B and 447, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. These amendments concern the detail of how the registration scheme will operate, particularly in relation to data sharing and the safety of properties. These issues will indeed be explored in the consultation, and a registration scheme will be designed to ensure that all providers of short-term lets are aware of their legal responsibilities to ensure health and safety in their properties. Infrequent use should not mean that short-term lets do not need to meet safety standards, but that issue will be considered in much more detail in the consultation.

The shape of England’s guest accommodation landscape has changed greatly over the past 15 years. Online platforms have enabled greater choice in accommodation for holidaymakers and have brought many benefits to the tourism sector. This proliferation of a new type of guest accommodation has, however, been unregulated, which has prompted concerns including on safety, as my noble friend highlighted. We want to ensure that England continues to provide a safe and competitive guest accommodation offer, while also supporting those who live and work in our local visitor economies.

That is why the Government launched a call for evidence on this topic, as an important first step in understanding how we can ensure we continue to reap the benefits of short-term lets, while also protecting holidaymakers and local interests. This initial call for evidence, which ran between June and September last year, was indeed led by DCMS, as it follows on from previous work that that department did, as short-term lets are an integral part of the UK visitor economy. A report on that call for evidence will be published at the same time as the consultation on the registration scheme, this summer, and I reassure noble Lords that both departments are working together closely because of their shared interest in the scheme.

It has become clear from the call for evidence process that there is a compelling case for introducing light-touch regulation in this sector, and that is what we are intending to do through the Bill. The Government are also introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets through the Bill. The details of how the scheme will operate will be explored through a public consultation, which will be published before this year’s Summer Recess with a view to the register being up and running as soon as possible thereafter. The consultation is intended to flesh out many different aspects of how the scheme would operate, such as what information would be collected, who would administer the scheme, which requirements should be satisfied as a condition of registering and whether any fees would be charged; it will also cover any enforcement powers, which were asked about by an earlier contributor to the debate.

The important matters on safety that noble Lords raised—

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I appreciate what the Minister said about enforcement. It was in fact me who talked about that—not my noble friend Lord Shipley, as was widely said. Enforcement is vital because without it, the scheme becomes a dead letter. Making sure that any costs or fees take adequate account of that is quite important.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The noble Lord has made that point well and I will certainly take it back to the department, which will take note of it.

Regarding a precise time definition for short-term lets, it is not the length of time but the activity that is important. In essence, the definition of a short-term let is a dwelling used by a guest, in return for payment, that is not the guest’s main residence

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked whether the planning changes that the Secretary of State referred to are the subject of the planned consultation on a short-term let use class, as discussed by this Committee on Monday. I recognise that a number of the questions asked by noble Lords will be answered only by the consultation process. However, I hope that, in the meantime, I have been able to offer at least some reassurance; I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate; I have certainly learned a great deal. We had a discussion earlier about the difference between having a national scheme and a local scheme. I was tempted to say that I would refer to the speech I made two days ago.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, because he has demonstrated how your Lordships’ House can always find a solution to a problem. As I now read it, based on the conversations I have been having, we are collectively agreed that we will have a national registration scheme with local flexibility based on national standards. There is a great deal of sense in that.

I listened carefully to the Minister and I am grateful to her for her response to the debate but I find myself in a great deal of difficulty, as I suspect many other noble Lords do. She told us that there will be a new consultation and that we will know about that document only when we get answers to the outcome of the previous consultation. She has already indicated that that will not take place until the summer. Notwithstanding the concern of many of us that we may still be in Committee in the summer, I still think it would be helpful to have more information about what will be in that consultation before we take the Bill further.

In particular, I very much hope that, as other noble Lords have said, the consultation will clearly indicate the Government’s policy on the various issues we have been debating. For example, my noble friend Lord Stunell—or Shipley, or whichever guise he is taking on at the moment—raised the important issue of the fee-charging structure. It is important that this consultation says what the Government believe it should be and then gets a reaction to that.

I am grateful for the Minister’s response, at least in promising us that many of these issues will be covered. The problem is that we do not really know what the answers to our questions today will be. We look forward to raising these issues again at a future stage; hopefully, we will have received the consultation document by then.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 180 withdrawn.

Clause 78 agreed.

Debate on whether Clause 79 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my amendment would remove Clause 79 from the Bill, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage has given notice of her intention to oppose Clause 81 standing part of the Bill. We have also a further amendment in this group. Clause 79 concerns the power in relation to the provision of planning data, while Clause 81 concerns the power to require the use of approved planning data software in England. After Clause 83, my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s Amendment 182 would insert the following:

“The Secretary of State may only make planning data regulations which contain provision relating to local authorities after consulting with local authorities.”

We oppose these clauses standing part of the Bill and have laid an amendment to Clause 83 because local authorities should be able to decide what planning data software they use. Also, local planning authorities that have already purchased software and tools may well find in future that what they have purchased is no longer approved for use, meaning that their investment has been made redundant and they have spent money they can probably ill afford to spend again. Will the Minister ask the department to look at this again in the light of local authorities’ concerns, particularly from that financial perspective?

Clause 81 permits the use of regulations to restrict or prohibit relevant planning authorities using software not approved by the Secretary of State, as I just talked about. The other concern is the unnecessary level of bureaucracy. This also risks reducing competition in the market, and I would be surprised if that is the Government’s intention. What is the Government’s intention behind this clause?

The Local Government Association supports our position and has confirmed that local authorities would of course need to ensure that their planning data software allows them to meet any new data standard requirements. It is also right that, where new regulations relating to local authorities are introduced, it should be done only following proper consultation with local authorities that will clearly be affected by this clause. This will help to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose and that any new burdens are identified and properly addressed, and to avoid any unintended consequences during implementation. Do the Government intend to carry out any consultation before implementation? Have they already spoken to local authorities about this? If so, what was the response?

We appreciate that the Government are bound by public procurement rules. I spent much time on the then Procurement Bill as it went through this House, so I am aware that within the general procurement framework there is a specific set of rules and handbooks for technology procurement.

However, we believe that the powers in Clause 81 are just too expansive. They enable Ministers by regulation to restrict or prevent the use or creation of software that is used by planning authorities to process the planning data. Further checks should be put in place on their usage, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response in that regard.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has an amendment to Clause 23 which would require the Secretary of State to publish the results of a consultation and give reasons for any decision reached. We strongly support that amendment. It is an important consideration and consultation should be part of any decision-making in this area. I beg to move.

18:30

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak on this group, and I will speak also to my Amendment 181 to Clause 83. I sat through Second Reading but did not speak. I can claim only that I had intellectual indigestion through trying to understand what the Bill is all about.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is looking at the difficulties from a local authority point of view. My speech is from a devolved authority point of view. It is in Part 3 of the Bill that the devolved Administrations have the greatest worries about infringement of their devolved competence. My interest is as a Scot living in Scotland. Part 3 of the Bill has been referred by the Scottish Parliament to its Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for consideration, and other sections have been referred to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. That is all very well, but none of these committees has recommended legislative consent, and they are due to give their final conclusions when we get to Third Reading, which is not very far off.

At an earlier stage in the Bill, my noble friend the Minister was telling the House that civil servants are regularly in touch with their Scottish counterparts. Surely a Bill of this complexity must, at some stage, require some negotiation at ministerial level as well. Can my noble friend tell us of any hint of consent from any of these branches of the Scottish Parliament?

I turn to Clause 81 and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The clause requires the use of approved planning data in England. It portends that one of the things that the Government will be seeking is to get compliance in due course with the use of their approved planning data from all the devolved Administrations. While this may be understandable on a practical level, it bears the echo of a previous experience that the Scots have had, in a more limited field with which I am familiar. Some years ago, in contrast to England, the Scots developed an electronic sheep traceability system and associated database, known as sheep EID. It has worked very well. Recently, the department in England decided to inaugurate a similar programme and was offered the chance to share the system and the cost. This was rejected for no apparent reason. Therefore, one has misgivings about the application of systems.

At various points in the Bill we have considered whether the requirement for consultation is appropriate. There is much that can be said about meaningful consultation, but this clause requires any Secretary of State to consult in specific circumstances. The amendment requires them to publish the results and give reasons. The issue is of much concern to the Scottish Law Society, which drew my attention to it and which welcomes the obligation to consult and to give the conclusions and reasons for the decision, which would serve the interests of transparency.

In a previous group, we had a magnificent example of people dying to know the outcome of a consultation when the Government were sitting on it. This amendment would ensure that all information was available. It seems obvious that planning was not reserved under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and so it is fair to assume that planning data falls into the same category. Can we assume that as the approved planning data systems for England required by the Bill are developed, we will be aware of what is likely to be required from the existing records of the devolved Administrations?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

As a Scot by birth living in England, I support my noble friend the Duke of Montrose in his Amendment 181. It is good that in this clause, as my noble friend said, the Government are committed to consulting in specific circumstances. However, too frequently we are not seeing the results of the consultations in a timely fashion, particularly before any regulations under this part of the Bill may be drafted and come before the House. Therefore, I lend this amendment my strongest support.

My noble friend also raised collaborating with the Scottish Parliament with a view to obtaining legislative consent. We have had two recent regrettable circumstances where the Scottish Parliament—and in one case, the Senedd—withheld their consent. This could be avoided if discussions took place with the relevant committees of the Scottish Parliament at the earliest stage and throughout the course of the Bill. I am thinking particularly of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which has exercised the House at quite some length, and the recent Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill. The withholding of legislative consent could have been avoided by the Scottish Parliament if the Government had liaised with them and the relevant committees at a much earlier stage.

With those remarks, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Bill, entitled “Planning Data”, asks more questions than it answers. I will be grateful if the Minister can answer some of them.

First, what is the purpose of requiring an approved national planning software? Is it so that the Government can more readily access planning data from across the country? If so, to what purpose do they want to put the data that they acquire in that way?

Secondly, how many different planning software systems are in operation at the moment? Digitising planning is a complicated operation, so you would not expect that many but, if there are, have local planning authorities already expressed a clear preference to use a single system? This takes me to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in that, if the Government are requiring a single approved planning software, there would be considerable costs attached to local planning authorities transitioning to a new software system. You would want to balance those costs against the benefits. The Bill makes no obvious benefit of using a single system. Another issue is about compatibility. If the current software systems are compatible, is this a solution seeking a problem? There may not be a problem if they can already speak to each other.

My third concern with Clause 79, and the stand part question expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is that planning applications have to be retained for a long time. I cannot remember for how long; I think it is 30 years, but it may be longer. If that is the case, all previous planning applications going back a certain length of time would have to be put on to a new system, so that the systems could talk to each other. As all noble Lords know, there are planning applications made on the same place time and again and in different forms. I want to understand the purpose of this: why and who benefits?

Another of my concerns is this. I am in favour of digitising; I think it has huge benefits for many people, particularly planning professionals, in this case. It would be much easier to have it all online. However, if it is going to be a digital-only system, as seems to be the thrust of this group of clauses, the Government will be guilty of digital exclusion.

The Government must recognise two things. First, many people access all their digital needs only through a mobile phone. Accessing a planning application, with all its complexity, through a mobile platform will not provide the level of detail that they want. Secondly, many parts of the country still do not have either sufficiently good broadband or mobile signal. Digital exclusion could be a growing issue, especially in planning. People get involved in planning applications, big and small, and I am sure that the last thing the Government want is to exclude residents for different reasons—accessibility or knowledge of use.

I have asked many questions, but I hope the Minister is able to answer them. While digitising planning systems has many positives, they have to be weighed against some of the many negatives that exist.

18:45

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her valuable contribution to this debate and for focusing our attention on these provisions. In the light of her remarks, it is probably best for me to start by explaining the importance of Clause 79.

Too often, planning information is hard to use for all the purposes that it should serve. Clause 79 is designed to address this problem. Planning authorities often receive large amounts of information which requires manual intervention to make it usable. Re-entry is then required to use that information later in the system. These manual tasks take valuable time away from planning authorities performing their core role of making decisions that matter to communities.

There are three key effects of this clause. First, it works with Clause 78 to ensure that complying with data standards does not create a new bureaucratic burden for planning authorities receiving information and then having to render it compliant. Secondly, it gives planning authorities the power to require information in a manner that best suits their systems and the data standards to which they are subject. Thirdly, it protects against the risk that some may attempt to use the requirements under Clause 78 to inconvenience local authorities’ decision-making by deliberately submitting information in a problematic format that is difficult to extract.

Clause 79 also sets out the process that planning authorities must follow to exercise their powers. Publication of a notice on the planning authority website or through specific communications will be required to inform participants of what planning data will be subject to data standards when it is submitted to a planning authority. In circumstances where the data fails to comply, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for rejection.

