House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Before I answer the questions, may I on behalf of the Government extend my congratulations to Humza Yousaf on his election as leader of the Scottish National party? We look forward to working with him in the future. It has been noted that he won by 52% to 48%, so I hope that SNP colleagues will agree that there is no need for another vote.
Everyone should have access to a high-quality and safe affordable home. Our affordable homes programme is investing £11.5 billion to deliver tens of thousands of new affordable homes, and a significant proportion will be made available for social rent, directly helping those most in need.
Dr Whitehead
I was shocked to read recently that only 6,400 new social rent homes were built in England last year, when pretty much everybody agrees that about 100,000 are needed every year to deal with present and future housing needs. What figure between those two numbers does the Secretary of State think would be acceptable in developing social and rented housing in future years?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Actually, I believe that the figure was closer to 30,000 overall, but I believe, as the National Housing Federation and others have made clear, that we need to increase the proportion of new homes for social rent, and that is one of the aims as we reprofile the affordable homes programme.
Simon Lightwood
Last year the Public Accounts Committee assessed the Government’s affordable homes programme. It concluded that targets were being missed, that areas with high demand were not prioritised and that savings to be made by reducing temporary accommodation were not assessed. In Wakefield the council is using hotels such as Citilodge to house homeless people, because it lacks the funding and resources to acquire enough social housing. When will the Government step in and help councils to address the social housing shortage?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he makes. There is a housing shortage overall, not just in social housing, and we need to work with local government and others to increase supply. The affordable homes programme is a critical part of that, and that money would not be available if we were to follow the prescriptions on the economy that those on the shadow Front Bench put forward.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Conservative group at North West Leicestershire District Council has already committed to hundreds of additional houses for social rent. Will my right hon. Friend inform the House how his Department is going to help my council deliver on that very welcome commitment?
Michael Gove
North West Leicestershire is one of a number of local authorities with which we are working. The affordable homes programme and, indeed, the ability to use right-to-buy receipts are critical to making sure that we deliver the social homes the country needs.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
The Government completed a 12-week public consultation gathering views to shape a vision for an Oxford-Cambridge arc spatial framework. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation and will provide more information in due course.
Richard Fuller
Over the past decade, housing growth in Bedfordshire has been two and a half times the national average, with acute pressures on our GPs, dentists and other local services. Today’s progress review by the National Infrastructure Commission confirmed what many of us have always known—namely, that East West Rail is an excuse for even greater housing development in Bedfordshire and the region. Will my hon. Friend please meet me and ensure that we do not progress housing growth in the Ox-Cam arc before the shortages in services are settled?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of his constituents, which are shared by many communities. We know how important it is that infrastructure is delivered alongside housing growth. That is why, through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we will require local authorities to produce an infrastructure strategy as part of the infrastructure levy. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Last week London Economics reported that the University of Cambridge contributes almost £30 billion per annum and supports 86,000 jobs across the whole country. When Cambridge does well, the whole country does well. The arc is the key to future UK prosperity, so will the Government play their part by giving local leaders the tools and access to investment so that they can use the wealth that we create to set the stage for Labour to achieve our mission to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7?
Rachel Maclean
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), we are considering the report of the National Infrastructure Commission, but this Government are committed to levelling up and to devolution across the country. We saw in the Budget, delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, that we have devolved significant powers to Mayors across the country, such as Andy Street in the west midlands. That is the right thing to do to drive prosperity across the country.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Our consultation on proposals for the national planning policy framework closed on 2 March. We are now considering all the comments that we received and will publish an update in due course.
Daisy Cooper
Sites in Chiswell Green and Colney Heath in my constituency and the north of St Albans district are under threat from the Government’s top-down housing targets that do nothing to tackle our problems of overcrowding or the lack of affordable homes, but do decimate the green belt. In 2015, Ministers issued a statement saying that these targets could not constitute a very special circumstance for allowing green-belt destruction, but they failed to incorporate that statement into the national planning policy framework. Seven years on, can the Secretary of State please say when those changes will be made and whether they will be put in place in time to stop the planning inspectorate forcing through speculative applications if they go to appeal?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. It is precisely because we want to stop speculative developments wherever possible that we are encouraging a plan-led system, and our changes to the NPPF should achieve precisely that. But under threat? Honestly, the Liberal Democrats have a right cheek on this. They say nationally that they want more than 300,000 homes everywhere, and then, on individual planning applications, they out-nimby every other political party. I know that the word “hypocrisy” is unparliamentary, Mr Speaker, but there is no other way to describe Liberal Democrat policy on planning and housing.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Notwithstanding the answer that the Secretary of State has just given, can he assure me that when we do come back with the NPPF revisions, there is very much a brownfield-first thread throughout the guidance and rules?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. Our aim, as always, is to promote brownfield first housing delivery and urban regeneration. It will sometimes be the case that individual planning authorities will designate sites for development that are not brownfield sites. The new NPPF will, I hope, give both communities control and developers certainty.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
My ministerial colleagues and I are in constant contact with our counterparts in the Scottish Government. My officials have had positive discussions so far with the Scottish Government to co-create an approach towards investment zones in Scotland and we will continue to work together to develop an investment zone, or zones, that build on existing Scottish strengths and our shared national strategies.
Ronnie Cowan
Given that both the green ports went to the east coast of Scotland, which flies in the face of the well-known convention that west is best, can the Minister assure me that when Inverclyde Council puts together its bid for an investment zone, the Minister will balance that against the devastation caused in the area by the lack of investment over decades by consecutive Labour and Conservative Governments?
Michael Gove
Greenock and Port Glasgow are two of the most attractive communities on the west coast of Scotland, but I do have to say that pitting east against west within Scotland is as bad as pitting Scotland against the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland succeeds when all of us work together. The new Leader of the SNP is simultaneously a Glaswegian and a Dundonian, which is one of his many achievements, and I do believe that we should work together east and west, north and south, in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
A total of 7,000 council jobs in Scotland are under threat from SNP cuts to local government. Council leaders across Scotland have written to the former First Minister warning of the devastating impact of those SNP cuts—huge job losses and vital local services across Scotland slashed. Can the Minister confirm what the impact of those job losses will be on people in Scotland, and can he say what the difference is between Tory and SNP cuts to councils, or are they just two sides of the same coin?
Michael Gove
Talking of the same coin, we have the same coins in England and Scotland because we are one United Kingdom, and it is the SNP that wants a separate currency for Scotland as part of its plans for separatism. I have to say that there are excellent SNP councillors in Scotland, but they are being let down by the Scottish Government. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is up in arms at the way in which the Scottish Government have undermined local authorities, in contrast to here in England where we are working in partnership with local Government to devolve more power to the frontline. I refer the hon. Lady to the paeans of praise for our approach that we had from Labour leaders of local government just last week. In contrast to that, I am afraid local government in Scotland has been let down by the SNP. It was a key feature of Kate Forbes’s leadership race that she said more powers should be devolved within Scotland, and I hope the new First Minister will take note.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
This Government are committed to making the most of brownfield land. The national planning policy framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should give “substantial weight” to using suitable brownfield land, and through our brownfield funds we are investing significantly in supporting redevelopment and release of brownfield sites for housing. We have also committed to launching a review to identify further measures that would prioritise the use of brownfield land.
Wendy Morton
Under the leadership of West Midlands Mayor Andy Street and Conservative councils such as that in Walsall, we are demonstrating the value of regenerating brownfield land to create the homes we need while regenerating communities and protecting precious greenfield in areas such as mine around Streetly and Aldridge. I welcome the £100 million deal we received as part of the trailblazer devolution deal, but will my hon. Friend continue to look at the possibility of creating a register of brownfield land, as a further tool to deliver a brownfield-first approach?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my right hon. Friend for her consistent advocacy in championing this vital issue. That is absolutely what the Government are doing. We are introducing a number of measures, as she set out, to support that brownfield-first approach, including requiring every local authority to publish a register of local brownfield land suitable for housing in their area.
Vicky Ford
In Chelmsford there are many households living in temporary accommodation. New affordable homes are being built on greenfield sites, but that is not keeping pace with the need. Will the Government look at better ways to use brownfield sites, such as office block to residential conversions, to help to deliver more affordable homes?
Rachel Maclean
My right hon. Friend is doing a superb job of pushing forward affordable homes for her constituents in Chelmsford, and we are wholly committed to that shared agenda. Since 2010, over 829,000 households have been helped to buy a home by Conservative Governments. That is a massive achievement. However, it is vital to prioritise brownfield sites such as those in Chelmsford, and we recently consulted on proposed policies to further encourage the use of those small sites. I am happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Mr Robertson
Does the Minister agree that prioritising brownfield sites is important particularly to take the pressure off small villages, which face many speculative planning applications and do not have the infrastructure to support them?
Rachel Maclean
I know my hon. Friend expresses the concerns of his constituents who live in those villages in the Tewkesbury area. That is why we have already introduced range of policy and funding initiatives to support the development of brownfield land. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will go much further to empower local leaders to regenerate those towns, cities and villages by introducing a new infrastructure levy, which will capture a higher land value uplift to enable more infrastructure to be delivered alongside housing.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
On 1 March, the Secretary of State received a letter written by 10 civic societies from Britain’s biggest cities, including Coventry, about the 35% housing uplift. Given the widespread condemnation of that arbitrary target, will the Minister meet me to explain why it has been imposed on Coventry?