I will deal briefly with the power of planning authorities to refuse information as non-compliant. There is no obligation for planning authorities to refuse non-compliant information. However, for the reasons I have just outlined, we expect planning authorities to accept such information only exceptionally. The Committee will see that we have taken steps to protect those who are not able to submit using the means specified by the planning authority or who cannot comply with the data standards in that submission. Where the provider of information has a reasonable excuse, information cannot be refused. Planning authorities will be under a duty to accept—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics about the problem that these clauses are trying to solve. What is the extent of the difficulty such that, when applicants submit their planning applications to the planning authority, they then have to be manually entered or have to use a different system? Do we know the extent of that problem?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We believe the problem to be quite considerable. I do not have statistics in front of me, but I will undertake to consult the department and see whether I can put some flesh on these bones, if the noble Baroness and others would find that helpful.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On that point, it would be incredibly useful to have some sort of evidence base for us to consider. Can the Minister ask the department for that?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Yes. These clauses have not just been dreamed up out of the blue.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that they have not.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We have received representations from a number of local authorities on the difficulties that they encounter and the sheer time that it takes to process information that does not conform to their systems.

As I was about to say, where the provider of information has a reasonable excuse, information cannot be refused. Planning authorities will be under a duty to accept and fully consider this information, so those with a reasonable excuse are not disadvantaged. Where information is initially refused by a planning authority, the clause provides the discretion to accept a compliant resubmission.

In summary, this clause will ensure that, by default, information received will be usable for all of the purposes to which planning authorities need it to be put. This will make the system more efficient, enabling planning authorities to work faster and focus on planning rather than data entry. That is the main point.

I turn next to Clause 81. Outdated and expensive software is one of the barriers that local authorities face to achieving more efficient ways of working in the planning process. Systems do not work with one another, forcing manual re-entry of information while locking that information away in formats that are not reusable. Clause 81 is essential for ensuring that planning authorities can benefit from the changes in this chapter through being supported by the right software, which can process standardised data.

The intent behind Clause 81 is to ensure the provision of software that is compatible with planning data requirements, so software approval requirements will follow on from the development of data standards set under Clause 78.

Our intention is to focus on exploring software that enables better availability of information and unlocks the ability to produce better tools for planning authorities. It is therefore not our intention to require the approval of all planning data software. We will continue working with planning authorities and the technology sector to determine when and where the use of this power will most benefit the planning system. In summary, this clause is essential for delivering effective, high-quality systems which the public rightly expect of government at all levels. I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment 181, in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, relates to Clause 83, as he explained, and aims to make public the result of engagement between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. I need first to explain how this amendment impacts on the planning data section of the Bill. It is important to understand what is in scope of Clause 83 in relation to the devolved Administrations.

As it stands, the only matters within devolved competence that planning data regulations could apply to would be Part 6 of the Bill, on environmental outcomes reports, or EORs. As such, provisions relating to consultation with the devolved Administrations must be read alongside the wider EOR clauses.

As set out in Committee in the other place, the Government are continuing to work with the devolved Administrations to understand whether there is scope to extend the EOR powers to provide a shared framework of powers across the UK. Once those discussions have concluded, the Government will bring forward any necessary amendments to both Part 6 and Part 3 to reflect the agreed position between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I reassure my noble friend and noble Lords that, in bringing forward the new system of environmental outcomes reports, the Government are committed to respecting the devolution settlements.

In answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, our discussions at this stage are with the devolved Administrations rather than with, for example, the Scottish Parliament. I hope noble Lords will agree that we should not be required to make public the results of confidential policy discussions between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. For all these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will accept that his amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 182, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has consulted local authorities before establishing planning data regulations. Local authorities’ input on the new data requirements is of course important as we look to transition from a largely document-based planning system to one that is data-driven.

However, I reassure noble Lords that the intention of this amendment has already been built into the approach that the department has taken to design and test the new planning data requirements. As I have emphasised, the Government’s policy aim through planning data regulations is to create consistency on a national level. This includes the way local authorities process and publish planning data and will ensure that they are supported by suitable software to meet the new requirements.

Since 2019, we have been working with local authorities to test potential new requirements, such as data standards. This has provided valuable insights on the views of local authorities and the support that they will require to implement the new data requirements. We will continue this collaborative approach to establish planning data regulations.

Local authorities are the experts in the needs of their local areas, and these local views will form the basis of our national strategy around planning data, which these regulations will establish. We will continue to work collaboratively with local authorities, through running pilots and pathfinder projects, to gather our insights and design the new requirements.

I will bring another point to noble Lords’ attention. Planning data regulations under Clauses 78 and 80 will concern the form of planning data to be processed and published by local authorities. The planning information that these regulations will address will already be part of the planning system.

Given the collaborative approach that we are already taking to design the new requirements that will inform planning data regulations, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness that local authorities’ views have been, and will continue to be, central to any planning data regulations that will be brought forward.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was much encouraged by his suggestion earlier: it will be helpful if the Government provide guidelines for planning data operating systems at a very early stage. I realise that my amendment was covering a very small part of the subject under discussion, but it was merely for planning data. If the discussions with the Scottish Parliament produce something different, the question of disclosure will still be important.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I take my noble friend’s point. The point that I sought to make was that, of course, the outcome of our discussions with the Scottish Administration should be reflected in the eventual regulations and indeed in what is decided on the software. I hope that he will accept that our internal discussions with the Administration are part of Government-to-Government dealings and, in the normal course, should not be made public.

I was just about to cover very briefly a question that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised about the possible transposition of existing planning records on to a new digital system. I am advised that we will not require planning authorities to completely move all their data on to a new digital planning system. The intention is for this new system to look forward prospectively, if I can put it that way.

19:00

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl very much for that information. The danger then is that, if an old software system containing planning applications from before the new software was introduced is incompatible and is therefore not transitioned across, it will not be readable by the new system for future use. That issue ought to have been considered.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a very relevant point. The point that has been made to us quite forcefully is that a lot of the software that is already in use is clunky and outdated, and that somehow a solution needs to be found. Clearly, the state in which systems are at the time any new system comes into play will vary from local authority to local authority. I will investigate that point further and, if I can elucidate the issue, I will gladly do so.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

In his normal calm and reassuring way, the Minister pointed out on Clause 81 that there may be some leeway regarding the software that could be used. However, I will read what is in the Bill, so that the Minister can explain why there will be leeway. The power is

“to require use of approved planning data software in England”,

and the clause says:

“Planning data regulations may make provision restricting or preventing a relevant planning authority in England from using or creating, or having any right in relation to, planning data … which … is not approved in writing by the Secretary of State.”


How will that leeway come in if the Bill says that the software has to be approved in writing by the Secretary of State, and that a planning authority in England cannot use it if it is not?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I simply come back to the point I am trying to emphasise, which is that the watchword here is collaboration, between central government and local authorities. We want to get this right to get a solution that local authorities themselves are comfortable with and which is compatible, authority to authority. Although the noble Lord is correct to quote the Bill as he has, our intention is not to require approval for all planning data software.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

That is impossible given how Clause 81 is written, because it makes provision for

“restricting or preventing a relevant planning authority”

if software is not approved by the Secretary of State. I understand the intention, but does the Minister agree that, as Clause 81 is written, what he wishes to see is actually not allowed by the Bill?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I can only supplement what the Bill says by saying that we do not intend to introduce any requirement for approval without the appropriate exploratory work and engagement with local authorities.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for his customarily very detailed and helpful response. We talked briefly about the evidence base behind these clauses. It would be helpful, as he suggested, to have that provided. It would also be useful to know how up to date the information in that evidence base is.

Regarding Clause 81, will the Government support the changes they are proposing to local authorities to update their software with the resources to enable them to do so? It is pretty expensive, and we know that local authorities are not exactly flush at the moment. It will be important for there to be proper funding and resources for local authorities that need to change their software.

It was good to have the further clarification that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just now that the Secretary of State would not have to approve all software. The Minister said that this is the intention. Unfortunately, as has just been said, that intention is not clear at all in the wording. I suggest that he mentions to his department and to officials that the wording, both in the Bill and in the Explanatory Notes, could perhaps be revisited to make that really clear, because many local authorities are worrying a lot about the implications of that wording. Perhaps a slight change might resolve some of the concerns.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Wilcox has now left, but she asked me to point out very politely to noble Lords that, in May 2020, the Welsh Assembly became the Senedd and they are now the Welsh Government.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Through the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I apologise for any misspeak that I may have committed. I also take on board the points she just made about costs in particular.

Clause 79 agreed.

Clauses 80 to 82 agreed.

Clause 83: Requirements to consult devolved administrations

Amendment 181 not moved.

Clause 83 agreed.

Amendment 182 not moved.

Clause 84 agreed.

Clause 85: Development plans: content

Amendment 183

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

183: Clause 85, page 94, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A local planning authority must review and update the development plan at least once every five years.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require local authorities to review and update the development plan at least every five years.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as we begin our discussions on the detail of the planning section of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, it is important to explain that, although our amendments necessarily cover the detail of the various clauses, there is huge concern in local government about some of the fundamental principles that underlie the proposed changes in the Bill. We absolutely must ensure that local plans, with the input of local people and democratically elected representatives, retain their primacy over anything that is drawn up centrally in Whitehall.

As currently written, whether intentional or not, the Bill would give primacy to the national department management policies, which is a very significant change indeed from the National Planning Policy Framework that currently exists and which, as we discussed earlier, is guidance rather than statue. We all recognise the need to have a framework to guide planning policy, but it should always give primacy and flexibility to local areas to ensure that planning meets their local needs, enables the voice of their local residents and businesses to be expressed through the planning system, and meets the test of local democratic accountability that is so important in shaping our places.

Noble Lords will have received significant numbers of briefings on this part of the Bill, as we have, from some of the most respected bodies in this field: the Local Government Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, CPRE and the Better Planning Coalition. It is fair to say that most of them welcome the focus on planning in the Bill, although perhaps some of them, like me, would have preferred a dedicated planning Bill, which would have enabled an even greater focus on what needs to be done to make our planning system fit for the 21st century.

All these organisations focus on the essential element of planning, which is that it must be local and properly engage local people and businesses. The Royal Town Planning Institute, for example, says:

“If those living in newly devolved areas are going to truly benefit from the Bill they need to be given the planning freedoms to innovate and deliver planning policy that works best for them. We’ve seen that development management policies can be an effective tool to stimulate growth, provide energy, transport and housing decisions strategically, and experiment with different policy options to meet local needs.”


The Local Government Association expresses considerable concern about the ability to retain local autonomy and decision-making over plans in the light of the NDMP proposals in the Bill, saying that,

“in reality, local plans will be constrained in the event that they conflict with National Development Management Policies, in which case the latter will take precedence. We have previously sought an amendment to reverse this proposal so that local plans will take precedence in the event of conflict. This is critical to ensure that that one of the key principles of the planning reforms—‘a genuinely plan-led system’— is enshrined in the Bill.”

The LGA goes on to emphasise that local councils should have the flexibility to respond to local, complex and changing circumstances.

The CPRE has gone to the extent of seeking extensive legal advice on these issues. It strongly supports our Amendments 189, 190, 191 and 192, as well as an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. It has provided a detailed legal critique, particularly regarding Clause 86, which questions whether there is any legal scope for local development plans and NDMPs to vary from each other in any way, which, as it puts it, is likely to dissuade local authorities from seeking to set local policies for fear that they will be rendered obsolete by subsequent changes to NDMPs. It goes on to comment that according to Clause 86 as drafted, if there were to be a tension between a national policy and a local one, there could be no assessment of balance. The national policy would always win out, despite its not having been given any democratic scrutiny. The decision-makers’ scope to make a locally appropriate decision is therefore removed.

The CPRE is also concerned about the fate of neighbourhood plans under this proposed new system, as it says they could become out of date quickly if NDMPs change—for example, if there is a change of Secretary of State, which is not an unusual occurrence in recent times. For communities which have spent months or years working on their neighbourhood plan, this could destroy their trust in the planning system. The CPRE’s legal opinion from Landmark Chambers in November last year demonstrated that the Bill is a radical departure from the current system and would elevate NDMPs to the top of the planning hierarchy, a position which the Government at Second Reading stated was not the intention of the legislation. However, it appears from the way the Bill is currently drafted that it takes planning into uncharted waters which are both centralising and undemocratic.

We come to this important group of amendments with that backdrop, which is a very important context against which we should consider this section of the Bill. My Amendment 183, along with amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Lansley, address issues relating to how local plans are kept up to date. I have to say that planning officers may feel that they are already in a situation where local plans are permanently in preparation. That is because the many stages of plan preparation take a long time, as does the process of inspection, public inquiry and so on. All this means that by the time you have a full plan in place, you are already dealing with the review of that plan.

However, with the pace of change, rapid developments in the economy and the need to take account of demographics and changes in our communities and to tackle climate change, we must ensure that we simplify and enable the renewing and refreshing of development plans every five years. This would ensure that local authorities do not have to face the cliff edge of an enormous, complex and expensive planning exercise which would result in the longer intervals of up to 30 years given between plan reviews. This will require corresponding changes within the Planning Inspectorate, but they would need to be considered in relation to the Bill in any case.

19:15

Amendment 189, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, is a probing amendment to express our concern that Parliament might have no say in determining or scrutinising the national development management policies as the Bill is currently written. Clause 87 appears to give all the powers to the Secretary of State, saying that such policies are

“a policy … of the Secretary of State in relation to the development or use of land in England, or any part of England, which the Secretary of State by direction designates”.

This is an astonishing, centralising and undemocratic move. I doubt whether the current Secretary of State has ever even visited Stevenage, so just how he would be able to come to conclusions about the best planning policies for our area, or any area, from his office in Whitehall, I am completely unsure.

Amendment 190, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, aims to curb the centralising tendencies in Clause 87 by stating that policies in the NDMP should not impose absolute standards on local authorities as they make their local plans, and suggests instead that minimum standards are applied. Amendment 191 probes the powers given in Clause 87 to the Secretary of State unilaterally to amend or modify national management development policies. My Amendment 191B aims to deal with our concerns at the heart of the centralising of planning proposals as currently written into the Bill, by introducing requirements relating to sustainability assessments of NDMP policies and increasing the public consultation requirement and parliamentary scrutiny based on the processes in the Planning Act 2008 for setting out national planning policy statements.

It bears restating that it simply cannot be right that the Secretary of State can determine, revoke and amend planning policies that affect every single place in the country without appropriate public consultation or any parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock addresses transparency relating to the cost of this new NDMP process and would ensure that there is an annual statement of those costs. It also refers to questions which still need to be answered about how local authorities will be supported to make changes arising from NDMPs. Presumably if the Secretary of State can amend them at any time, at any time a diktat could come down and local authorities would have to deal with it. This amendment is about how they would be supported to do so.

I have referred previously to our concerns about the potential for the centralising proposals in the Bill to silence parliamentary and local voices and diminish the democracy of the planning process. My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 196 attempts to address this by asking for a strategy on public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of national management development policies to be published by the Government within 120 days of the Act being passed. We are interested to hear the Minister’s views on this.

My Amendment 216 would give local authorities the flexibility and freedom to act in accordance with the needs of their economy, local area and public consultation by removing the requirement that they comply with the NDMP where the national policies conflict with the interests of their areas. In a similar vein, Amendment 220 gives flexibility to local authorities to set their local plans according to local needs where these conflict with national development management policies.

The planning clauses of the Bill as currently written will override the stated intention of the Government, which is towards devolution. Centralising planning and preventing it taking account of the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives, let alone giving ultimate power to the Secretary of State to determine planning policy with no parliamentary scrutiny, is taking it in entirely the wrong direction, back to the dark ages rather than forward to the kind of democracy where people can participate and engage in decision-making, where they feel they have had a say in place-making for the area in which they live and work, and develop the kind of trust in institutions entrusted with planning that will enable wider confidence in the system to level up and regenerate every part of the UK. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 184A and 187A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley, which ensure that planning decisions are taken in line with an up-to-date plan. An up-to-date plan is defined as one that is less than five years old. I am a strong believer in a plan-led system. With apologies for referring again to my chequered career in government, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which I took through the other place, introduced for the first time the primacy of the local plan. Up until then, it had equal weight with other material considerations. That position was confirmed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

However, you cannot have a plan-led system unless you have a plan. Only 39% of local planning authorities have an up-to-date local plan. The number of plans adopted in 2021 and 2022 are 16 and 13 respectively, which are the lowest annual numbers since the inception of the NPPF back in 2012. The average between 2014 and 2021 was 35. More worryingly, since Christmas last year, 47 local plans have been delayed following the publication of the consultation document over Christmas, as local authorities hope to reduce their housing numbers. This is something I will develop when we get to the group beginning Amendment 207.

There is much in the Bill that I welcome. There are measures to streamline and simplify the plan-making process. I welcome the introduction of commencement orders, the uplift in planning fees and the simplification of the procedure for CPOs. But we need to do more to incentivise local planning authorities to produce up-to-date plans, as well as considering more effective sanctions for those that do not.

These two amendments, in effect, put into law the current guidance from the NPPF, which the Government are not proposing to change. Paragraph 15 of the 2021 NPPF says:

“The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area”.


The PPG chapter on plan-making says

“local planning authorities must review local plans … at least once every 5 years from their adoption date”.

That is exactly what Amendment 184A does, so I look forward to my noble friend saying that it has found favour with the Government.

On this subject, I ask the Government whether they have a target for a date by when 100% of England will be covered by local plans. The real problem at the moment is the uncertainty of the planning system. It is a real issue for local planning authorities, developers and local communities. Having up-to-date plans in place provides the certainty that everyone requires if the planning system is to be transparent, if it is to minimise risk and if local communities are to know what the future holds. By providing greater certainty through the requirement for development plans to be up to date, the Government can assist everyone to engage with the system and understand the outcomes. All the amendments seek is to ensure that the Bill reflects the guidance set out in the current NPPF in a paragraph which is not to be changed. The amendments seek to reinforce the fundamental underlying premise at the heart of the English planning system that it should be plan-led and give certainty to stakeholders, particularly local communities.

In passing, I ask whether the Government will now close a loophole in the present regime for five-year plans. Under the current system, local planning authorities can review their local plan under paragraph 33 of the NPPF and Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, whereby they assess whether the plan needs updating. That process is not subject to any public scrutiny. A local planning authority can simply document the process and resolve through the committee process that the plan does not require a formal update. No one can then challenge that decision and it resets the clock on the up-to-date status of the plan. This means that a local planning authority could underdeliver on housing requirements in the first five years of a plan, simply choose to review the plan using the process I have just outlined and determine that the plan did not need updating. As a result, it would not need to demonstrate a five-year housing supply for the next five years. That simply cannot be right, and I hope that the Government will close that loophole.

While I am on my feet, I will speak briefly to Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which would enable the Secretary of State to include older people’s housing needs in the local plan. I pay tribute to the work the noble Lord, Lord Best, has done in this area for many years. One-third of local plans have no provision at all for older people, although some 3 million older people would like to move but cannot because of the lack of suitable accommodation. I will amplify the case in a moment, but I begin by asking about progress on the task force announced over a year ago.

On page 226 of the levelling up White Paper from 2 February last year, it says:

“A new Task Force will be launched shortly to look at ways better choice, quality and security of housing for older people can be provided”.


Over 10 months later, nothing had happened. On 22 December the consultation paper said:

“Alongside this, we are also launching a taskforce … This taskforce will explore how we can improve the choice of and access to housing options for older people”.


On 17 February 2023, the shadow Minister for Health and Social care in the other place, Liz Kendall, tabled a Written Question asking the Government when the task force will be launched. The Government’s response did not provide a date and said:

“Announcements will be made in the usual way.”


She then tabled a similar Parliamentary Question on 14 March, which I understand is awaiting a response.

This is not a happy story. I hope my noble friend can explain why there has been this extraordinary delay in the establishment of this important task force. It could address a wider range of issues than just planning; for example, the possible abolition of stamp duty for older people trading down and the role of Homes England in providing affordable homes for rent or shared ownership for older people. It could look at consumer protection issues for older people subject to high service charges. We need an urgent progress report on the task force.

I turn to the amendment. The December consultation paper had a specific question:

“Do you agree that we should amend existing paragraph 62 of the Framework to support the supply of specialist older people’s housing?”


The answer to this is yes. Research has shown that there is demand for some 30,000 units of retirement housing a year, but the current supply is only 8,000. The noble Lord, Lord Best, chaired an inquiry by the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People, Making Retirement Living Affordable. That underlined the need for more investment in the market, focusing on the potential for shared ownership.

The debate on housing often focuses on numbers, such as the 300,000 target. Equally important is whether the make-up of those numbers matches the needs of the population. As England’s demography changes, with the increase in smaller, older households, we are grappling with the legacy of a housing stock configured for a different age. The shortage of accommodation for last-time buyers or renters is impeding the optimum utilisation of a commodity in short supply. To rectify this, we need to focus new build on addressing this imbalance. Because new build is such a small percentage of the overall stock, it needs disproportionate emphasis in five-year plans. One option would be the development of a use class for specialist housing for older people with a specific target; say, 10% of all new units for older people. If one wanted to give this use class a boost, it could be exempt from CIL or Section 106 contributions.

In developing this policy, it is important that older people are not treated as a homogenous group with identical needs, no more than we would treat people with a disability as having identical needs. Planning for the elderly needs to be more granular and assess the various options—for example, retirement or sheltered homes; housing with care, sometimes called integrated retirement communities or supported housing; care homes; and nursing homes—looking at the configurations in each planning area. People do not want to have to move to find a suitable home to retire to.

Then there is the wider benefit if a greater supply of retirement housing can be achieved: significant health and well-being benefits for older people, reduced public spending on health and social care, and an increase in the vibrancy of the second-hand market, freeing up more opportunities for first-time buyers to enter the market. The Bill provides a real opportunity to rectify this imbalance in the nature of our housing stock, and we should take it.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.31 pm.

Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Motion to Regret

19:31

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

That this House regrets that the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023 will freeze Local Housing Allowance (LHA) at the levels applied in April 2020 and therefore fails to account for inflationary increases in rent, resulting in vulnerable claimants spending a greater proportion of income on rent; further recognises that His Majesty’s Government’s inability to control inflation has resulted in unaffordable rents and contributed to housing insecurity for all tenants; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to align LHA with local housing rates.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who cannot be here today because she tested positive for Covid last night. She sends her apologies to the House, and I am sure we all wish her a speedy recovery. I draw the House’s attention to the wording of the Motion. Special attention is drawn to the instrument in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 27th report.

No one in our society should be without a home but, due to successive freezes in local housing allowance, more and more people are being pushed into homelessness. This evening I will challenge the Government to reconsider urgently the decision to impose further real-terms cuts on local housing allowance this year. Last week the chief executive of Crisis described this decision as

“nothing short of crushing for people who rely on this vital lifeline”.

More than 1.87 million private renters on low incomes rely on local housing allowance to help pay their rent —this is more than one in three private renters.

It was right for the Prime Minister to act to protect these households during the pandemic, when as Chancellor he invested in the local housing allowance so that it would cover the cheapest 30% of rents in a local area. That meant that people were able to sustain tenancies during a period of hardship, and it also helped people who had been trapped in homelessness into tenancies. It is worrying that this progress has not been sustained. Despite inflation and rising rents, local housing allowance remains at the same cash level as three years ago, based on rent levels from four years ago. As the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlights, the Explanatory Memorandum did not “explain the policy objective” of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023 or explain what its effects would be on the recipients of local housing allowance.

However, the Government’s own figures show how severe the consequences are. Landlord repossessions increased by 98% at the end of last year. For every household facing eviction or rent rises it cannot afford, moving house is incredibly difficult to afford; for some, it is impossible. Advertised rents have risen at record rates since 2020, with Zoopla estimating an increase of 12.1% in the last year alone. Some areas have seen particularly high increases: rents are up 15.6% in Manchester, 14.1% in Glasgow and 17% in London.

In recent weeks, DWP Ministers have said that local housing allowance is not intended to cover all rents in all areas—nobody is calling for that, but surely the Government agree that it should cover some rents in all areas. Dataset after dataset shows that, in significant parts of this country, a household would simply not be able to find any properties to rent at local housing allowance levels. In July last year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that only seven properties were advertised at local housing allowance levels across Wales. More recently, in February, the Bevan Foundation found that 16 local authorities in Wales did not have a single property advertised that was affordable on local housing allowance. Last autumn, Crisis and Zoopla found that only 8% of properties advertised across England over the previous 12 months were affordable on local housing allowance. In Watford, only 4% were affordable on local housing allowance. Overall, nearly a quarter of local authorities had fewer than 20 properties available at local housing allowance rates, and more than 100 local authorities had 3% of properties or fewer affordable on local housing allowance. For context, 38% of private renting households rely on local housing allowance to help pay their rent.

With an acute shortage of social housing, we need far more housing for social rent. As Members in this Chamber today have constantly pointed out over recent years, our building rate of social housing for rent has simply been far too slow. With that acute shortage of social housing, many people on low incomes have no alternative to renting in the private sector. As that becomes unaffordable, homelessness is rising. Having made progress in ending rough sleeping during the pandemic, the Government have now overseen a 26% rise in rough sleeping in England in the last year.

Investing in local housing allowance prevents people experiencing homelessness and makes it easier for people to move out of homelessness. As well as being one of the most effective ways to prevent homelessness, uprating local housing allowance would lead to savings across public services. Almost 100,000 households are stuck in temporary accommodation in England, including more than 125,000 children. Temporary accommodation costs local authorities nearly £1.6 billion a year. Staying in temporary accommodation, including unsuitable hotels and B&Bs, also has a damaging impact on people’s lives, making it harder for people to work, get their kids to school and stay healthy.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been clear that the choice to freeze local housing allowance is resulting in wide geographic disparities, whereby low-income renters in some areas can get the cheapest rents almost covered, whereas those in other areas must find an extra £150 a month to top up their rent, or face homelessness. Last month, Sam Ray-Chaudhuri of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of investing to uprate local housing allowance:

“This isn’t an expensive policy”.


In a debate that can be overly focused on averages and aggregate costs, I will conclude with the experience of what it feels like for people on the brink of homelessness. One person—who it is not possible to name, but it is on the public record—has described how the rising cost of living was affecting him. He said,

“I wasn’t even earning enough money to be able to pay for the rent that I had currently for two years been paying, which was £870 a month, plus all of the other bills. And then of course when [the landlord] came back to me he said, ‘I put it up to £1200 because that is the going rate,’ and I just thought I have no hope … of being able to find that extra money, because it was hand to mouth pretty much all the time … to be able to find another £400 a month was just absolutely impossible. So, I had to tell the estate agent that I wasn’t going to be taking the lease on again and I was going to have to find other accommodation.”