Rachel Maclean
I will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss housing targets in Coventry. In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill we have set out the measures under which local areas will have more power to ensure that the right housing is built in the right places. I am happy to discuss that with her.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
In Yorkshire, there are tens of thousands of families desperate for affordable housing. CPRE, The Countryside Charity, says that there are 115,000 potential brownfield sites in our county alone, and tens of thousands of more are land banked, with planning consent already given for housing. Yet there is executive housing popping up like mushrooms in a forcing shed all over my constituency on the green belt. Is the Minister happy that her legacy will be a Government that poured cement and tarmac all over Yorkshire’s green and pleasant land?
Rachel Maclean
I think that this Government will be extremely proud of our legacy of delivering affordable homes and homes for first-time buyers all over the country. We need a locally led planning system; that is why we are delivering measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to require more infrastructure and a brownfield-first approach, backed by billions of pounds-worth of funding.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The statutory requirements for the houses that we build today fall far short of the challenges of a changing climate. Humber is the second most flood-prone region in the UK after London, with more than 190,000 at-risk homes, which equates to a third of all properties in the region. Will the Minister consider urgently introducing to the national planning framework stricter statutory requirements for flood protection and mitigation?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady raises a vital issue. We recognise the importance of protecting communities from flood risk. That is why we have been clear in the national planning policy framework that areas of flood risk should be avoided and that, where that is not possible, all risks should be mitigated. That is further supported by the flood risk and coastal change guidance, which has been updated. I am very happy to discuss that in more detail with her as it affects her communities.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
We all know that turnout can vary significantly from election to election because of a wide range of factors, so it is not possible to model robustly the impact of a single factor on voter turnout. That was noted by the Electoral Commission during its review of the 2019 voter identification pilots. Our measures were introduced to help protect the integrity of our democracy—something that every one of us in this House should seek to do.
Dehenna Davison
Part of the reason is to spread awareness about the new voter ID regulations. We have given that additional funding to the Electoral Commission, as well as additional funding of more than £4 million to local authorities, to promote those additional measures locally. We do not want to price anyone out of democracy, but we must protect its integrity at all costs.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in reminding the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) that it was Labour that first introduced voter identification, in Northern Ireland in 2003? The Electoral Commission was unable, in its 2021 public opinion tracker, to identify a single respondent who said that they were unable to vote.
Dehenna Davison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has made the case for why the measures are needed and will benefit our democracy.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am told by the Association of Electoral Administrators that some returning officers plan to use greeters at the front doors of polling stations to check whether people have the correct ID. If they do not, they will be turned away. Currently, those who are turned away will not be logged as having been refused a ballot on the grounds of a lack of ID. Such a person will be logged only if they make it to the main desk and are refused there. That is totally daft and will, of course, completely skew the data for the independent review. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister wants. Will she commit today to correcting it?
Dehenna Davison
We know that about 98% of electors have the right identification. We have put additional funding into rolling out our information campaign so that people know what identification is required. It is right that local authorities take whatever measures they can to ensure that people have the right ID. Ultimately, we are confident that this will not reduce voter turnout.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
In our White Paper, we set out plans to reform the private rented sector, giving renters greater security and safer, higher-quality homes. We will introduce legislation in this Parliament.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I listened to the Minister speak to the Renters’ Reform Coalition last week. She handled the questions very well, and I was pleased to hear her announce that a Bill would be introduced by autumn of this year. But since she gave the speech, 900 people have been served section 21 notices. Every week that we wait means thousands of people being evicted. Today, her Government have announced tougher measures making it easier to evict people. Will she give me assurances that renters will be protected, not forced out, by her new Bill?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his kind words, and I am delighted that he was there to hear me reaffirm the Government’s commitment to abolish section 21 evictions as soon as parliamentary time allows. We are levelling up the private rented sector to produce more safeguards for renters and allow more renters to live in safe and decent homes.
James Sunderland
I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. Bracknell is blessed with many people who rent their accommodation from private landlords, and it is really important that we do the best we can for them. But by the same token, good law is balanced law. Will she please outline what is being done to protect landlords against tenants who do not fulfil their responsibilities?
Rachel Maclean
As I said at the public event, good landlords have absolutely nothing to fear from our reforms, which are right, proportionate and balanced. As my hon. Friend is asking, we will strengthen the grounds for landlords to use to regain possession, including when a tenant is at fault. That includes making it easier and quicker to evict tenants who commit antisocial behaviour, as set out in the action plan today.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On the answer that the Minister has just given, I should say that the Select Committee recommended that when section 21 goes there has to be a means of dealing speedily with cases of antisocial behaviour. I am pleased that recommendations are made in the antisocial behaviour action plan to prioritise such cases in the courts. But antisocial behaviour also occurs in the social housing sector, and it can often take a year or more to get to court. Will the Minister agree that if we are prioritising such cases in the private rented sector, we should have a similar system for prioritising them for social housing as well?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; it was a real pleasure to discuss those issues and many others when we met last week to talk about the renters reform Bill. He has made a very good point, and I have committed to take it away and look at it with my officials.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Blackpool has a significantly higher than average proportion of private rented houses. I am sure that my landlords will be delighted to hear about the increased flexibility that they will have to deal with more problematic tenants. However, has the Minister considered extending the provisions on mould and damp that will now apply to the social rented sector to private rented properties as well, to level up the private rented sector?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend very much for drawing the House’s attention to the issue of damp and mould. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been extremely active in pushing forward improvements to social rented housing. It is right that we should level that up to private rented housing. We will be bringing forward the decent home standards in the private rented sector in the renters reform Bill.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Service charges must be reasonable and works and services must be of a reasonable standard. We will empower leaseholders by legislating, so that service charges are more transparent. We are encouraging registered providers of social housing to limit service charge increases for social housing tenants to 7% or less.
Sarah Olney
I have been told by constituents who live in housing association properties that not only their rents but their service charges will be going up this year. One constituent has told me that their service charge will increase from £15.18 per week to £127.74—over £5,800 per year more for their service charge. These constituents are already struggling at the top of their budgets to accommodate increased heating and living costs. The Government have placed a cap on the maximum that their rent can be raised by, but that is surely arbitrary if the service charge can be increased by such a drastic amount.
Felicity Buchan
As I have said, service charges are payable only to the extent that the costs have been reasonably incurred. If the hon. Lady’s social housing tenant believes that the costs have not been reasonably incurred, I really encourage them to go to the housing ombudsman. Similarly, leaseholders can also challenge any service charges through the first-tier tribunal.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Following on from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), although it is welcome that the Government have capped rent rises below inflation for those in the social rented sector, residents of Hyndburn and Haslingden, and across Lancashire, are also facing rises in service charges—increases of up to 11%—so can the Government set out what support is available for those who cannot afford a combined rent and service charge increase?
Felicity Buchan
Obviously, we are very sympathetic to those who are feeling cost of living pressures, which is why the Treasury put together the £37 billion package at the autumn statement, followed by a further £26 billion. Service charges should be reasonable, they should reflect costs and there should be access to the ombudsman, as there is.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
The Government are supporting towns to attract investment through a wide number of levelling-up initiatives. We are establishing freeports and investment zones designed to incentivise private sector investment and job creation in some of our most deprived communities, and devolution deals are giving local areas the opportunity to tailor policy to local investors. The £2.6 billion UK shared prosperity fund has been designed around a key theme of growing the private sector across the United Kingdom, and the levelling-up funding programmes, totalling almost £10 billion, are designed to revitalise town centres and grow local economies.
Mike Kane
Manchester and Trafford are cracking on with regenerating Wythenshawe and Sale town centres in my constituency, despite submitting excellent but ultimately unsuccessful levelling-up bids. Does the Minister really think that the best way to level up is to force cash-strapped councils to waste millions of pounds entering endless beauty parades, just to get the investment that they deserve?
Dehenna Davison
That is why the Government will be publishing a full funding simplification plan in due course, but it is also why we are focusing on devolving more power and more money to local areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fantastic trailblazer deal that we have just introduced in Manchester, which is giving the power and authority there to complete projects such as the one that he has referenced.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
In Darwen, we have taken our £25 million town deal and managed to increase that to £100 million with private sector investment, and in Rossendale, as part of our £50 million-plus levelling-up funding—I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the £18 million in the Budget to level up the Rossendale valley—we look forward to going out and courting businesses. Does the Minister agree that the whole point of the levelling-up fund is to ensure that local authorities have to work with their local businesses to make sure they deliver best for their communities?
Dehenna Davison
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Government funding is just one part of the puzzle to ensure that local areas get the investment they need. Attracting that private sector investment is absolutely crucial, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done locally to make sure we are fully levelling up Rossendale and Darwen.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced extensive protections for leaseholders in buildings above 11 metres. Developers in Government schemes will pay for cladding remediation, and developers that have signed contracts or are associated with landlords will also pay for non-cladding work.
Marsha De Cordova
It is a national disgrace that nearly six years on from the Grenfell tragedy, leaseholders in Battersea are still stuck in buildings that are below 11 metres. It is not right for the Secretary of State to say that this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis when we know that shorter buildings will have more vulnerable people in them, will have more cladding, and will suffer from greater fire safety defects. When will the Government finally get a grip and allocate resources, and prioritise those according to risk?
Lee Rowley
I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Lady, but it absolutely is the case that buildings under 11 metres typically have a lower set of issues associated with them when reviewed on the basis of the PAS 9980 principles, which are utilised to assess whether issues are there or not. Where colleagues are aware of problems in buildings, we have asked—and continue to ask—them to get in touch with us, so that we can look at those problems. We are doing so—I looked at a case in Romford only last week. If the hon. Lady wants to provide me with further information, I would be happy to look at those individual cases.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will know, the cost to leaseholders does not just end with funding safety measures; many are paying extortionate insurance premiums. Can he tell the House what discussions he has had with the Treasury about reducing those costs and making them more affordable?
Lee Rowley
Along with my colleagues in the Department, we are trying to find an industry solution for insurance, and we have been working closely with the Association of British Insurers and with insurers directly on what they can do and how the costs for insurance come down as remediation is concluded. I spoke with the ABI only last week, and I will continue to meet it regularly to try to resolve this incredibly important issue.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
They will only ever deal with a fraction of the problem at best, but the developer remediation contract and the forthcoming responsible actors scheme are welcome. Yet, as things stand, all we know is that the scheme will initially focus on sufficiently profitable major housebuilders and large developers, and it may then expand over time to cover others. Blameless leaseholders trapped in unsafe buildings deserve far greater clarity now as to whether or not the contract and the scheme may eventually cover their building. Will the Government give them that certainty by committing today to publishing a full list of all developers that the Department believes are eligible and should therefore ultimately participate or face the consequences—yes or no?
Lee Rowley
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but the reality is that he cannot suggest that only a fraction of buildings are covered by the developer contract. Just in the past two weeks, it has been confirmed that more than 1,100 buildings will be fixed, with £2 billion of work covering 44 different developers. There will be more announcements in due course, but where individual leaseholders have concerns about moving those buildings forward, we are happy to hear about them, but extensive Government support schemes are already in place to allow remediation to occur without waiting for the conclusion of these developer discussions.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I was delighted that my Department could provide more than £200 million of additional funding to 16 transformational capital regeneration projects, including Rotherham’s vital bid to regenerate Dinnington and Wath upon Dearne. My officials will be working closely with applicants to ensure that these projects can kick-start regeneration in these local areas as quickly as possible.
Alexander Stafford
I welcome the Minister’s response, and it is great news that Dinnington high street got £12 million from this new pot of money. Can she confirm that she will also look kindly on further bids, when I bring them, for my other high streets, such as in Maltby, Thurcroft and Kiveton? Will Rother Valley still be eligible for round 3 of the levelling-up fund, as we got this money from a different pot?
Dehenna Davison
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Rother Valley, and I know that two of his councillors who have been championing this project are sitting in the Gallery—Councillor Ball and Councillor Mills—and I thank them for their dedication. This project is due to provide almost £20 million for local regeneration schemes, including in Dinnington and Wath upon Dearne, but that is of course in addition to Rotherham’s two successful levelling-up fund schemes in the first round, worth a total of £39.5 million. Labour let the Rother Valley down, but the Conservatives are levelling it up.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Thornley Lane North is literally the boundary between Denton and Reddish, and the Minister will not understand the incredulity of local residents to see these huge electronic billboards plastered with “Levelling up”. Denton did not succeed in round 2 of the levelling-up fund. Reddish did not succeed in round 1. What is the Minister going to do to help me level up Denton and Redditch, rather than leaving us out?
Dehenna Davison
I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those levelling-up projects. We have had a huge swathe of fantastic projects that have been funded around the country.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
The levelling-up fund continues to invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life for local residents across the UK. Levelling-up fund projects that are in delivery are closely monitored through quarterly reporting, with payments made to local authorities every six months. We have also agreed a £65 million support package to ensure that local authorities have the capacity they need to deliver. I am pleased to say that details of the next round of the levelling-up fund will be outlined in due course.
Alex Cunningham
For generations the people of Billingham have made a massive contribution to the British economy—through the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, among others—and they continue to do so today. Sadly, the once state-of-the-art town centre, also built on their backs, has seen better days. Can the Minister explain why, when it comes to levelling up, the Government have turned their back on those who have contributed the most and deserve investment in their town?
Dehenna Davison
I suggest that perhaps the reason that some areas have been run down is due to decades of poor Labour management and investment. This Government are putting billions of pounds into regeneration, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to make sure a bid comes in for round 3 of the levelling-up fund.
Philip Davies
I was delighted that the Chancellor confirmed in his Budget that the next round of levelling-up fund bids would go ahead. The Minister has just said that the next round will be “in due course”. Would she like to be a bit more specific about when we might expect the deadline for bids, and will she confirm that her Department will work closely with Bradford Council to make sure that the much-needed bid for Bingley town centre will be successful next time around?
Dehenna Davison
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion for Bingley. As I have said, the third round of the levelling-up fund will be announced in due course, but of course I will work with him and Bradford Council to ensure that the bid is as strong as it possibly can be for that round, so that we can deliver for the people of Bingley.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Barnsley Council has lost 40% of its budget and half of its workforce since 2010, which is a loss of £1.2 billion. Just £10 million has been given back to the borough through levelling-up funding, with nothing for my constituency of Barnsley East. Does the Minister really expect communities to be grateful for that?
Dehenna Davison
I would encourage the hon. Member to visit the Barnsley Futures project—I actually had the pleasure of visiting those involved a few months ago—and tell me that they are not grateful.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent was delighted to receive a UK-leading £56 million from the levelling-up fund, righting the wrongs of 70 years of Labour neglect and failure, when instead it has spent £60 million on brand-new council offices. Having already seen Tunstall’s £3.5 million for the old library and baths, will my hon. Friend allow Stoke-on-Trent another bid for the great mother town of Burslem so that we can invest in our indoor market, the Queen’s theatre and the Wedgwood Institute?
Dehenna Davison
My hon. Friend is never quiet in his forthright campaigning for Stoke-on-Trent. He is a fantastic champion, and of course I will work with him to ensure that any additional funding opportunities are there for Stoke. He has had a fantastic record so far on attracting Government investment, but of course we want to do more.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, you and the rest of the House will probably know that Huddersfield is a very large town that has never shown all that much interest in becoming a city, but we are feeling very aggrieved that we are not getting the help we need for some prime development projects, particularly with the old market site. Could the Minister look into our area, which is very split between Labour and Conservative—and I am asking quietly and I hope persuasively?
Dehenna Davison
I very much appreciate the hon. Member’s constructive questioning, and I would of course be happy to meet him to discuss such projects further.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
For decades, Ynys Môn has suffered from lack of investment. Now, thanks to this Conservative UK Government, who are committed to levelling up left-behind areas such as Ynys Môn, this has changed, with £17 million from the levelling-up fund to regenerate Holyhead and the brilliant news that Anglesey is to be a freeport. I would like to put on record in this House my sincere thanks, and those of my Ynys Môn constituents, to the UK Government—diolch yn fawr.
Dehenna Davison
I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her brilliant campaigning for Ynys Môn, really putting the island on the map. Ynys Môn is benefiting from an incredible sum of money from the levelling-up fund, and of course has the incredible benefit from that freeport, in no small part thanks to her brilliant campaigning.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
The Government have been clear that the long-term use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children is inappropriate and unlawful. We will continue to work with local authorities to limit its use, and we are giving councils £654 million through the homelessness prevention grant for 2023 to 2025 to help them prevent homelessness.
Kate Osamor
I thank the Minister for her response, but the reality for a constituent of mine is very difficult. My constituent has been stuck in a Travelodge for seven months with his wife, a wheelchair user, and two sons. One son is autistic and has been increasingly distressed at constantly changing rooms. The number of families living in B&Bs for more than six weeks has increased by 180% in London in a year, as councils struggle to find affordable accommodation for families on benefits. Can the Government commit to uprating local housing allowance at least by the rate of inflation?
Felicity Buchan
I am sorry to hear about the circumstances of the hon. Member’s constituent, and I am happy to talk in detail. There are currently 1,200 families in B&B accommodation for over six weeks. As I have said, we think that is inappropriate. We have made it clear to local authorities that B&Bs are a last resort, and they are an interim measure to more stable accommodation.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Every year since 2011, the number of children in temporary accommodation has risen—we are talking about well over 120,000 children without a home to call their own. It is a form of homelessness that is out of sight, out of mind and on the rise under this Tory Government—thousands of children stuck in bed and breakfasts for longer than the statutory maximum of six weeks. What do Ministers intend to do about the shocking numbers of homeless children in temporary accommodation, and when? May I remind the Minister that they are in charge of the parliamentary schedule for as long as they have left in government?
Felicity Buchan
Homelessness and rough sleeping is one of the biggest priorities of this Government. We are devoting £2 billion over three years to alleviate homelessness and rough sleeping. This is a major priority of ours. Every family and child deserve to live in decent, secure and safe housing. That is why we have helped half a million people since the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came in to prevent homelessness. We have spent £366 million this year on the homelessness prevention grant and £654 million over the next two years. The Government are committed to getting people out of temporary accommodation and into long-term, stable accommodation.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Today, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister launched the cross-Government antisocial behaviour action plan. My Department plays a critical role in ensuring that the facilities are available to divert young people from antisocial behaviour and into productive youth work.