There are plenty of people like that, and the other accommodation that they would like is just not there. Hostels, sofas and rough sleeping are what remains for far too many people, and the instrument we are debating does not offer them a route out. Unless the Government change their approach, thousands more people will be forced into homelessness over the coming months. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling the regret Motion and to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving it. I hope that the noble Baroness will be better soon.

The regret Motion follows a highly critical report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The importance of the issues it raises was reflected in the unusually large number of very helpful briefings I received when I tabled an Oral Question on the issue recently and the “huge amount of evidence” on the impact of the freeze received by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee recent inquiry into the private rented sector. As the Commons Library briefing on the LHA notes:

“Numerous bodies, including homeless charities, the representative bodies of local authorities and private landlords, are making the case for LHA rates to be uprated to cover at least the 30th percentile of local rents, alongside relinking rates to the real cost of renting for future years.”


According to the IFS, the freeze means that just 8% of low-income private renters now have all their rent covered by housing benefits, compared with almost half in the mid-1990s. For nearly a third of them, the amount of rent not covered eats up at least a third of non-housing benefits income, a situation faced by just 14% of the group in the mid-1990s.

This is one reason why analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicates that the cost of housing for private tenants is a key driver of poverty today, most starkly for families with children. The more that private tenants are having to use their non-housing universal credit to meet their rents, the less that next month’s 10.1% increase in universal credit and other benefits—which no doubt the Minister will pray in aid —will help them to meet other basic costs, such as food.

A recent report by the JRF and the Trussell Trust shows how universal credit is too low in any case to meet the most basic of needs. A piece in my local paper, the Nottingham Post, just last week cited the growing gap between the LHA and increasing rents as an important factor in the worrying increase in arrears and everyday living debts seen by the local Citizens Advice.

In his helpful letter following the uprating debate, the Minister said that DWP is working closely with DLUHC to monitor rental shortfalls. Could he tell us what their assessment is of the average shortfall and of the numbers affected? Following my Oral Question, he promised to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with a reply to his question as to what proportion of those receiving the LHA are unemployed and therefore more reliant on this money to pay their rent. Could he share that information—in a letter, if necessary—with the rest of us and include other private tenants without earnings?

The other reason that this is so important is that the inability to meet the full rent can tip people into homelessness, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, and as the homelessness charities have warned. So far, the Minister has carefully avoided answering questions as to the likely impact on homelessness of freezing the LHA yet again. I cannot believe that the Government have not done some kind of assessment of the likely impact, so I would be grateful if he could share it with us.

Hitherto, whenever this issue has been raised in either House, the ministerial response has been woefully inadequate. There seems to be three stock justifications, none of which is convincing. The first is simply the cost, which, it is suggested, cannot be borne in addition to the general benefit uprating. I have already indicated why this is short-sighted from the perspective of individuals suffering the consequences, but as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has highlighted, it is also short-sighted from a public-spending perspective, because of the knock-on effects on public services through homelessness, short-term accommodation and both physical and mental health. Have the Government made an estimate of those knock-on costs? From last week’s Westminster Hall debate, it would appear not, which betrays a very narrow approach to assessing the cost of policies to the public purse.

19:45

Secondly, there is the inevitable reference to discretionary housing payments and, to a lesser extent, the household support fund. Discretionary cash-limited funds such as those are not suitable for meeting ongoing weekly costs, and lack the security provided by weekly benefits themselves. Moreover, according to Shelter, the DHP budget was cut by nearly a third in 2022-23, and the Government’s own data show that councils are already struggling to meet need. Shelter notes that 31 English councils had spent three-quarters or more of their allocation before the winter had even started, with some on the brink of running out of funding. It warns that local authorities are under pressure to cope with the worsening inadequacy of LHA rates with less DHP funding than at any time since 2013. In answer to a follow-up question to my Oral Question, the Minister said that he would see whether it would be possible to publish the information from local authorities on how these discretionary funds are spent. Perhaps he could let us know now or follow up in a letter.

Thirdly, there is an attempt to justify the freeze on the grounds that, to quote the Minister, it

“it is right that the money we give is properly targeted to those who are in genuine need.”—[Official Report, 22/2/23; cols. GC 476]

The LHA is already targeted by way of means testing. Moreover, it provides a vital lifeline for groups in vulnerable circumstances, such as survivors of domestic abuse and violence. As a briefing from Crisis, together with 14 organisations in the poverty and domestic abuse sectors, points out, access to

“affordable housing is a key factor in decision-making about whether they stay with, or leave, an abuser”,

and research shows that possible homelessness is a barrier to many deciding to leave. Crisis cites the experience of the domestic abuse charity Hestia, which is finding that families are having to stay longer in refuges because they cannot meet the rising cost of a home to rent.

To the extent that the LHA helps to prevent homelessness, surely maintaining it at a level that bears a realistic relationship to local rents is a well-targeted use of public money, especially given the impact of homelessness on children and on the ability to respond to the Government’s desire to see more people in paid work.

Crisis concludes:

“Investment in housing benefit rates is well-targeted at people who are facing the greatest pressures as a result of the cost of living crisis.”

Is Crisis wrong? If yes, could the Minister explain why? Are these groups not in genuine need? If they are not, why should local authorities be expected to help them out using their limited funds? How does the targeting argument stand up in the face of the

“(increasingly) large and arbitrary variations in entitlements”

across the country, as demonstrated by the IFS?

It was desperately disappointing that, despite many representations, there was no mention of the LHA in the Budget—a Budget which targeted billions of pounds of pensions tax relief at the top 1%, yet could not find the £600 million to £700 million needed to protect low-income private tenants. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary responded to last week’s Westminster Hall debate with the comment that

“the challenging fiscal environment has led to where we are”,—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/23; col. 372WH.]

as if the Government had no agency in the matter. In fact, they have made a clear choice to target resources to very high earners at the expense of low-income private tenants. There is no point in those on the Front Bench shaking their heads; it is absolutely true.

It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that he will consider the concerns raised by many parliamentarians and others when it comes to deciding on next year’s uprating. That means any increase is at least a year away. What are those who rely on the LHA supposed to do in the meantime? How are they supposed to feed themselves and their families, keep warm and keep a roof over their heads? I have twice asked the Minister what advice he would give to someone in this wretched situation and twice he has avoided answering. Perhaps he could do so on this third attempt.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing forward this Motion, and I send my best wishes for a very speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

It is certainly a matter of regret that the 2020 freeze on the local housing allowance is to be perpetuated, despite rent rising considerably in a number of places. When the local housing allowance which caps housing benefit falls behind market rents, tenants must make up the shortfall by finding the money from their other benefits intended to cover food, clothing, heating, et cetera. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in partnership with the Trussell Trust shows that universal credit for everyday living costs is already at a critically low level; there is absolutely no room here to pay for a rental shortfall.

Of course, what these households need is secure accommodation provided at social rents, far below the market rents of the private landlord. But as we all know, there is the most acute shortage of available social rented housing. With the social housing sector halving to 17% and the private rented sector doubling over recent years to around 19% of the nation’s homes, more and more households have had to turn to the private rented sector. But private landlords in most places have no need to take in anyone in receipt of housing benefit at a lower rent than they can get from the market.

The freeze puts terrible strains on local authorities that are working to reduce homelessness. How on earth can they fulfil the statutory duty to house families and vulnerable people when there is an absence of social housing and when rents present an insuperable barrier in the private sector? The only answer is to secure a place for them in temporary accommodation, which, as graphically described by Shelter in its recent report entitled Still Living in Limbo, is often of the most abysmal quality, often overcrowded and far from their previous home, friends, schools and family. Temporary accommodation now accommodates nearly 100,000 households, including over 125,000 children, at a cost of £1.6 billion per annum.

I have heard the argument, which was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that the problem of the rental shortfall—the gap between rent and housing benefit—can be overcome by the tenant obtaining an emergency discretionary housing payment, or DHP. Sadly, this safety net is not any kind of proper solution. DHPs represent less than 0.5% of total housing benefit expenditure and are usually for a few months only. There is no way in which DHPs can save tenants in a wide spectrum of extreme circumstances, including all those afflicted by the LHA freeze. I gather from housing expert Sam Lister at the Chartered Institute of Housing that last week, the Treasury announced that the total for DHPs for the next two years will be much lower than in any of the preceding 10 years, despite the extra pressures the continuing LHA freeze will bring.

It is understandable that the Government do not wish to pay more to private landlords. The total cost to the nation of housing benefit is around £22 billion per annum. Blame for this predicament must fall on the Chancellor’s predecessors, who made short- term savings by cutting up-front grants for social housing. Grants paid for new social housing would have secured homes at lower rents for decades. For the longer term, the answer is to rebalance the rented stock so there is more social housing to go around. To accelerate this, government funding for acquisition and modernisation of run-down privately rented stock by social landlords is a solution that saves money over the years ahead.

However, the immediate regret is that perpetuating the LHA freeze will bite harder and harder as private rents inexorably increase. Citizens Advice has calculated the proportion of all households in a critical financial state that would be rescued by the lifting of the LHA cap. The answer is that this action by the Chancellor would take about 10% of these households out of their current financial crisis—by no means a panacea for all the problems of negative budgets and debilitating poverty, but a significant and simple way in which to make a huge difference to the lives of the hardest pressed of our fellow citizens.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his Motion to Regret.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this short debate. I would like to add my support to the Motion proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and along with others wish her a speedy recovery. I am grateful for the impressive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, took this on at very short notice.

I declare my interest as set out in the register, I am the owner of one apartment, in Birmingham, currently privately let. I echo the concerns of other noble Lords. I had intended to add further statistics—I am a mathematician by background—but I think noble Lords have had enough numbers in this short debate already.

It is my privilege to chair the Manchester Homelessness Partnership, which brings together our city council along with public sector bodies, the private sector, universities, the blue light services, health services and charities. We have fought hard and long and we have actually got rough sleeping down in our city since its peak in 2018. But increasingly, my colleagues and I are finding that those who end up on the streets are not there for the usual reasons, such as the breakdown of a marital relationship or leaving the parental home after a dispute. It is also not just about mental health, although that is still a major concern. Increasingly, it is simply because they have lost a private tenancy due to being unable to pay the rent. We have heard how rents have gone up, but homelessness carries a huge cost. It is a heavy drain on public funds, as we have heard, but even more critically, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said, it wrecks the lives of ordinary, decent members of our communities. It does not take long to end up homeless, but it takes years to get out of the pit you have fallen into. It is a long, slow and painful process, as I know from having befriended people who have been rough sleepers on the streets of my city.

I am also concerned by the opaque nature of explanatory material on this SI, provided by the Department for Work and Pensions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report states that the explanatory material laid in support of the statutory instrument

“provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.

Indeed, it does not do much more than to state that,

“for 2021/22 and 2022/23, all rates were frozen at the same cash levels that were set in 2020/21”.

That is not an explanation—and there is no understanding of the policy in that. As the committee’s report states, this makes the House’s scrutiny role much more challenging. We need to know why something is being done if we are to scrutinise it properly.

To conclude, I add my support to the noble Baroness’s Motion and echo the calls of many in the housing sector, as well as noble Lords in this debate, who are urging the Government to unfreeze local housing allowance now.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to offer the Green group’s support for this regret Motion and to echo others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, wishing her all the best and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his excellent introduction.

In formal terms, this is a Motion to Regret, but what is very clear from this debate is that it is really an expression of horror at the infliction of poverty, inequality and deep suffering on people who are in that situation through absolutely no fault of their own but as a result of—as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said—decades of government policy that have seen housing treated primarily as a financial asset rather than homes that should be secure, affordable places for people to live in. That includes the great privatisation of the right-to-buy policy, the failure to keep building council homes and the reliance on a handful of private sector builders whose profits keep going up while the rest of us suffer—a structure that reflects so much of our economy.

20:00

I echo the comments of the right reverend Prelate. I really think that the Government, reading the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, should be absolutely embarrassed. It is clear that the committee had to act like a dentist drilling into a hole so as to uncover basic facts that should have been in the government statement itself We have discussed the issue of cost and, thanks to its work, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has deduced from the information provided by the Government that the decision

“represents a saving to the DWP in the order of £600 million.”

I went looking for comparisons for that and found quite a few. To pick out one: that is 1/60th of the money estimated to be lost to tax dodging every year. Where does the money come from? Let us make corporations and rich individuals pay just a tiny fraction more of what they should be paying in tax and it would cover the Government’s costs.

We have already had an extensive account of just how awfully inadequate the levels of housing support are. The Chartered Institute of Housing has described this as a “huge gap in support” for private tenants. As with so many government decisions, this issue is particularly affecting the young with greatest force. The LHA shared rate for those who are single and under the age of 35 only covered the rents in 10% or less of cases, or seven out of 10 local housing markets. In one in 10 housing markets, there are no shared properties within the LHA rate.