Antony Higginbotham
Regeneration is taking place across Burnley and Padiham thanks to this Government, but to realise the potential we have to crack down on antisocial behaviour in our town centres. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to crack down on ASB in town centres?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. Across the country, we need to have more uniformed officers in crime hotspots and faster justice, so that those who are responsible for damaging an area make reparation. Above all, we need to ensure that the moral relativism that those on the Opposition Front Bench have taken towards crime is at last countered by a robust, pro-law-and-order response from this Government.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
It takes some brass neck from a Government whose Prime Minister has two fixed penalty notices to accuse us of “moral relativism” when it comes to antisocial behaviour. In fairness to the Secretary of State, he has had a busy weekend: another week, another promise and another press release—he is at least consistent with that. But I have here a document that reveals that, even on his flagship levelling-up policy, he has been able to get only 8% of his funds out of the door. He is good at getting press releases out the door—why not our money?
Michael Gove
In the Budget just the other week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for making sure that tens of millions of pounds were spent, including £20 million in the hon. Lady’s constituency and tens of millions of pounds across the country, in order to level up. We heard during earlier from Members across the House who have received support, had projects delivered and seen change delivered. This Government are impactful, effective and focused. On the other side of the House, I am afraid all we hear is the cackle of impotence.
Lisa Nandy
The desperation is absurd, Mr Speaker—8% of the levelling-up funds have been spent. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Budget, because in just one day his Government spent three times more on a tax cut for the richest 1% than they have managed to spend on the whole of the north of England in well over a year. Doesn’t that just sum the Government up? They can get their act together when it comes to the 1%, but when it comes to investment in our town centres, local transport, decent housing and delivering on a single one of the levelling-up missions, why do the rest of us always have to wait?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady does not have to wait for the truth. The truth is that, in the Budget, we adopted a policy put forward by the Labour shadow Health Secretary to get waiting lists down. Now that a Conservative Government are actually acting, the Labour party turns turtle on it. That is no surprise coming from the hon. Lady. When we published our White Paper on levelling up, she said that our levelling-up missions were the right thing; in fact, she wanted an additional mission. Now she says that those missions should be scrapped. One position one week, another position the next. Inconsistency, thy name is Labour.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
May I say, as a dog lover myself, that my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that issue. Pets can bring joy, happiness and comfort, which is why the Government will prevent landlords from unreasonably refusing a tenant’s request to have a pet. We will give landlords more confidence by allowing them to require insurance to cover pet damage.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May I add to the Secretary of State’s congratulations to Humza Yousaf, who shares many constituents with myself? It is a great day for Glasgow Pollok and Glasgow South West. May I ask the Secretary of State some questions on intergovernmental relations? A third tranche of levelling-up funding is yet to be distributed, £90 million of which should go to Scotland. Rather than the botched and broken system, seen in the last month or so, of funding distribution from this place, is it not time to devolve the funding to devolved Administrations to enable its fair and efficient use?
Michael Gove
I welcome the desire of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Scottish Government, to work with us on levelling up. I hope that that means there will be a legislative consent motion passed for our Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We will work with the Scottish Government to ensure that funding is spent as effectively as possible, but it is UK Government money that supplements the block grant, over which the Scottish Government have total control.
Chris Stephens
Before the spring Budget, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, sent a letter to the Chancellor raising several concerns, all of which were ignored. What does it say about the state of intergovernmental relations when the UK Government refuse to consider even a single concern raised by devolved Administrations at Budget time?
Michael Gove
We not only consider, but meet regularly with our colleagues across the devolved Administrations. Last year, we had over 270 intergovernmental ministerial meetings, bringing together colleagues. Of course, from time to time, given our respective positions, we may disagree, but there have been a number of significant successes where we have agreed, not least the delivery of two green freeports in Scotland—an example of both Governments working together in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Michael Gove
I absolutely will and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to ensure that our antisocial behaviour action plan hits criminals where it hurts. I should add that apparently the Leader of the Opposition was in Stoke-on-Trent North the other week. He gave a speech on crime, taking over 30 minutes, without any new policies. He should be arrested for wasting police time!
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Michael Gove
Obviously, the capacity of people who are Members of this House to do work to supplement the role they perform here is one that is properly—if there is anything improper about it—a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Privileges Committee. I should say, however, that the hon. Gentleman was happy to serve under the leadership of Alex Salmond when he was, at one point, a racing columnist for the Glasgow Herald and, at another, a paid—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, please, try to help your colleagues. They all want to put a question to you. You’re that popular, but you won’t be if you keep talking for too long.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Rachel Maclean
That sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to our attention. We are committing to providing buyers of new build houses with strong powers of redress. We have legislated to establish the new homes ombudsman scheme in the Building Safety Act 2022, membership of which will be mandatory for developers.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Michael Gove
We will do everything possible to give effect to that democratic extension of the mandate.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
Yes. Eastbourne council is wrong. The pre-election period does not stop councils from responding to Members of Parliament, and they should do so.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The shared prosperity fund is vital for many people, as it replaces EU funds. Last week, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from First Steps Women’s Centre, Women’s Support Network, Mencap and the Kilcooley Women’s Centre, among others, about their huge budget problems, particularly given the lack of a functioning Executive. Can the Secretary of State update us?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has been vigilant on behalf of communities in Northern Ireland. We will make a statement later this week. The Minister for Levelling Up, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), and I will do everything we can to ensure continuity of funding for those services.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The south-west is one of the least affordable areas in the UK. The Liberal Democrat council in Bath wants to build at least 1,000 more social homes for rent by 2030, but faces significant barriers to purchase land. Will the Secretary of State give councils the first right to purchase public land as it becomes available, so that they can build desperately needed social housing?
Michael Gove
We will do everything we can. I congratulate Bath and North East Somerset Council on wanting to build more social homes. It must be a first that a Liberal Democrat council is in favour of homes for its residents—normally, they oppose such developments. I am glad to hear it.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
A number of charities make sure that all play parks, both new and refurbished, are fully accessible to all children, including those with disabilities. That is a given in my patch and a Government commitment, but the national design codes are still too vague. Will the Minister hurry the officials up and unlock this for all children?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
Absolutely. My hon. Friend and I had a fantastic chat about this issue recently. I am committed to following through on that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
At a meeting in Leeds on Saturday of leaseholders affected by the cladding scandal, nearly two thirds said that they have absolutely no idea when their home is going to be made safe—six years after Grenfell. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is completely unacceptable? What is he going to do to make their homes safe?
Michael Gove
I saw reference to that meeting on the right hon. Gentleman’s Twitter feed. I owe him a visit to Leeds to talk to his constituents about that.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming up to Hinckley only last month to hear about the problems we are having with the Liberal Democrat-run borough council, which does not have an up-to-date local plan. The biggest problem it causes is to my community, who put in neighbourhood plans that are ridden roughshod over. What is his message to my constituents?
Michael Gove
Well, I think the message has to be “Vote Conservative”, because as we have heard there is a Liberal Democrat council in Eastbourne that is not answering letters, a Liberal Democrat council in Hinckley and Bosworth that is not ensuring that it has a local plan in place, and a Liberal Democrat council in St Albans that is paralysed in the face of the need for new housing. The message is very, very simple: if you want action, get the Liberal Democrats out.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This Friday, hundreds of groups across Northern Ireland will face a situation where their funding finishes and they will have to close their doors. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the problems with the shared prosperity fund, which was meant to replace the European structural funds, will be sorted out and that those groups, including Monkstown boxing club in my constituency, will be given an assurance of funding?
Michael Gove
The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) has been working incredibly hard. I am grateful to Members of Parliament from the DUP and to the Chairman of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee for holding our feet to the fire.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Devon needs a devolution deal to deliver new powers and money to the towns there. A good deal would give local leaders the levers they need over affordable housing, public transport and local skills. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can get the best deal for Devon?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a formidable champion for Devon, unlike the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who is not in his place today when these issues are being raised. I do not know what he is doing, but what he is not doing is working for people in Devon, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) does so effectively.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s words in the media yesterday, saying that it is unacceptable for private sector landlords to raise rents above the level of inflation, which is a big issue in Vauxhall. Just last week, someone in Brixton contacted me to say that their rent had been doubled in a year. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State needs to hurry up, put words into action and bring forward the renters reform Bill now?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I should get on with it.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
First, I thank the Secretary the State for the money for the Eden Project Morecambe; it has been gratefully received in Morecambe.
However, we have another problem that I would love to meet the Secretary of State to discuss. The town council or the parish council has raised the precept from £200,000 two years ago up to £1.5 million. Apparently, that is to buy a piece of land that is already owned by the public for a knock-down price of £1 million, when it was bought for £3 million. If that is not the case, the remaining money will go into a fund. As we both know, funds cannot be raised against what is already there, unless it is half. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the issue as soon as possible?
Mr Speaker
Order. Topical questions are meant to be really short and not as long as hon. Members wish. I think we need to give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate. Come on, Secretary of State.
Michael Gove
We can definitely meet. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being reselected as the Conservative candidate for Morecambe and Lunesdale, with a unanimous vote. I look forward to him being re-elected as MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Do Ministers still intend to honour their manifesto commitment to make sure that no region loses out as a consequence of the loss of EU structural funding?
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Solar companies across the country are cynically putting in for just 49.9 MW to avoid having to get national approval from the Government for their solar farms. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this playing of the system and the Mallard Pass solar farm proposed in my constituency, which will be built with Uyghur blood labour?