To look at what is happening as a measure of the failed government policy that we started with, a report last year by Shelter showed that private rents across the country have gone up by 5% to 8% since the LHA was frozen in response to the pandemic in 2020. However, that is, again, another best guess, another deduction. If we look at the figures from the Office for National Statistics, rents in the UK increased by 4.4% between January 2022 and 2023 alone. That is the largest increase that the ONS has recorded since it began these records in 2016.

The fact is that this is only what is measured. The reality of rent inflation is worse. Unlike house prices, which are recorded in the Land Registry, there is no central registry for rents. The attempt by the ONS to collect this data is still what it describes as “experimental”. It is based on newly advertised properties and does not cover what happens within tenancies. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence around of private renters saying that their rent has gone up by 20%, 30% or 50% while they stay in place, struggling on as best they can. Those are the kinds of figures that are simply not even being recorded in the horror stats that we are now reflecting on.

This truly is an indefensible statutory instrument. I cannot help thinking that, because it is a financial matter, this House is not in a position to move a fatal Motion—but, boy, should we be doing that if we want to act for some of the poorest, most disadvantaged people in the most desperate circumstances in our country.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling her Motion and wish her a speedy recovery. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving the Motion on her behalf. I say at the outset that I think I agree with every word that every noble Lord has said so far in this short debate on the regulations before us.

When local housing allowances were introduced in 2008, the aim was to reach up to the 50th percentile of all rents in a broad rental area. In other words, people on benefits could afford to live in the cheapest half of rented properties in the area that they live in. However, from 2011, that all changed. First, LHA rates were downgraded to the cheapest 30% of local properties. Then, rather than moving with rent levels, LHA rates were uprated by inflation, then by just 1% and, finally, they were frozen in 2016. The result was that, by 2020, LHA rates bore no connection to the actual rents in local areas. In 2020, the Government restored them to the 30th percentile, only to then freeze them in cash terms. This year, although Ministers finally agreed to raise most benefits by inflation, they excluded LHA rates. The effect of this freeze is seen in a growing gap between the actual rents that people pay and the amount of housing support that they can receive—an approach that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said was

“arbitrary and unfair, and its consequences will only become more bizarre over time.”

There is deep and widespread concern in the housing world about the effects of this policy. The Northern Housing Consortium told Ministers that

“a continued freeze on LHA would make it even harder for existing private renters to make ends meet, risking homelessness and making it increasingly difficult for local authorities to discharge their homelessness duties effectively.”

It reported in the Northern Housing Monitor 2022 that only 7% of rental adverts were affordable to those reliant on LHA in the north. The National Residential Landlords Association says that the LHA rate freeze has

“led to the proportion of landlords letting to tenants in receipt of benefits falling over the past decade.”

If supply falls, demand does not, if only because there is no alternative. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, in its report on the private rented sector in February—my noble friend Lady Lister made reference to this report—concluded that the failure to ensure LHA rates keep pace with market rents

“is quite obviously making the private rented sector even less affordable for many people who are only there because the social housing sector has been cut back and can no longer accommodate them.”

That is the problem.

Unsurprisingly, given high inflation and the pressure on supply, while LHA rates are frozen in cash terms, private sector rents have continued to rise, so the gap is getting bigger year on year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, compared with uprating LHAs to match local rents, the freeze will reduce support for nearly 1.1 million households by an average of £50 per month, saving the Government more than £650 million in 2023-24. That is on top of the amount that people were already having to find as a top-up. Over 800,000 households in the private rented sector face a shortfall between their rent and their local housing allowance, including over half of all universal credit households who rent privately. The Institute for Fiscal Studies further says that

“two-thirds of lower income privately renting households must cover at least a quarter of their rent from sources other than housing support.”

The House of Commons Library briefing, which has been referred to in this debate, says that, from April 2023, on average, households will need to top up their rent by

“just under £750 a year.”

People in households with a disabled person are more likely to be hit by LHA shortfalls. Paul Sylvester, head of housing operations at Bristol City Council, told the Work and Pensions Select Committee in 2021 that half the households they saw with a shortfall included a disabled person. They were increasingly seeing disabled people forced to use their disability benefits to cover the rent top-up, rather than what the benefits were meant for. Can the Minister say whether the Government have looked at the impact of this policy on disabled people specifically? And the problems are not equally distributed. The IFS cites the example that, while the 30th percentile of rents in Bristol is £100 more than in Newbury, the amount of housing support that those who live in Bristol can receive is £12.50 less than those who live in Newbury can receive. How can this be right? Can the Minister please explain?

I have no doubt that the Minister will try to suggest that there is not a problem, because anyone who is struggling can always request a discretionary housing payment: other noble Lords referred to this in their contributions. But let us be clear: a discretionary fund for one-off payments is not the answer. In any case, a report by Shelter published in February—again, this has been referred to—found that the Government’s own data showed that councils were already struggling to keep up with demand. It says:

“Some were on the brink of running out of funding—31 English councils had spent three quarters or more of their allocation before the winter started”.


It points out that the problem is especially bad in certain regions. Take the north-east: Sunderland, Gateshead and Northumberland spent more than 90% of their allocation by the end of September 2022, and none of this is surprising given that DHP funding was cut by £40 million in this financial year. At a time when inflation is dangerously high and food bank use is at record levels, how do Ministers expect those on low incomes to find ever larger sums to top up their rent?

We see from the figures that homelessness is soaring. Rough sleeping is up by 74% since 2010 and by 26% in the last year; there has been an 83% rise in the number of children now living in temporary accommodation as a result of homelessness. One in 23 children in London is now homeless. The squeeze on local housing allowance is undoubtedly a major driving factor in this situation. It is also hitting local authorities and the taxpayer, as evidence suggests that more people have been forced into expensive temporary accommodation. Can the noble Viscount tell the House what assessment the Government have made of this wider cost to the public purse of the LHA freeze?

Investment in social housing is by far the best solution to this crisis. That is the way to ensure that low-income families can have a secure and affordable home to live in, and a better-managed private rented sector would also be good for tenants. Ministers have promised action for years, but what have we seen? Not a lot. All these things would be better for the public purse too. In the meantime, freezing the local housing allowance makes no sense whatever and serves only to make a bad situation worse.

I ask the noble Viscount whether he might like to join me one day and go out to some of the London boroughs to look at the quality of the accommodation we are asking people to live in. As the noble Lord said, people are being asked to live in the most appalling accommodation, so I hope he will join me. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, came out with me a couple of years ago. It is quite shocking where we expect families to live, so I hope the noble Viscount will accept the invitation to come out with me some day in the next few months. Anyway, I look forward to what he will say in response to this debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by taking up the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. This is a fairly straightforward answer: it is a yes. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to join him and whoever else he might care to bring along to see for myself what is happening. It is very much what I would like to do—genuinely.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for initiating this debate on the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit & Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023. This annual legislation informs rent officers in the Valuation Office Agency, the VOA, and rent services in Scotland and Wales of the level at which to set local housing allowance, LHA, rates from April 2023. I also add my voice to those of other noble Lords in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, a speedy recovery from her illness—as the House is aware, the debate was down in her name.

20:15

This Government continue to spend considerable amounts annually to provide housing support to those on low incomes. We spend almost £30 billion a year on housing support in the private and social rented sectors, supporting those on low incomes. In fact, we currently spend more than any other OECD country as a proportion of GDP on housing support. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, echoed our view that LHA rates are not intended to cover all rents in all areas. We have a fiscal responsibility to taxpayers, but I also say, in terms of what I have just said, that we really do understand—I am personally very aware of this—that global inflationary challenges are putting pressures on household budgets, and rents have risen rapidly in some areas. We are very aware of that, and this is why, in the Autumn Statement, we announced a significant, wide-ranging package of support to help low-income households struggling with the cost of living.

I pick up the theme of homelessness that was raised by several noble Lords this afternoon and evening, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I start by saying, as the House will know, that the causes of homelessness are multifaceted and often complex, and they interact dynamically, making it difficult to isolate the relative importance of individual factors. Having said that, in answer to questions regarding this freeze, for 2022-23 we are investing £366 million into the homelessness prevention grant in England to support local authorities to prevent homelessness. Local authorities can use the homelessness prevention grant flexibly to meet their homelessness and rough sleeping strategies—for example, to offer financial support for people to find a new home, to work with landlords to prevent evictions or to provide temporary accommodation, among other preventive measures. We have announced over £650 million in funding for the HPG in England from 2023 to 2025.

The homelessness prevention grant helps tackle homelessness before it occurs. It supports local authorities to deliver their statutory duties to prevent homelessness and provide temporary accommodation where required. Tens of thousands of people will be protected from homelessness as a result of this funding. As a reminder, this is for England only: the devolved Administrations have their own policies, as the House will be aware, to tackle this important issue.

I return to the Autumn Statement and remind the House of the detail which is germane to this debate. Measures in the Autumn Budget are intended to provide stability and certainty for households and include further cost of living payments for the most vulnerable, meaning that around 8 million households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to a further £900 in payments in 2023-24. As the House will be only too well aware, I took through the Bill on this earlier this week, and we hope to receive Royal Assent shortly. We are providing support to all households through the energy price guarantee, which caps the price people pay for each unit of energy and, as I will set out later, and as the House will again be aware, we are extending it. The benefit cap, working age and disability benefits will also be uprated by 10.1% in 2023-24.

For those who need additional support, the Government are providing an additional £1 billion of funding, including the Barnett impact, to enable a further extension to the household support fund in England over the 2023-24 financial year. In England, this scheme will be backed by £842 million, running from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. Total funding for the devolved Administrations is £158 million, and it is for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to decide for themselves how to allocate their additional Barnett. Local authorities are expected to support households in the most need. I noted all the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in this debate. I know and hugely respect his knowledge and expertise in this sector over many years.

The household support fund can be used to meet immediate needs and help those who are struggling to afford energy and water bills and food, as well as related wider essentials. I make the point that the focus of this is on the essentials, such as bills, clothing and essential transport-related costs.

I will pick up some points made about the private rented sector by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We invested almost £1 billion in 2020 to provide support for private renters and have maintained the increase in cash terms since then. As I said earlier, we recognise that rents are increasing in the private rented sector, but the challenging fiscal environment means that difficult decisions have to be made to ensure that support is targeted effectively. The Chancellor announced a package of targeted support worth £26 billion in the Autumn Statement. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is shaking her head, but she must realise that this is true. To protect the most vulnerable, working-age and disability benefits will be increased in line with inflation for 2023-24.

Further on the private rented sector, to respond to the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Best, we also recognise the supply challenges in the PRS and the competitive nature of the market, which drives up rental prices. This theme was also mentioned. We continue to work very closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for increasing the supply of affordable housing. The £11.5 billion affordable homes programme aims to deliver tens of thousands of new affordable homes, many of which will be for social rent.

As I alluded to earlier, in the Spring Budget we have gone further by extending the current energy price guarantee from April until the end of June this year. Taken together, the Government have provided total support of over £94 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24 to help households and individuals with the cost of living—an average of over £3,300 per UK household. The House will know that, as well as providing support for low-income households, we are focused on supporting people into work by removing the barriers currently stopping them working. We are determined to see people moving into and progressing within employment, creating the conditions to help them move off benefits, improve their lives and boost economic growth.

I remind noble Lords that in last week’s Spring Budget, the Government announced an investment of £3.5 billion over five years to boost workforce participation. This includes help to address the issue of upfront childcare costs by allowing parents to claim back a flexible support fund payment for childcare and increasing the generosity of the universal credit childcare costs caps. This will allow parents to claim back more for their childcare so that those wishing to move into full-time work are not prevented by high childcare costs.

We also announced that, for those who are disabled or have a long-term health condition, we will remove the work capability assessment to ensure that those who are able to can progress in or towards work without the worry of being reassessed and losing their benefits. Moreover, we will launch universal support, a new programme working directly with employers to match individuals with jobs. In addition, we previously announced an increase in the national living wage to £10.42 per hour from April 2023.

I return to the question of renters. As mentioned earlier, we have provided consistent support through DHPs, which we provided to enable local authorities to deliver critical support to vulnerable claimants who need help with their housing costs. Since 2011, we have provided nearly £1.6 billon in DHP funding to local authorities. We made £100 million in DHP funding available to local authorities in 2022-23 and will make a further £100 million per year available in 2023-24 and 2024-25.

In addition to the central government contribution, to answer questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, English and Welsh local authorities can top up DHP funding to a maximum of two and a half times this figure with their own funds. Local authorities administer the DHPs, as they are best placed to make informed judgments about relative priorities and needs in their area to ensure that the most vulnerable are supported and the funds are targeted effectively. Officials at the DWP engage with individual local authorities and through regular forums to support effective administration of the scheme. Local authorities have been informed that they will receive the same DHP funding in 2023-24 and 2024-25 as in 2022-23. This provides consistency and certainty for them to plan services to support the most vulnerable in their local areas.

I reiterate that we spent £30 billion to support private renters in the previous financial years. While we recognise that rents are increasing, importantly, we must balance this significant investment with the cost to taxpayers and use our resources in the most effective and efficient way possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, expressed concern that local authorities are underfunded. I will try to be helpful by saying that local authorities in England are already funded through the local government finance settlement, on a non-ring-fenced basis, to deliver local welfare provision using their existing powers. Councils have flexibility to use the funding they receive from the annual local government finance settlement for local welfare assistance.