Michael Gove
Those are three very important points; I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. We must not have the system gamed. We certainly need to be vigilant about any commercial ties with firms that exploit people in China, but we do need more renewable power.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Will the feudal system of leasehold finally be kicked into the history books with the next tranche of legislation in the King’s Speech—yes or no?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In response to an earlier question, the Secretary of State said how important locally-led planning policies were, but frequently the Planning Inspectorate drives a coach and horses through decisions made by local planning authorities, as was recently the case in the village of Wootton, in my constituency. What is he going to do to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate takes more notice of local opinion, expressed through local councils?
Michael Gove
Our changes to the national planning policy framework are designed to do exactly that. I talked to the new chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate earlier last week to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend has consistently made on behalf of his constituents in Cleethorpes.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Earlier today, the Minister was keen to pray in aid the Electoral Commission in support of the Government’s voter ID plans. Will she remind the House: in the commission’s detailed analysis of the 2021 elections across the whole of Great Britain, how many cases of voter impersonation produced enough evidence to lead to a police caution? If she does not know the exact number, I will give her a hint: it is half the number of people on the Government Front Bench right now.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The point is to ensure that the integrity of our democratic system is maintained, which is something I will never apologise for.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, have many constituents who are leaseholders and who are stuck in limbo and facing astronomical bills through no fault of their own. Meanwhile, developers such as Galliard have refused to sign the Government’s latest pledge. What is the Secretary of State doing to fix that aspect of the building safety crisis?
Michael Gove
Applying a vice-like grip to their nether regions.
Oil Spill: Poole Harbour
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the oil spill in Poole harbour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I can confirm that at 8 o’clock on Sunday 26 March, the Poole harbour commissioners declared a major incident following an oil spillage of approximately 200 barrels into Poole harbour in Dorset. The spill is understood to be of a product that is 80% saline solution and 20% crude oil. The cause of the spill has been reported as a fault with a land-based pipeline operated by Perenco Oil and Gas. The pipe has since been shut off and depressurised to prevent any further contamination, and booms have been deployed to help contain the spill. Investigations are under way to determine the reason for the fault and to prevent similar incidents from occurring.
This has been designated a tier 2 incident. If it were to escalate to tier 1, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency would lead the response, which in Government is under the Department for Transport. However, we consider that unlikely because of the rapid response and deployment of the oil mitigation plan by the harbour commissioners.
The Poole harbour commissioners are leading the response to the oil spill incident and have activated their emergency oil spill response plan. Specialist oil spill response companies are assisting with the operation. The Dorset local resilience forum has convened a strategic co-ordination group to co-ordinate the response to the incident, working closely with the commissioners, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Environment Agency. The current situation appears to be stable. The continuing focus of the strategic co-ordination group is on gathering further data to assess the environmental implications and continue to progress a clean-up operation. To support that, specialist aircraft completed a site assessment this morning and local responders are assessing the shoreline and harbour.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) shares my concern about the impact on wildlife in the area, especially as Poole harbour is a site of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation. I thank all other Dorset MPs who have been in touch about the issue and have worked on it as a co-ordinated group. The Government are closely monitoring the situation and will continue to do so. The Environment Agency and Natural England will monitor the impact and provide appropriate advice.
Richard Drax
Thank you very much for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for her statement.
This unfortunate incident has occurred in one of the most beautiful and fragile ecosystems in my constituency. It is not just my constituency that is affected, but those of other Dorset MPs, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), who is here in the Chamber. He has been very supportive and I owe him my thanks.
Having spent many, many years near, in or under the water in Poole harbour, I am acutely aware of the area’s sensitive environment, both on land and under the sea. I am therefore very concerned about this spill, which is potentially catastrophic—and let us not forget the many thousands of humans who enjoy the harbour, especially in the summer. I have been assured this morning that the spill is not as serious as was first thought: the majority of the fluid that leaked from an underground pipeline was contained yesterday, as the Minister said. However, a thin sheen of oil did escape the booms that were put in place, and today a handful of birds have been found covered in oil. Mercifully, that number remains low. The effect on the marine environment is unknown.
This morning I spoke to Perenco, which estimates that nearly 5,000 litres of fluid leaked from the pipeline. The fluid is 15% crude oil and 85% water. The leaking underground pipe is located in a very sensitive, marshy, low-lying area in the south of the harbour. The contamination was exacerbated by a high tide and a river that runs through the site into the harbour. A large operation to combat the spill using helicopters, drones, and vessel and onshore patrols continues today. Specialist clean-up companies have been called in to give advice, and that operation will start as soon as possible.
May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that, as is paramount, the regulator conducts a full investigation into why the leak occurred and, once the cause has been identified, to make certain that any repairs are carried out to the highest standard? Will she also seek assurances from Perenco that the rest of its network is being properly maintained and checked? We do not want this ever to happen again.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for the assiduity with which he has dealt with this incident, which, as he has said, occurred in an extremely important nature and wildlife area that is recognised across the world and is a very sensitive site.
I give him an absolute assurance that a full investigation is under way. It is critical for that investigation to be carried out so that we can have the full details of what occurred—exactly where the leak started and exactly which bit of the pipeline was involved—and also the full details of how we should react in future and what will need to be done about cleaning up. The pipe has been shut off and depressurised to prevent any further discharges. I also give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that I, as the Minister, will be following the investigation very closely to ensure that all the correct procedures are carried out, so that that can inform what we do in future when it comes to regulation and the regulators.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for asking it. In a sense, it is good not to be talking about sewage discharges today, but this oil spill is far too serious a matter for political points to be made about it, so I will confine myself, in the limited time available to me, to highlighting the worries and concerns of local people and businesses in the Poole area.
I realise it is still early days for the investigation, but I hope that it will be thorough and speedy, and that any lessons to be learned will be published and acted on as quickly as possible. We do not want this to happen again and to blight another coastal community. Can the Minister enlarge on her previous responses and, in particular, tell us what work the Department and the Environment Agency are undertaking together to address the impact that this incident could have on the local population and environment in Dorset, not just on the site but in the surrounding area? What are the Government doing to assess the impact on small businesses which rely on the harbour for trade, and what support will be made available to them? Will the Minister confirm that the relevant agencies will have all the support that they need to address this incident, including manpower?
Poole harbour commissioners’ latest oil spill contingency plan appears to be dated July 2021, although the review date was August 2022. Can the Minister confirm that that is the latest version, and that the review was carried out in 2022? If so, what was the outcome?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for recognising the importance of this incident, and for focusing on it specifically. We are taking it extremely seriously. The investigation is under way, and all the right protocols are in place. The Poole harbour commissioners have activated their emergency oil spill response plan, and specialist oil spill companies are assisting the operation. The Dorset local resilience forum has already set up and convened its strategic co-ordination group involving all the relevant bodies, including the commissioners themselves, but also the Environment Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Each of those is contributing its input, as is Natural England, which has set up its south-west environment team to do its own work. All that will feed in the details that we need to ensure that all the necessary measures are taken and we can understand exactly what has occurred. I give the hon. Lady an assurance that the harbour remains open as usual, the ferry service is working and the local beaches are open, although as a precaution the public have been told to avoid using the water in Poole harbour for recreational purposes until further updates are available.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) in the comments he has made. The harbour commissioners have, of course, planned for this sort of thing over the years and are constantly updating their plans. The latest information is that 60% to 70% of the oil that was on the surface yesterday has been reduced, so we are well on top of the situation.
Clearly, the incident has an impact on public confidence, which is why we need an inquiry to look at it. This is a mature field that has been producing for more than 40 years, and some of the pipes might need replacing. Secondly, if the ability of fishermen and companies in Poole harbour to export seafood to France is temporarily suspended, my colleagues and I might wish to talk to the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) about compensation.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing on this. He is right to say that it is about giving assurances, which is why it is critical that this investigation is undertaken fully and in all the right ways. As he says, the oilfield has been worked since 1979 and this is the first such incident that has occurred, but it must be dealt with extremely seriously. I believe that that is happening, with all the right teams being brought to bear to give us the information and assurances that we need. People should follow the advice of the UK Health Security Agency on eating seafood, and I will relay my hon. Friend’s comments to the Fisheries Minister, who will be in touch if necessary.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Poole harbour, from the Arne bird sanctuary through to Brownsea island, is nature-rich. Bearing that in mind, and in light of the age of the infrastructure, can the Minister say when it was last examined for safety compliance to avoid such incidents occurring?
Rebecca Pow
I agree that it is a wonderful and sensitive wildlife site, famous for its incredible birds, including terns, avocets and even gulls, as well as its red squirrels on Brownsea island. A full regime to check pipework and so forth is run through the regulator, but all the records, including the maintenance records, will be looked at in the investigation.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Tourism is an important part of the county’s economy, and public confidence in using water for recreational purposes is pivotal to that offer, allowing people to visit the countryside in North Dorset and elsewhere in the county. Will my hon. Friend say what further work the agencies will be doing to monitor sea bathing quality, and what her Department and the Tourism Minister can do with Dorset Council and others to ensure that the message that Dorset is safe to swim in and visit is seen across the country?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is right to mention Dorset’s phenomenal tourism offer, both for people from this country and abroad. That is why the investigation and the messaging are so important, and the public must adhere to the UK Health Security Agency guidance. At the moment, the local resilience forum has not issued any concerns about the impact on tourism, but this will be kept under guidance.
My hon. Friend should take confidence from the standing environment group set up by Natural England and the involvement of all the environment non-governmental organisations. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is already saying that it believes this is being well handled and well dealt with. We do not want any wildlife to be impacted, so every precaution needs to be taken. I have heard that, so far, just two sea birds have been found with oil on them, and they have been carefully washed off—a fantastic process that I witnessed myself when I was an environment reporter. We need to ensure that we know fully what is happening, through the investigation, so that there are no adverse impacts on tourism, which is such an important industry to this country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her diligent approach to responding to this troubling occurrence, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on bringing it to the House’s attention.
I am sure the Minister will agree that not only is there an ecological price to pay for this spillage but, as has been mentioned, there will be an impact on the potential bathing water status of Poole harbour. Does she agree that bathing water status is an important tool in ratcheting up water quality, both on our coasts and in our rivers and lakes? Will she reflect on the fact that, last year, only 10% of applications for bathing water status for our rivers, lakes and coastal areas were accepted? In my constituency, Coniston Water and the River Kent were turned down, despite having many more bathers than some rivers that were accepted. Does she agree that consistency is important if we are to keep our waterways free of oil and sewage, and will she look again at the applications that were turned down?
Rebecca Pow
Unlike the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who stuck to the subject of this important urgent question, the hon. Gentleman asks a question that is somewhat irrelevant. Well over 70% of our bathing water is excellent, and more than 90% is rated good or excellent.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As a number of Members have said, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the Dorset coast forms part of an incredibly fragile ecosystem across much of the south coast. Part of its fragility and uniqueness is because it is fed by a network of chalk streams—80% of the world’s chalk streams are in our part of the world. In January, the River Anton, which flows through my constituency, saw a not dissimilar spill of 30,000 litres of oil. I commend the Environment Agency for its swift response: it tells me that it has recovered about 17,000 litres and that work is under way to recover the rest. Although there will be an investigation into the cause of the spill and any culpability, which may have consequences, where does accountability and transparency lie in the Environment Agency for the conduct of the investigation? Police and crime commissioners are accountable to police and crime panels for the work of the police, but the system for the Environment Agency is more opaque. How can my constituents have confidence that any investigation is conducted with alacrity and that culpability is apportioned appropriately?
Rebecca Pow
An investigation is important for gathering the correct information. We also need to be careful about spreading fear about what exactly a pollutant might be. That is why there must be an investigation, and why the exact make-up of a pollutant needs to be fully known. The EA will, of course, investigate if there is enough evidence to suggest that a crime has potentially been committed. Where a crime has been committed, and after the due process is followed, fines are possible.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
While cleaning up the incident is the priority, what lessons can the Government learn about the wisdom of allowing future drilling on environmentally important sites, such as the Rosebank site, which goes through a marine protected area? We need to learn lessons from such incidents. Will the Minister assure me that she will speak to her colleagues?
Rebecca Pow
I would be the first Minister to say that we need assurances on looking after our wonderful environmentally sensitive sites. This oilfield has been working since 1979, and I understand it is the largest onshore oilfield in Europe. The investigation must take place and we must find out what happened—and correct anything that needs correcting—but we should not spread fear about this particular operation or others like it, as they are an important part of our energy make-up.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Poole harbour is a haven for wildlife and is home to rare species, so this spill is incredibly saddening. The Minister says she wants to ensure the disaster is not repeated, but she must know that where there is drilling, there is some spilling. There have been a staggering 721 oil spills in the North sea alone over the past three years. Just last month, the Planning Inspectorate overturned West Sussex County Council’s refusal of permission for more testing for shale oil reserves in Balcombe, beneath the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty. Given the huge risk to the natural world when things go wrong, will she ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to review this decision?
Rebecca Pow
It is all about balance—it is important that we protect our natural environment, particularly in areas as precious as Poole Harbour, because that is as important to our economy as the oil—and ensuring that the investigation is correctly carried out as swiftly as possible. Anything that needs to be put in place to enhance our environmental protections and measures must be put in place—and I would say the same for any other similar project.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I was a little surprised that the Minister could not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about who is responsible for regulating the facility—perhaps she has the answer on a piece of paper—and when it was last inspected. If she does not know and cannot get the answer from her officials before the end of this urgent question, perhaps she could provide the House with a written statement.
Rebecca Pow
I did say that all the maintenance records and dates will be assessed. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to write to him when we know the exact detail, I assure him that I will do so. All that detail is absolutely critical to the investigation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her diligence and clear commitment to address the oil spill at Poole. When we had a spill in one of our local rivers back home, environmental work was carried out immediately with local conservation bodies to replenish the wildlife. The outstanding Poole wildfowlers association is active in the area. Will the Minister confirm that Natural England and EA have expertise—I say that gracefully and respectfully—in conservation efforts and can undertake not only to remove the oil but to restore the eco-balance as soon as possible.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the importance of the environment and conservation of the area. In addition to the investigation that is under way, Natural England has already set up a standing environment group, and has brought in environmental groups that have great knowledge and that run many wonderful nature reserves, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is doing its bit. A shoreline clean-up team is gathering data on shore and in boats right now so that we know exactly what is happening. All that will be fed into the investigation.
Antisocial Behaviour Action Plan
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the antisocial behaviour action plan, which I published today with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
I am proud of what Conservatives have achieved since 2010: overall crime, excluding fraud, is down by 50%; neighbourhood crime is down by 48%; and we are within days of securing the historic achievement of a record number of police officers nationally. That is all thanks to this party’s commitment to law and order.
But we must always strive harder to keep the British people safe. The worst crimes flourish when lower-level crime is tolerated. Let me be clear: there is no such thing as petty crime. Public First polling found that people cited antisocial behaviour as the main reason why their area was a worse place to live than 10 years before. The decent, hard-working, law-abiding majority are sick and tired of antisocial behaviour destroying their communities. Nobody should have to live in fear of their neighbours, endure disorder and drug taking in parks, see their streets disfigured by graffiti, fly tipping or litter, or feel unsafe walking alone at night, with gangs of youths hanging around, getting up to no good, intimidating us all and degrading the places that we love.
Personal experience of antisocial behaviour is highest in the police force areas of the north-east, the midlands and the south-east. In Derbyshire, Northumbria and Durham, at least 45% of adults have experienced antisocial behaviour. As one of the research participants from our polling in Liverpool reported, anti-social behaviour
“makes you feel unwelcome, like you’re not wanted or loved, like you don’t feel you belong. It does affect your emotional wellbeing. You don’t feel safe…you don’t know what is going to happen next. I’ve felt like this for the three years that I’ve lived here, and I’ve been planning on leaving for the past year.”
Such sentiments are why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made tackling antisocial behaviour a top priority for this Government.
Our antisocial behaviour action plan will give police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other agencies the tools to stamp out antisocial behaviour across England and Wales. It targets the callous and careless few whose actions ruin the public spaces and amenities on which the law-abiding majority depend. Our plan outlines a radical new approach to tackling antisocial behaviour, and it is split across four key areas.
First, there is stronger punishment for perpetrators. We are cracking down on illegal drugs, making offenders repair the damage that they cause, increasing financial penalties, and evicting antisocial tenants. The Opposition cannot seem to make up their mind on whether they want to legalise drugs. While the Leader of the Opposition and the Mayor of London argue about cannabis decriminalisation, we are getting on with delivering for the public.
Drugs are harmful to health, wellbeing and security. They devastate lives. That is why I have taken the decision to ban nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, which is currently the third most used drug for adults and 16 to 24-year-olds. By doing so, this Government will put an end to hordes of youths loitering in parks and littering them with empty canisters. Furthermore, under our new plan, the police will be able to drug-test suspected criminals in police custody for a wider range of drugs, including ecstasy and methamphetamine. They will test offenders linked to crimes such as violence against women and girls, serious violence and antisocial behaviour.
We will ensure that the consequences for those committing antisocial behaviour are toughened up. Our immediate justice pilots will deliver swift, visible punishment for all those involved. Offenders will undertake manual reparative work that makes good the damage suffered by victims. Communities will be consulted on the type of work undertaken, and that work should start swiftly—ideally within 48 hours of a notice from the police. Whether it is cleaning up graffiti, picking up litter or washing police cars while wearing high-vis jumpsuits or vests, those caught behaving antisocially will feel the full force of the law.
The upper limits of on-the-spot fines will be increased to £1,000 for fly-tipping and £500 for litter and graffiti. We will support councils to hand out more fines to offenders, with councils keeping the fines to reinvest in clean-up and enforcement.
Nobody should have to endure persistent anti-social behaviour from their neighbours. That is why we plan to halve the delay between a private landlord serving notice for antisocial behaviour and eviction. We will also broaden the harmful activities that can lead to eviction and make sure that antisocial offenders are deprioritised for social housing.
Secondly, we are making communities safer by increasing police presence in antisocial behaviour hotspots and replacing the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824. The evidence is compelling: hotspot policing, which is where uniformed police spend regular time in problem areas, reduces crime. That is why we are funding an increased police presence focused on antisocial behaviour in targeted hotspots where it is most prevalent. Initially, we will support pilots in 10 trailblazer areas, before rolling out hotspot enforcement across all forces in England and Wales in 2024.
We will also replace the 19th-century Vagrancy Act, which criminalised the destitute, with tools to direct vulnerable individuals towards appropriate support, such as accommodation, mental health or substance misuse services. We will criminalise organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs to obtain cash for illicit activity. We will prohibit begging where it causes blight or public nuisance, such as by a cashpoint or in a shop doorway, or directly approaching someone in the street.