We have invested significant amounts in supporting private renters since 2020. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, this Government increased local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile of local market rents, investing nearly £1 billion to support private renters. We have maintained those increased levels since 2020, as has been mentioned.

I will address a number of further questions in the limited time I have. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked how many claimants have a shortfall. From our figures, 56% of claimants face an average shortfall of £149 per month, as of August 2022. She also raised an important point about domestic abuse victims. She will know that much work on that is going on across government; in my area, child maintenance services are a priority. The Government have brought forward hugely beneficial changes for vulnerable young claimants who rent privately. In October 2022, we introduced two new exemptions from the shared accommodation rate of the local housing allowance for victims of domestic abuse and of modern slavery, brought forward a year earlier than planned. I hope that provides some help.

On the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I do not think I can add to what noble Lords have read. I have no particular answer, except that it has given its verdict and my department has taken strong note of what it said.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a very important point about the disabled cohort. I reassure him that a full equality analysis has been undertaken to consider the impact on those with protected characteristics, including the disabled. I hope that gives him some comfort.

To conclude, as reaffirmed by both support packages announced in the Spring and Autumn Budgets, the Government are committed to supporting all members of society, in particular low-income households. We recognise that we must continue to provide that support for the most vulnerable in society while balancing it with fairness to the taxpayer, as I said earlier.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I am glad the noble Viscount mentioned fairness to the taxpayer, as it is not only about the sums of money—our whole point is that the Government are not spending it very wisely. If they looked and listened a bit more, they could spend it more effectively and get better value for money for the taxpayer. It is no good saying that they want to spend money wisely. They are not spending money wisely and that is causing huge grief for people. I do not understand why they will not address that. They need to work across departments, address the issues and spend the money better.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I absolutely have listened to the noble Lord, but how Governments spend money and whether they spend it wisely is a subjective issue wherever it is spent. We want and need to spend it wisely and on the most vulnerable.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the one or two minutes I have, I thank all those who have spoken this evening. I hope the Minister has been impressed by the unity of view across the Chamber. He said that the Government were spending around £30 billion a year on housing support in the private rented sector. That is a false economy. It is essential to spend it, but the only way to bring down the benefits bill is to build more genuinely affordable social housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has explained.

20:30

The Minister said that the Government increased local housing allowance during the pandemic. That is true, but now it is not being increased and it will be based on rents of four years ago. The problem is that the Government did not increase local housing allowance between 2016 and 2020; during the pandemic they were putting right what had gone wrong in previous years.

Finally, the Minister referred to the affordable homes programme and new homes being built. However, the truth is that each year, there is a net loss of genuinely affordable homes for social rent. Fewer social rent homes are built compared to those lost through sales and demolition.

I hope the Government will reflect on this evening’s debate. There is clearly a lot of concern about what is happening, and something needs to be done about the amount of social housing. I hope the Minister and the Government will reflect on the need to revise local housing allowance. At its heart, it is a solution for the Government in supporting those who are less well off.

Motion withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Committee (7th Day) (Continued)

20:32

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, is Amendment 184 withdrawn?

[Noble Lords]

We are mid-group.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I beg your pardon. The debate continues on Amendment 183. Forgive me.

Clause 85: Development plans: content

Debate on Amendment 183 continued.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I nearly lost that chance, having sat here for several days waiting for this. I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Young said on the amendments he and I have jointly tabled in this group, except for one word: he referred to his “chequered” career, but I would say “distinguished”. We will replace “chequered” with “distinguished”, but otherwise I agree with everything he said. That helps, because it means that I do not have to repeat the arguments he made.

I want to speak to Amendments 184A and 187A very briefly. I will also explain Amendment 185, which my noble friend did not dwell on, and say a word or two about Amendment 183—the lead amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—which he did refer to. As my noble friend said, the issue we are turning to now is the plan-led system. How local plans are to be made and what the relationship is to be between the local plan and the national development management policies are very important questions.

To paraphrase one of the key questions that arises out of this, which I think we need to understand now in order to address these issues in the Bill at a later stage, would the Government be kind enough to explain to what extent the provisions presently in the National Planning Policy Framework are going to be national development management policies in the future? They will then acquire a different status—although, I have to say, it is quite difficult in many cases for a local planning authority to proceed on the basis of operating with the guidance in the NPPF, because inspectors will look to the NPPF as a basis for the judgments they make on whether a plan is sound, and indeed whether determinations in themselves are sound on appeal. We may be looking at distinctions or differences between the NPPF and NDMP without there being that much of a difference between them. In practice, the legal differences are clear, and the extent to which the NPPF is going to be turned into NDMP and given that status is important, and we need to know that.

As my noble friend Lord Young said, the revised draft of the NPPF, which the Government have consulted on and have yet to tell us the final outcome of, states:

“Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years”.


My noble friend referred to the loophole or the issue here, which is that local planning authorities decide for themselves whether that review turns into an updated local plan. I give him and the House one very specific example, which is close to me. I should remind the House, as I have mentioned previously, of my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. East Cambridgeshire adopted a local plan on 21 April 2015, which covers the period up to 2031. In April 2020—five years later—the authority conducted a review and decided that it did not need to update the plan, save with respect to the housing supply numbers. So, it conducted a single-issue review.

I will not dwell on some of the issues, but I have various complaints about this. First, there is the idea that the housing number is unrelated to other issues in the plan—that the housing supply in the decade ahead is unrelated to issues of environmental concern or whatever. That seems to have been ignored by them. However, I make the point that the inspector, who conducted an examination in public in the latter part of last year, said that it was not in his remit at all to look at whether the plan should be updated or not, whether anything other than housing should be updated or not, and indeed whether the final date of the plan should be beyond 2031. Of course, what the local authority is planning to do in this case is to update its housing figures, but when it has done so, it will extend for only about six years rather than the 15 years that the NPPF would imply. Notwithstanding that, they got away with it. So I very much agree with my noble friend and hope that the Minister will think hard about how we might make sure that we have local plans.

However, our Amendments 184A and 187A go precisely to the issue of requiring local plans to be up to date. If they are not up to date, in our view it cannot be right that the same principles apply in terms of the compliance or otherwise of determinations made on planning applications if the local plan to which they relate is out of date. There must be a distinction. Our amendments simply add “up-to-date” in front of “development plan.” They do not say, “What’s the relationship between a planning application and a determination on that planning application in relation to a local plan that is no longer up to date?” We need to resolve that. I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that Ministers should think about whether there is as yet something they can do to distinguish between the proper relationship between development plans and in this particular instance determinations of planning applications, which should be made according to an up to date local plan, and local plans that had been adopted but are now out of date. They need to address the question of whether they are proper material considerations but not necessarily determinative. That seems to be the right way to go.

Amendment 185, which is in my name, that of my noble friend, and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to the question of a determination on a planning application and that it should be made in accordance with the local plan. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says in Section 38(6):

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.


It has said that since 2004, so there is considerable case law relating to this, and those working in the planning system have experience of working with that. They know that it means that, in making a determination on a planning application, local planning authorities have to weigh material considerations. However, courts pretty much do not second-guess the weight that planning officers and planning committees give to various considerations in considering an application. We have had nearly 20 years of that.

The Government have rewritten this bit and inserted the word “strongly”—

“unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

That says to me that two things are going to happen. First, it is the Government’s intention to limit and restrict the circumstances in which decisions are made other than in accord with a local plan or with national development management policies. That means—which goes to the point that we have been debating in this group—that it reduces the role of the planning committee and the local planning authority, because they do not balance the weight any more. Most of the material considerations, almost by definition, will not be enough to indicate that they should do other than what would be demanded by the local plan and the NDMP.

The second thing that will inevitably result from this is that there will be a large amount of litigation, because the question of what “strongly” means in this context will be hard to determine. There will not be case law or precedent—a large number of decisions will not previously have been made. Where does “strongly” change the balance? How is that weight to be shifted? It is very unwise for the Government to be proceeding down this path. It would create a better balance across the Bill generally and we would be better off in many cases just to leave things as they are if they cannot demonstrate that there is a mischief to which this is the answer.

I will stop there, but I just want to refer to one other thing. I thought that Amendment 216, which is not in my name but in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, rather pointed to an issue. Schedule 7 on page 294, which is about plan making, would take out a rather curious few words where the Government say that local plans must not

“be inconsistent with or (in substance) repeat any national development management policy”.

I just have a question: what is the point of national development management policies if it is not essentially to write for local planning authorities large amounts of their local plan? If the local planning authority then puts that language into its local plan, does that mean it is repeating it or incorporating it? What does “repeat” mean in this context? I thought the whole point was that local plans would “repeat” national development management policies, yet we are being told in the legislation that that is not what they are to do. That is a genuine question to which I really do not know the answer, but I hope we can find out a bit more from my noble friend later.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 191A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, as is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy, including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008, as amended, for national policy statements. It is an amendment to Clause 87.

Clause 87, which is a matter of only 20 or so lines, defines the meaning of “national development management policy” as

“a policy (however expressed) of the Secretary of State in relation to the development or use of land in England, or any part of England, which the Secretary of State by direction designates as a national development management policy.”

It then says that the Secretary of State can revoke a direction and modify a national development management policy. It goes on to say:

“Before making or revoking a direction … or modifying a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must ensure that such consultation with, and participation by, the public or any bodies or persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate takes place.”


In planning terms, this is the most gross act of centralisation that I can recall from the various Bills we have had relating to planning policy.

20:45

I repeat something I now try to say regularly to Ministers: you cannot run England out of London. England is a country of 56 million people. I regard Clause 87 as an extraordinary abuse of power by the Executive over Parliament and local government. I am very concerned about this, because it means a reduction in the scope of the right to be heard in local plans and a centralisation of power over policy that is now determined locally but no longer will be in the same way.

I could make an exceedingly long speech on this matter, but I suspect your Lordships would like to move on a bit. When we get to Report, we have to get clear exactly where this House is headed on this matter, because the centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State—it could be any Secretary of State of any political party in government—seems to me distinctly unhelpful, and I think the Bill will need significant amendment on Report.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 221; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for adding their names. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, gave a brilliant exposition of many of the things I was prepared to say, and this amendment is really a prelude to later Amendments 207 and 336. For those two reasons, I will be very brief and save some powder for later debates.

I speak as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, and this is about older people’s housing and the local plan. The amendment enables the Secretary of State to require local authorities to bring forward an assessment of the local need for housing for older people as part of the documentation in preparing their all-important local plan. Sadly, such an assessment is currently a rarity in local plans, despite the ever-increasing number of older people, for whom opportunities to downsize, to rightsize, can meet so many health, care and social needs.

Tailor-made housing for older people preserves independence, prevents or postpones the need for residential care, helps people to maintain fitness, combats loneliness and isolation, keeps people out of hospital, saves the NHS and care budgets, frees up family homes for the next generation and more. But we have a national shortfall in homes being built specifically for the older generation. Production is running at fewer than 8,000 homes per year, but demand is estimated at 30,000 to 35,000 homes a year.

The trouble is that the volume housebuilders are not interested. Given the choice, they will stick to building for the less discerning, more profitable market of young buyers and will avoid having to organise the ongoing management arrangements necessary for developments for later living. Since these housebuilders dominate the industry, nothing will change unless there is some pressure on these developers to do better. This amendment would start the process of getting on top of this key issue and is very much part of levelling up in extending healthy life expectancy and reducing health inequalities. It represents a key step in getting greater momentum behind a national effort to see local plans incorporate requirements for older people’s housing of different sorts.

I hope to build on this case in subsequent amendments but, in the meantime, I give notice that I will pursue the question asked by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about the task force on housing for older people. It would be great to hear what progress has been made in that direction. The task force was announced on 25 May 2021 by Chris Pincher, the then Housing Minister, at my all-party parliamentary group meeting. It would be great to hear how that is going, having been launched some two years ago. On that note, I commend this amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I support Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which, as he indicated, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford added her name. She apologises for being unable to be in her place today; in my own brief remarks, I will make a number of points that she would have contributed had she been here. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, has a long and honourable history of leading the thinking on housing matters in this land.

I declare my interest in housing for older people: as set out in the register, I am a board member of the Wythenshawe Community Housing Group. In fact, it is more than an interest; it is a passion. In my time as chair of the association, we have opened a flagship development of 135 apartments for older people with mixed rental, shared ownership and outright purchase. Developments such as this enable local people to live in dignity in old age. They provide social space as well as private dwellings. In many cases, they allow residents to remain close to their family networks and former neighbours—the support networks that they need in later life. We can do well for older people but that should not have to rely on episcopal passion or potluck. It needs to be part of how we plan housing provision at a strategic level.

Research by BNP Paribas Real Estate published late last year found that there is a shortfall of more than 487,000 senior living housing units. As our population ages and the housing crisis continues, this housing shortage is set to grow. The 2021 census confirmed that there are more people than ever in older age groups. Some 18.6% of the total population, more than 11 million of us, were aged 65 years or older—an increase from 16.4% at the previous census a decade earlier. There is expected to be a 31% increase in those aged over 65 over the next 15 years. I reached that milestone myself a few months ago; I have a real interest in remaining part of these statistics for many years to come.