Rough sleeping can cause distress to other members of the community, for example by obstructing the entrance of a local business or leaving behind debris and tents. We will give police and local authorities the tools they have asked for to deal with such situations, while ensuring those who are genuinely homeless are directed towards appropriate help. We will build local pride in place by giving councils stronger tools to revitalise communities, bring more empty high street shops back into use and restore local parks.
Thirdly, there is prevention and intervention. Around 80% of prolific adult offenders begin committing crimes as children. We are funding 1 million more hours of provision for young people in antisocial behaviour hotspots and expanding eligibility for the Turnaround programme, which will support 17,000 children on the cusp of the criminal justice system. Our £500 million national youth guarantee also means that, by 2025, every young person will have access to regular clubs, activities and opportunities to volunteer.
Fourthly, we will improve accountability to the public. A new digital tool will mean that members of the public have a simple and clear way to report antisocial behaviour and receive updates on their case. We are also launching a targeted consultation on community safety partnerships, with the aim of making them more accountable and more effective.
This Government are on the side of the law-abiding majority. We will take the fight to the antisocial minority. This Government have set out a clear plan and a clear set of measures to do just that: more police, less crime, safer streets and common-sense policing. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This plan is too weak, too little, too late. The Home Secretary says people are sick and tired of antisocial behaviour. Too right they are—because people have seen serious problems getting worse and nothing has been done. But who does she think has been in power for the last 13 years?
It is a Tory Government who have decimated neighbourhood policing. There are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police and police community support officers on our streets today than there were seven years ago. Half the population rarely ever see the police on the beat, and that proportion has doubled since 2010. This is a Conservative Government who weakened antisocial behaviour powers 10 years ago, brought in new powers that were so useless they were barely even used, including the community trigger and getting rid of powers of arrest, even though they were warned not to.
The Government abandoned the major drug intervention program that the last Labour Government had in place, slashed youth service budgets—the YMCA says by £1 billion—and have let charges for criminal damage halve. Community penalties have halved and there is a backlog of millions of hours of community payback schemes not completed because the Government cannot even run the existing system properly. Far from punishing perpetrators of antisocial behaviour, the Government are letting more and more of them off.
As a result, criminal damage affecting our town centres is up by 30% in the last year alone. It is a total disgrace that too many people, especially women, feel they cannot even go into their own town centres any more because this Government have failed them. They do not see the police on the beat and they do not feel safe.
So what are the Government proposing now? We support some of the measures, largely because we have long called for them. We called for hotspot policing; we called for faster community payback. We support stronger powers of arrest and a ban on nitrous oxide. But let us look at the gaps. There is nothing for antisocial behaviour victims, who are still excluded from the victims code and the draft victims law. On the failing community trigger, all the Government are going to do is rename and relaunch it. They are re-announcing plans on youth support that the Levelling Up Secretary announced more than a year ago. I notice one new thing in the document: an additional 500 young people will get one-to-one support. Well, there were 1.1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour last year, so good luck with that.
The Government are not introducing neighbour respect orders. Astonishingly, neighbourhood policing is not mentioned even once in the document. How on earth do the Government think they will tackle antisocial behaviour without bringing back neighbourhood policing teams? Their recent recruitment—to try to reverse their own cuts of 20,000 police officers—is not going into neighbourhood policing. There are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs in our teams than there were seven years ago. Labour has set out a plan for 13,000 more neighbourhood police on the streets, paid for by savings that have been identified by the Police Foundation but which Ministers are refusing to make. Will the Home Secretary now agree to back Labour’s plans to get neighbourhood police back on the beat to start taking action?
Hotspot policing is not the same as neighbourhood policing. We support hotspot policing to target key areas, but that is not the same as having neighbourhood teams who are there all the time, embedded in the community, and know what is going wrong and why. There are plenty of things that are already crimes—that are already illegal—on which the police already have the powers to act but do not. No one comes because there are not enough neighbourhood police.
Will the Home Secretary apologise to people across the country for her cuts of 10,000 neighbourhood police and PCSOs, and for taking the police off the streets, meaning that people do not see them any more? If she does not realise that having fewer police in those neighbourhood teams is causing huge damage and undermining confidence, she just does not get it. Really, after 13 years, is this the best the Conservatives can come up with?
Suella Braverman
The more I listen to the right hon. Lady, the more confused I am about what Labour’s policy is. She criticises our plan while claiming that we have stolen Labour’s, so I am not sure which it is. In the light of the embarrassing efforts of the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), to explain her own policy on television last week, I am not sure that any Labour Members really know what their antisocial behaviour policy is. Let me tell the House one big difference between the right hon. Lady’s plan and ours: unlike her, we call tell the public how much ours will cost and how we will pay for it—a big question that Labour is yet to answer.
The shadow Home Secretary talks about policing cuts. Never mind that we are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers—the highest number in history. Never mind that we have increased frontline policing, which leads to more visible and effective local policing. Never mind that by the end of this month, we are on course to have more officers nationally than we had in 2010 or in any year when Labour was in government.
The shadow Home Secretary wants to talk about safer streets. Well, let us compare our records. Since 2019, this Conservative Government have removed 90,000 knives and weapons from our streets. Since 2010, violence is down 38%, neighbourhood crime is down 48%, burglary is down 56%, and overall crime, excluding fraud, is down 50%. What does Labour’s record show? That where Labour leads, crime follows. [Interruption.] I know it hurts, but it is true. Under Labour police and crime commissioners, residents are almost twice as likely to be victims of robbery, and knife crime is over 44% higher. In London, Labour’s Sadiq Khan wants to legalise cannabis. In the west midlands, a Labour PCC wants to close police stations. Labour opposed plans to expand stop and search. Labour Members voted against tougher sentences for serious criminals. They voted against the increased powers for police in our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. So we should not be surprised that, while this Conservative Government are working to get violent criminals off our streets, Labour is campaigning to release them. The Leader of the Opposition and some 70-odd Labour MPs signed letters—they love signing letters—to stop dangerous foreign criminals from being kicked out of Britain. One of those criminals went on to kill another man in the UK, and we learned this week that many others went on to commit further appalling crimes in the UK. Shameful! Outrageous! Labour Members should hang their heads in shame!
The truth about Labour is that they care more about the rights of criminals than about the rights of the law abiding majority. They are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. The Conservatives are the party of law and order. Our track record shows it, and the public know it.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As the Home Secretary pointed out, crime is now at half the level it was when Labour told us that there was no money left in the coffers to continue the fight. I congratulate her on bending her elbow and putting so much effort into driving the number down even further. I particularly commend her on the publication of the plan today, which builds on the focus on antisocial behaviour that we published in the beating crime plan not so long ago.
May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to examine carefully the routes of supply of nitrous oxide? We need to avoid a situation in which the substance moves from the legitimate market into the illegitimate market and becomes another hook for drug dealers to draw young people into their awful trade. How can she restrict supply to those who genuinely need it without it necessarily becoming an illicit substance that drug dealers use for their business?
Suella Braverman
Let me put on the record my admiration for and gratitude to my right hon. Friend for all he has achieved and led—not just when he was at the Home Office but before that, when he worked for City Hall on the frontline of policing and crime fighting. He talked about our plans to ban nitrous oxide. We are clear: there needs to be an exception for legitimate use. It is used in a vast array of circumstances that are lawful, commercial and proper, and those will not be criminalised.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Most of this statement does not apply in Scotland because, thankfully, justice is devolved. The Scottish Government take a public health approach to criminality—the violence reduction unit’s approach, which has been emulated by the UK Government. I gently suggest that criminalising young people in this way will not help—[Interruption.] If the antisocial behaviour from the Government Benches could stop, that would be helpful.
The independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recently concluded that the evidence shows that the health and social harms of nitrous oxide were not commensurate with a ban. Why has the Home Secretary overruled her advisers? The Misuse of Drugs Act has completely failed to prevent people from taking heroin, cocaine and cannabis. Why does the Home Secretary believe that it will stop people from taking nitrous oxide?
Suella Braverman
The overall legislative framework on illicit drugs continues to strike a balance between controlling harmful substances and enabling appropriate access to those drugs for legitimate medicinal research and, in exceptional cases, for industrial purposes. But with respect, I am not going to take any lectures from someone from the SNP, which has overseen in Scotland a total collapse of confidence in policing and, more devastatingly, a record high in Europe when it comes to the number of drug-related deaths.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
There is a lot to welcome in this statement, particularly some of the ways in which increased police resources are being used; we are seeing that in Torquay town centre, with the launch of Operation Loki. I also very much welcome the reform of the wholly outdated Vagrancy Act—a useless tool against organised gangs that in theory also criminalises the most destitute. Could my right hon. and learned Friend outline how traders and residents in places such as Torquay and Paignton town centres will see the difference the plan is making and hold the local force to account?
Suella Braverman
There is a wide range of measures in this plan, and we are going to consult on many of them, but one example is where we want to potentially streamline the availability of public spaces protection orders, so that the police can access those really important orders more quickly and efficiently and take action to prohibit nuisance and antisocial behaviour in local areas.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My local police tell me that in the Rhondda, which is a very low-crime area in general, the single biggest issue that we face is domestic violence: we probably have higher figures in the Rhondda than for three other neighbouring constituencies added together. I hope the Home Secretary will forgive me if I am not very impressed by what she is announcing today, because I want to see the police really focusing on what might save lives.