Furthermore, as has been indicated, housing is not just for fully able people. Some 91% of homes in England fail basic accessibility standards. Not only do we need more housing but we need to work to improve the suitability of our existing and new housing stock. In doing so, it is important to note that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, reminded us before the dinner break, older people are not a homogenous group so needs will vary.

The recent Mayhew review suggested that 50,000 homes are designed for older people annually. Providing suitable housing for seniors not only addresses their housing and care needs but reduces demand for NHS services, as people stay healthier for longer, and frees up housing and surplus bedrooms for younger families. Amendment 221 would facilitate an important part of the solution to these issues, enabling the Government to consider older people’s housing needs in drawing up plans. These should include more integrated retirement communities, such as the one that I referred to in Wythenshawe. They foster social connection, especially for people living alone in the latter years of their lives. This would help to counter the epidemic of homelessness, since over 6 million people will be living in single person households by 2040, half of them over the age of 80.

There is a real opportunity in this Bill for His Majesty’s Government to work more comprehensively to address the housing needs of our ageing population. I urge them to take it.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have not heard Amendments 191A and 191B extensively discussed; it is possible that I zoned out earlier. I have two points. First, proposed new subsection (5) in Amendment 191A says that a national development management policy must contain

“explanations of the reasons for the policy, and … in particular… an explanation of how it takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”

That is a very welcome requirement, if the Government pick up on it, but it is huge. Having that in there will have a vast impact on policy and what will be done, because so many aspects of our life impact on our response to climate change—the design of our transport systems, how we handle our energy, the kind of houses that we are building, how we make the facilities outside the house that people need accessible to them. This would be a really encouraging development if the Government were to go down that road. I had hoped to hear from the Benches opposite some advocacy of their amendments in this direction. I hope that they mean this seriously.

My second point concerns the aspect of these amendments and others that says what the role of Parliament is in looking at the development of national development management policy. We have another Bill with us, the REUL Bill, in which this is a very cogent consideration. I very much hope that this House holds firm and says that Parliament does have a role here and that we will not let this Bill away without insisting on it.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I want to ask a question based on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He said that the crucial point of the Bill and these clauses is the role and primacy of the two documents—the development plan and the national development management plan—and where they stand in that relationship. Clause 86 makes it clear that the NDMPs take precedence over the development plans if there is a conflict. But where does a third document stand, which the noble Lord also mentioned, the NPPFs, which were introduced via the Localism Act 2011? The document replaced a two-foot-high pile of codes, practice notes and so on about planning. In the instant that it was introduced it was controversial because it reduced the amount of planning paperwork that people needed to have knowledge of and refer to, and it made access to the planning process much easier for lay people and for councils. It seems to have proved its worth and to be a useful document. Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, my question is: is this document now effectively a dead letter? If it is not, where does it stand in relation to the two documents which are given a mention in Clause 86 and in subsequent policy?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is probably one of the key groups of amendments on planning in the Bill, as it sets out the strategic framework under which local plans will be created and planning applications will be determined. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, started us on the right track by saying that we believe in a plan-led system; the question is, “Who leads the plans?” Which one is going to be most important —the national management development plan or the local plan? The local plan currently has primacy in planning legislation.

21:00

At the moment, the National Planning Policy Framework is under consultation for an update. That provides guidance, but it is a material consideration in any local plan. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who said that the Bill spoke about the folly, or waste of space and time, of having to repeat national planning policies in the local plan, so in the Bill the Government say, “Let’s create our own national policies in the NMDP, to which local planning authorities and councils will have to agree.”

The big difference of course is that, in their development, local plans can incorporate—I think that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—issues from across the range of those raised in the NPPF. There are 17 key decisions in the NPPF, including the green belt, the supply of homes, making a stronger economy, the vitality of town centres, and heritage. Those will have a different weight in local plans depending on the locality. If you live in the Yorkshire Dales area, policy on the green belt and national parks will, I guess, have a far greater weight than it would in other parts of the country. If you live in York, I guess that heritage is very important. That is the flexibility that the current system provides for strategic planning. The Bill is proposing a definitive move away from a flexible system where local councils can reflect the needs of their area to one in which there is an absolute insistence that the policies within the NMDP must be followed.

The next question is “What is in it?”. There is a trend in the Bill of having a headline, such as that on the missions, and then a blank space. We have the same here: there is going to be a national management development plan, but then we have a big blank space. That is totally unacceptable. I think it was my noble friend Lord Shipley who quoted the Bill as saying that

“A ‘national development management policy’ is a policy (however expressed) of the Secretary of State … which the Secretary of State by direction designates as a national development management policy”—

and that is it. It could be anything you like. However, when a local plan is created, every one of those national planning policies within the framework is part of the debate, in which local people can take part, about the policy, plan and strategic plan for the council area.

This is a huge move away from localism—I thought that was what we were doing here, by the way. The levelling-up Bill was all about helping different parts of England to have a bit more control over, and involvement in, policies that affect them. Well, this is a very significant move in the other direction. The NDMP positively prohibits a local plan that is not in line with those national policies. This centralising move is unacceptable.

My noble friend Lord Shipley said that Clause 87 is an extraordinary abuse of power by the Executive, and I agree. If we live in a country where local democracy means anything, local planning must mean something. Currently, under these proposals in this Bill, that will be removed. After many years as a local councillor, I can tell you that the one issue that really stimulates big discussion and debate in a locality is planning applications. People get involved in neighbourhood planning applications, which cover a small area— I have just dealt with a very large one on which 2,000 people wrote individual letters of objection. Where people live matters to them. Pride of place is one of the missions in the White Paper, but how can you have pride of place when you take from the council the very tools that will create it? It is not just about whether a place looks beautiful; it is about whether people are engaged and involved in creating pride in the place where they live. As far as we on these Benches are concerned, the proposal to centralise to this degree is simply not acceptable.

I will say a few words about the revision of local plans, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords. It is important. It is not clear from the Bill whether there will be any change to the requirement to set out a plan that has five years’ worth of housing supply in it. It seems to me that revisions ought to take place more frequently. If it is every five years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, says, it seems to me that you would only just get over the last one and start again. But there is merit in constantly having a look, because the parameters of a local plan change. If there were a significant economic development in an area and a higher demand for housing, a plan ought to be able to respond to that. If it were not revised more than, say, every 10 years, that would not be possible.

I agree with having more frequent revisions, but I have to say that one of the rules in local plans is that you have to have a five-year housing supply—in other words, enough houses in your plan to last five years—which is determined by a sort of government calculation. If you do not, developers can develop where they want to, so the incentive is there to revise.

To end, apart from the issues about the strategy, this is about public involvement in planning. I feel very strongly about this because there is a tendency to do to people; what we should do is work with people and listen to what they have to say. Planning is a really good tool to do that, because people can see how it will change where they live, for good or ill as they see it.

Another issue in the Bill, apart from Clause 87, is Clause 85 and Schedule 7. I thank Landmark Chambers for providing this information; I am not sure I would have been able to read through all the schedules as it has done. Schedule 7 states that a spatial development strategy must involve an examination in public, which is what happens now, unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. It might not even go to the public to be looked at. New Section 15AC(6) states:

“No person is to have a right to be heard at an examination in public.”

So you have a local plan, it goes to a nominated planning inspector to be heard in public and no person is to have a right to be heard at an examination in public. Now then: what is the quickest way to aggravate people? It is that: taking away their chance to have their say. With those fairly stringent remarks, I leave it to others to further comment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a really fascinating debate on a key part of the Bill. It has been good to hear voices with such great expertise and wisdom around the Chamber this evening. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. They have rightly emphasised the importance of a development system that is properly plan led. I greatly appreciate that.

If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has declared his passion for housing for older people, I should probably declare that mine is localism, devolution and community engagement. So I want to be optimistic about this Bill, but in these crucial aspects of planning I genuinely feel that it is going in the wrong direction.

I should probably give a brief confession that I am very bruised by experiences I have had relating to the planning system. Our Stevenage local plan, after some two and a half years of public engagement and consultation, a public inquiry which was extended to three weeks, which is quite unusual for a district local plan, and the approval of the inspector, was then called in by our local Member of Parliament and held by the Secretary of State for 451 days while we waited for a determination to be made about whether it could go ahead. It was eventually released under certain conditions, which I will not try noble Lords’ patience by going into. So the thought of this kind of centralising tendency in planning in the way proposed in the Bill makes me exceptionally nervous. I hope that explains a little bit why.

It was, as ever, a pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Young. I respect his great knowledge and expertise in these areas. It is very concerning that only 39% of local authorities have a local plan. One reason for that is that, if you do not have a local plan in place, developers can pitch up and do virtually whatever they want in your area because you cannot resist it. That is not the whole case because you can use an extant plan, but it is much more difficult to resist unwanted development. I completely support his points on stream- lining and simplifying the process.

21:15

The noble Lord, Lord Young, also spoke about incentivising local authorities to get on with their plan-making and having some kind of enforcement in place for those which do not. I think that is important. He pointed out the loophole around local authorities being able to update their plan without reverting to consultation processes. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised this as well. It is an important loophole that we could take the opportunity of this Bill to close.

The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young, raised issues about the extraordinary delay in the appointment of the task force in relation to older people’s housing. I hope that the Minister can give us some answers on that; if not here, then perhaps we can have a written response about the reasons for that delay. There are big issues around housing stock developed for people who need to move into supported or sheltered housing or specially adapted housing.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to the relationship between local plans and the NDMP and to what the extent the policies in the NPPF will be moved over into the NDMP remit. I am concerned about that as well. It is not clear enough in the Bill how that relationship is going to work. There are flaws in the system of the NPPF in any case, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to an inspector saying that this is outside their remit. If it is not in the inspectors’ remit, I do not know whose remit it is in. That reflects my comments that there may need to be consideration of the operation and resourcing of the Planning Inspectorate anyway as a result of this Bill. We should not leave that out of our considerations.

On Amendment 185, which would remove “strongly” from new subsection (5B), the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to the Government’s intention to restrict decisions other than those in accordance with the plan and said that that diminishes the role of the planning committee and increases the possibility of litigation. I absolutely agree. It is a great concern. Can the Minister shed any light on why “strongly” has been introduced in that clause? Again, if it is not possible to do that now, we will happily take an answer in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, echoed our concerns about the centralising elements of the Bill, particularly in relation to Clause 87, which defines the NDMP. I support those comments. It is our major concern. Probably one of the major concerns about the Bill overall is this centralising proposal.

I support Amendment 221, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on older people’s housing, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I would probably want to consider that that reflected a slightly wider group of housing. We have developed specific housing for people with learning disabilities. The people who go into that special type of housing support each other and are able to be supported better in that housing, and people with physical disabilities might also benefit from that type of housing. It might be worth thinking about widening that a bit as well when we get to later amendments. I am very grateful for the comments on that. As was said in that part of the debate, developers will always focus on the profitable side of housing, so we need to think about how we incentivise that type of building. There is a great role for social housing here, and I am sure we will have wider discussions about social housing as the Bill progresses.

I just want to comment on the points the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made. I spoke extensively on the inclusion of environmental provisions in the second group of amendments and I did not want to try the patience of the Committee by repeating myself. That is why I perhaps did not cover that in enough detail in this group, but of course we believe it is a great omission for the Bill not to have it firmly embedded in statute. We must look at the very key issues around climate change and the environment on the face of the Bill.

I hope I have given a good summary of what noble Lords have said. It has been a very interesting debate and we retain our concerns about the centralising tendency of this planning section of the Bill. I hope the Minister has heard the strength of feeling in the Committee on these matters and I look forward to hearing her comments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this might take a little bit of time. It was quite an in-depth and complicated group of amendments. I want to try and give it as much time as I can. I will go through Hansard, but if I miss anything out, I ask noble Lords to come back to me and I will make sure they get a Written Answer as soon as possible.

I want to start where the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, started: why are we having a national development management policy in legislation? Why are we having this change? The case is fivefold. First, it will do what a number of noble Lords have said that it will not do—it will do completely the opposite. It will help local authorities produce swifter, slimmer plans by removing the need to set out generic issues of national importance. It will make those plans more locally relevant and easier for communities and other users to digest and to get involved in developing, through consultation and communications with local communities.

It will be easier for applicants to align their proposals with national and local policy requirements and, where they wish, to go beyond them. We expect that this will be particularly valuable for SMEs. It will provide greater assurances that important policy safeguards which apply nationally or to significant parts of England, such as protections for areas at risk of flooding, policy on climate change and policy to protect the green belt, will be upheld in statutory weight and applied quickly across the country, including when any changes are made. It will mean that this framework of common national policies can guide decisions, even if the local plan is significantly out of date and cannot be relied on. For example, where there is no up-to-date local plan, it will ensure that the national protections for things safeguarded solely through the planning policy—local wildlife sites, for example—have clear statutory status equivalent to an up-to-date plan. I hope that gives some context for what I am going to go through in relation to the amendments.

Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to require local authorities to review and update their development plan at least every five years. I reassure noble Lords that we recognise that if local plans are to be effective, they must be kept up to date. Currently, plans must be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years and should then be updated as and when necessary. The Government made it clear in the policy paper published alongside the Bill introduction in May 2022 that we intend to require through regulation that authorities commence an update of their local plan every five years. They do not consider it; they do it. Although I fully understand the spirit of the amendment, these procedural matters have traditionally been addressed via regulations and it is our intention to maintain this approach. Consequently, we cannot support this amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, mentioned the right to be heard, or not heard, in an inquiry. No right of appearance at an examination applies only to the strategic-level spatial development strategies. This is already a well-established practice and the only spatial development strategy that exists at the moment is the London plan. That one is very specific.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s Amendments 184A and 187B, which aim to ensure that decisions on planning applications are taken in line with an up-to-date plan, which is defined as one less than five years old. As previously mentioned, we know that, for local plans to be effective, they must be kept up to date. Currently, plans must be reviewed to assess whether they need updating every five years, and they should then be updated as necessary. As I said, we will replace the current review requirement, which is a source of confusion and argument, with a new, clearer requirement in regulation for authorities to commence an update of their local plan every five years. However, it is important that we do not create in law a cliff edge that forces important aspects of plans to be out of date for decision-making purposes just because they are more than five years old. This would, for example, very considerably weaken green-belt protections.

I make it clear to noble Lords that we are retaining the current provision that gives precedence to the most up-to-date development plan policy, should conflicts occur. For example, where the local plan is out of date but a more recently approved neighbourhood plan is in place, the latter would take precedence, which I think is good. I fully understand the intention behind these amendments—they would certainly focus authorities’ minds on plan-making—but I believe that our legislation and policy provisions for keeping plans up to date strike a better balance. As a result, we do not feel we can support these amendments.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham also asked what happens if a local authority does not produce a local plan. The Bill retains and updates local plan intervention powers, which have been an important safety net to enable the Secretary of State to take action in certain circumstances in order to ensure that communities can benefit from a plan-led approach to growth.

My noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham asked about local plans and whether government reforms would close what was referred to as a “loophole”. We intend to introduce this requirement for local authorities to commence the update of their local plans at least every five years, which will close that loophole in the future.

The question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the important issue of the five-year housing supply, probably relates to this group. To incentivise plan production further and ensure that newly produced plans are not undermined, we have made clear our intention to remove the requirements for local authorities to maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing where their plan is up to date—that is, adopted within the past five years. So, carrot and stick.

I move now to noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 185, which tests the Government’s rationale for inserting “strongly” into the new decision-making test for planning applications. This is an important reform that seeks to provide greater certainty in decision-making, so I welcome the opportunity to explain our logic behind the change. Clause 86 reforms decision-making to strengthen the role of the development plan in practice. This includes strategic plans such as the London plan, as well as local plans and neighbourhood plans. Planning application decisions would be able to depart from the development plan and any national development management policies only where

“material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

It would no longer be enough for those other considerations merely to “indicate” otherwise.

Simply put, this will support the plan-led system by making it harder for planning decisions not to accord with the development plan and the national development management policies. The bar for developers will be higher if they wish to argue at appeal that their proposals should still gain planning permission even though they do not accord with the development plan and the relevant national development management policies. As a result, the changes are likely to reduce the number of planning appeals that local authorities face and the number of unanticipated developments that communities face on their doorsteps.

21:30

I appreciate that there may be concerns that the change could give a greater weight to plan policies which are no longer up to date, but, in these cases, the introduction of the national development management policies provides an important safeguard, as they will ensure that important policy principles, such as the green belt or heritage protection, are recognised and given statutory weight. We do not believe that resiling from this reform would be appropriate, and therefore the amendment is not an amendment that we can support.

The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley, asked where NPPFs stand in relation to NDMPs. The NPPF will be retained to guide plan-making, but those parts which relate to decision-making will form the basis of the new suite of NDMPs, which will be given statutory weight by the Bill. They will be coming in as we are consulting. As the consultation comes to the fore, it will guide the NDMPs for the future. I hope that that makes sense.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry; I do not want to try the Minister’s patience, but we are not understanding how the various things sit together—the NPPF and the NDMPs. It is not quite clear to me how that will work, and it will make life very difficult for planning inspectors. We have talked before about a meeting to explain some of this in more detail, and that would be extremely helpful to those of us who are considering the Bill closely. If we could get a better understanding of that, it would be very helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am really happy to do that, because it is complex; there are a lot of acronyms and what have you. I do not think that this is the time of night to be discussing detail, so I am happy to put together a meeting as soon as possible, and we will go through it in detail.

I turn now to Amendment 189, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which would allow Parliament to make national development management policies itself. Like national planning policy made at present through the National Planning Policy Framework, national development management policies will serve a broad purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as a starting point in considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. This is a key function of government, which would be undermined by the creation of a dual-power system, as this amendment seeks to do. An effective planning system cannot be achieved if Ministers and Parliament could create contradictory policies by both having the vires to do so. Such a role for Parliament in planning has not been previously proposed, and I am afraid that it is not one that we can support.

Amendment 190, also in the name of the noble Baroness, would impose a legislative restriction on setting fixed standards through national development management policies, while retaining an ability for those policies to set floors which could be exceeded. Unlike building regulations, national planning policies are not used to set specific standards in most cases. Nevertheless, I understand the concern behind the amendment: that national development could, potentially, be used to constrain what locally produced plans are able to do.

The question about how national development management policies are to be used is one that we have consulted on recently. Through that, we were clear that our intention is that they will address planning considerations that apply regularly in decision-making across the country, such as general policies for conserving heritage assets and preventing inappropriate development, including on belts and in areas of high flood risk—the types of policy already contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. Our consultation also said that we were minded to retain the scope for optional technical standards to be set locally through plans so that local planning authorities can go above minimum building standards. The responses to the consultation are being assessed at present, as noble Lords know.

More broadly, it is important that we do not impose restrictions on the national development management policies, which could prevent sensible use of them. It may be appropriate to set absolute standards in one or two instances for reasons of consistency or to prevent harm—for example, in relation to pollution limits. This is best addressed through policy on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket restrictions in legislation. For these reasons, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to impose specific requirements or limitations of the sort that this amendment would entail, so I hope the noble Baroness will understand that we are not able to support it.

I move to Amendment 191, which seeks to probe the direction and modification powers of the Secretary of State to revoke and modify national development management policies. The power to revoke and modify the policies is bound by the same requirements as those to make them, including those on consultation. We recognise that, once the first suite of those policies is published, there must also be a clear legal framework for modifying and revoking them. Like the National Planning Policy Framework, national development management policies will need to evolve over time, reflecting new government priorities and changing economic, social and environmental challenges, as well as trends in planning practice. That is why the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke and modify these policies; without this power, they would become too rigid and potentially ineffective.

However, I would like to reassure noble Lords that the power to revoke and modify the policies will not be used lightly. It is not a mechanism to remove long-standing national planning policies, such as protecting the green belt or tackling flood risk. We want to see consultation, engagement and debate across the sector about potential changes to the policies, in the same way as happens now with the National Planning Policy Framework. Given that any revocation and modification must follow the same procedural requirements as the creation of the new national development management policies, we feel that this amendment is unnecessary and, therefore, not one we can support.

I turn to Amendments 191A and 191B in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which seek to change the requirements for making national development management policies so that they more clearly mirror those for national policy statements. National policy statements are used to set out the policy for nationally significant infrastructure projects—planning decisions that are made by Ministers. National development management policies will serve a broader purpose than this and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans when local decision-makers consider the suitability of development proposals. As previously mentioned, they will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions.

Clause 87 already imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that consultation and participation take place as appropriate, and our recent consultation on the future of the NPPF and the NDMP confirms that public consultation will be carried out before they are designated.

The requirements in this Bill set out that the Secretary of State must explicitly consider public consultation when determining what consultation is appropriate. This is similar to the approach for national policy statements, which also require consultation as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, although they do not include explicit consideration of “public” consultation as in the existing clause.

I acknowledge that the existing clause uses the phrase “if any” in relation to consultation. It includes this as there may be rare occasions where it would be appropriate not to consult on a draft national development management policy, such as if urgent changes are needed in the national interest. For example, during the pandemic, the Secretary of State was able to issue an urgent Written Ministerial Statement in July 2020 to temporarily change national planning policy so that theatres, concert halls and live music performance venues could be given a degree of protection where they were temporarily vacant due to Covid-19 business disruption.

The changes that we discussed earlier to the decision-making test in Clause 86, which strengthen the weight given to the development plan over material considerations, mean that such a policy would have had significantly less weight in planning decisions today, unless it was made a national development management policy.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we have developed a proportionate framework for creating national development management policies, and explained why we have taken a different approach from that for national policy statements, meaning that we do not feel able to accept this amendment.

Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of national development management policies within 120 days of the Bill’s passage. As I have set out, the Bill makes appropriate provision for consultation, which is reinforced by the clear commitment in our recent consultation that we will consult on these policies. Against this backdrop, we believe that a legal obligation to publish a strategy for consultation is unnecessary, and so this is an amendment that we feel unable to support.

I turn next to Amendment 194, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which would require the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to publish annual reports reflecting the cost of producing and maintaining national development management policies and any support given to local planning authorities. I reassure the noble Baroness that national development management policies will not create a new financial burden for local planning authorities or central government. The cost of producing national development management policies as a function of the Secretary of State will fall to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We expect that the cost of preparing and maintaining national development management policies—in Civil Service resource and specialist expertise—will be similar to that for producing and maintaining the National Planning Policy Framework. We will also ensure that the Planning Advisory Service, which my department funds, provides local planning authorities with training and support to help manage the practical transition to using national development management policies when they are making decisions.

Against these upfront costs, local planning authorities will financially benefit from national development management policies, as they will not need to develop or justify these policies themselves when their plans are examined by the Planning Inspectorate. As our impact assessment makes clear, national development management policies will provide greater certainty to developers and communities, potentially providing significant savings for businesses. Our impact assessment estimates that the benefits of increasing certainty in the planning system due to the measures in the Bill will be just over £2.8 billion over a 10-year appraisal period. For the reasons that I have set out, while I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, it is not one that I am able to support.

Amendment 216, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and Amendment 220, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would remove the requirement for local plans to be consistent with national development management policies and prevent such a requirement in regulations. These amendments would fundamentally diminish the ability of our reforms to make local plans easier to prepare and to create more certainty for applicants, communities and local planning authorities. Through the Bill we are strengthening the role of the development plan in decision-making by changing Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 so that planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan and the national development management policies unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.

21:45

National development management policies will provide greater certainty for planning decisions and strengthen the legal position of important national policies, removing the need for them to be repeated in local plans. This will improve outcomes for communities, helping to restore trust in the planning system. Removing the need for local plans to be consistent with national development management policies would hinder effective operation of the amended decision-making test. If decisions are to be made in accordance with both the development plan and national development management policies but plans do not need to be consistent with these policies then this would increase the likelihood of conflicts between them emerging and generate uncertainty for everyone involved. It would also increase the risk of unnecessary duplication between plan policies and national policies, with the accompanying risks of making plans bigger, harder to digest and slower to produce.

Therefore, while I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, for their amendments, I hope I have explained why we believe the current requirement for local development plans to be consistent with national development management policies is needed to achieve some of our key aims for planning reform. That is why we do not support these amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. I understand the point she is making about Amendment 216, and why she is resisting removing the idea that local plans must not be inconsistent with national development management policies, but it also says, “or (in substance) repeat”.

I am trying to understand. Let us take the chapter in the NPPF on green belt. The first part is about plan-making for the green belt, and the second part is about proposals coming forward within green belt land and the criteria that should be applied as to whether or not an application would be accepted. On that latter part, is my noble friend saying that the local plan cannot repeat that—that it must therefore refer to it but not repeat it? Is that the point she is making?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The whole idea of moving national policies away from local policies is that we do not have to repeat them. I will reflect on what my noble friend says about how it is referred if an area has a particular issue with something such as the green belt and come back to him, because I think he has a point.

Amendment 221, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to require older people’s housing needs assessments to be included in the evidence for local plans and would require local authorities to consider the needs for older people’s housing when preparing such plans. While I entirely understand the sentiment behind this amendment, the proposed approach is not needed. National policy already sets strong expectations, and we recently consulted on strengthening this further. The existing National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, including older people, should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. In 2019, we also published guidance to help local authorities implement the policies that can deliver on this expectation.

I also make it clear to noble Lords that, to further improve the diversity of housing options available to older people and to boost the supply of specialist elderly accommodation, we have proposed to strengthen the existing policy by adding a specific expectation that, when ensuring the needs of older people are met, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. We know these are important types of housing that can help support our ageing population.

Furthermore, there is already a provision in the Bill that sets out that the Secretary of State must issue guidance for local planning authorities on how their local plan and any supplementary plans, taken as a whole, should address housing needs that result from old age or disability. These are strong legislative and policy safeguards which should ensure that the needs of older people are taken fully into account. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Best, will understand why we do not support this amendment.

I note that there is a question from my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the task force. I will go back to the department and ask for an update. I can assure noble Lords that I will give them one in the next couple of days—certainly before Recess or Report.

I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her Amendment 183 and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved when reached.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 183 withdrawn.

Clause 85 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.52 pm.