In particular, can she look into the role that brain injury plays? In poorer communities, there is lots of evidence to suggest that nearly two thirds of those going into prison these days—both women and men—are people who have suffered significant brain injuries that have not been diagnosed or treated before they come into the criminal justice system. Sometimes that leads to them truanting, falling out of school and coming into the criminal justice system. Is it not important that we base everything we do on evidence, rather than sloganising?
Suella Braverman
I think this is highly evidence-led, because we are focusing heavily on restorative justice, prevention and diversion, whether that is through hotspot policing, the investment in youth facilities, or the diversion of people who engage in drug-using behaviour on to treatment facilities. That is about prevention, rather than cure.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I put on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for taking time to speak with constituents impacted by antisocial behaviour when he came to Essex Boys and Girls Clubs in Chelmsford this morning. The hotspot policing will make a huge impact, but can I also particularly thank the Home Secretary for the youth guarantee, making sure that every young person will have access to clubs, activities or other opportunities?
Suella Braverman
I very much enjoyed meeting officers from Essex Police in Chelmsford today, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, with the Prime Minister. She has a lot to be proud of locally—the police team there are fantastic—and she is absolutely right to talk about the investment in youth services. As part of our national youth guarantee, we are investing over £500 million to provide high-quality local youth services so that by 2025, every young person will have access to regular clubs, activities and adventures away from home, and opportunities to volunteer.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I wonder if the Home Secretary sees the inconsistency between saying in one breath that there is no such thing as petty crime, and then in the next one boasting that crime has fallen, but only if we exclude fraud from the figures.
May I bring the Home Secretary’s attention, though, to the question relating to homelessness? Of course, it is welcome that we are going to be directing vulnerable individuals towards appropriate support, such as accommodation, mental health or substance misuse services. Can she tell the House, however, why it is that something as basic as that is not already the case, and what she thinks these vulnerable people will find when they get to the point of accessing those services?
Suella Braverman
The right hon. Gentleman talks about fraud. The data collection only changed to start counting fraud over the past 10 years, which is why we refer to the fall in crime in the way that we do. Fraud is obviously a big feature of modern-day crime, and that is why the Government, led by the Home Office and the Security Minister, are setting out a fraud strategy, which we will be announcing very soon.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I think it is laughable that the Labour party has come into the Chamber today talking about being the party of law and order—an absolute scandal. The Home Secretary will be aware of a deportation flight to Jamaica just a couple of years back, taking some of the most vile criminals on board back to their homeland. After Labour campaigned to stop it, two went on to commit terrible crimes: a murder, and attacking two women. Does the Home Secretary think that now is a good time for Opposition Front Benchers to apologise to this House and to the country?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think it is important that Members ask about the statement and the Home Secretary’s responsibilities. She is not responsible for the Opposition.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, because his question highlights the gross failure of the Labour party. Labour Members are much more interested in letter writing campaigns to stop the Home Office deporting serious foreign national offenders. They are much more interested in the rights of criminals, rather than the rights and entitlements of the law-abiding majority. I agree that they should apologise for their devastating actions.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Any plan for dealing with antisocial behaviour must include support for victims of antisocial behaviour. While police and crime commissioners, such as Kim McGuinness in Northumbria, are working hard to tackle antisocial behaviour, they are prevented from running dedicated victim support programmes, as there is no Government funding. When will the Home Secretary provide this important funding, so that victims of antisocial behaviour can have some help?
Suella Braverman
I am pleased to say that Northumbria is going to be one of the pilot forces, both for hotspot patrolling and immediate justice. Specified funding will be rolled out across the year to those 10 police forces in each pilot to ensure that the measures and resources are there so that we can increase the response to antisocial behaviour.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Antisocial behaviour in our towns is a major concern for many people living and working across Erewash, so I welcome the new zero-tolerance approach and the fact that Derbyshire will be a trailblazer area. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me not only that Erewash police and Erewash Borough Council will receive their share of the new funding, but that persistent offenders will be swiftly prosecuted using the full force of the law?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Derbyshire is also a pilot force for hotspot patrolling and immediate justice. When it comes to hotspot policing, which we know works in many parts of the country, that will mean that the police will be expected to identify places and times where antisocial behaviour is prevalent, and they will be able to use this extra funding to lay on additional policing, greater visibility and a more robust response.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
All the experts, including those on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, say that banning nitrous oxide will cause more harm than good. The Home Secretary has just said that her policy is evidence led. Can she point to the evidence that suggests her policy on nitrous oxide is right?
Suella Braverman
I am grateful to the ACMD for its detailed report and its advice. Its input is an essential part of our decision-making. We have complete faith in the quality and rigour of its work. However, the Government are entitled and expected to take a broader view, and we are entitled to take into account other relevant factors, particularly the emerging evidence that nitrous oxide causes serious harm to health and wellbeing.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on her incredibly sensible decision to ban the recreational use of nitrous oxide? As we heard a little earlier, one reason its use has been so prolific is that it is so extraordinarily easy to purchase, from small canisters up to pallet loads. Can I urge her to do everything she can to continue to stifle the supply and to clamp down as hard as she possibly can on those who continue to sell this dangerous product for recreational purposes?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for the great campaign he has led, which is reflected in the decision we have made today to ban nitrous oxide. He has spoken passionately about the devastating impact it is having not just on individuals, but on communities. He is right that we now need to take this robust approach. We need not only to curb the supply but, importantly, to criminalise possession, so that there is a deterrent and a meaningful consequence for people who break the law by using nitrous oxide.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The website article supporting this statement mentions that up to £5 million will be made available for CCTV and equipment restoration in vandalised parks. Is that £5 million the total budget, because the restoration of Ammanford children’s park in my constituency, which was recently vandalised, and the installation of CCTV will cost £140,000 alone? Will county councils and town and community councils in Wales be able to access this scheme, and if so, how?
Suella Braverman
We want to ensure that sufficient resource is available to local authorities and police forces so that they can take meaningful steps to sanction those involved in antisocial behaviour—whether through the community payback scheme, in which we see the perpetrators undertaking the clean-up job afterwards, or through the higher fines that we have announced—and we want to enable local authorities to retain much of the revenue so that they can reinvest it in their resources.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
What I have heard consistently throughout the time I have been a Member of Parliament is that long-term residents who love their town no longer feel comfortable going into the town centre. Often they see groups of young men behaving in a way that diminishes the quality of that experience for the law-abiding majority. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need a permanently higher police presence in the town centre, but also that the police need to be much more confident about engaging earlier with these groups of men blighting our town centre?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeing far too many instances of bad behaviour, dangerous behaviour and unacceptable behaviour going unchecked—whether that is violent or disruptive behaviour or a plain nuisance. We need to ensure that visible policing becomes a fact of life, so that people are deterred from engaging in this behaviour in the first place, but also that we have a system of immediate justice so there is a swift sanction and people feel the full force of the law.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Only after my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) published her comprehensive strategy on antisocial behaviour has the Home Secretary been shamed into cobbling together today’s statement, but that statement does not mention the word “alcohol”. Alcohol is at the source of much domestic violence, community violence and city centre antisocial behaviour, so how is she going to get on top of the growth in alcohol-based violence?
Suella Braverman
I gently remind the hon. Member that her party has royally failed to properly cost its so-called plan on antisocial behaviour, as evidenced by the shadow Policing Minister’s failure to explain how it would be paid for. Once it gets the basics right, we can have a proper conversation about what Labour’s proposal is. On taking the action that we are proposing, we are delivering £12 million of additional funding this year to police and crime commissioners to support an increased police presence alongside other uniformed authority figures such as wardens in problem areas for antisocial behaviour. Raising the visibility and increasing the resourcing of policing will be an effective way to deter and take the right action.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Over the past year, residents across Chatham and Aylesford have suffered repetitive instances of antisocial behaviour involving noise nuisance from cars and bikes and unauthorised access to private lakes by large groups of children. The local councils have had to go through lengthy processes to establish public spaces protection orders to tackle these issues, which have left residents at their wits’ end while the bureaucracy slowly cranks away. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the announcement today will make it a lot simpler for the authorities to clamp down on this type of antisocial behaviour, so that it can be dealt with there and then, rather than waiting for months for consultations and paperwork to be completed?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she and her local team and councillors have led in challenging and stopping antisocial behaviour locally. She is absolutely right; what we have identified is that it has become onerous, inefficient and too time-consuming to secure these really effective orders, and this is exactly what the consultation will do. It will aim to streamline and speed up the acquisition of a PSPO, which can really make the difference between an area blighted by antisocial behaviour and an area that is free, safe and pleasant to frequent.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s action plan shows that the amount of antisocial behaviour being reported to the police is down, yet people’s experience of it has soared. People are not reporting antisocial behaviour because they have lost faith that reporting crimes will lead to any action, let alone an arrest. Arrests have halved since the Conservatives took office in 2010, and there are 100,000 fewer neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs than there were seven years ago. Does the Home Secretary agree that the best way to make our communities safer is to follow Labour’s plans to put an additional 13,000 police officers and PCSOs back on our streets, because after 13 years of this Conservative Government, the action plan is all talk and too little, too late?
Suella Braverman
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s cheek. Frankly, he has failed to support any measure that we have put forward to increase police powers or sentences on offenders, to roll out greater funding for our police forces, or to empower them to take better action for our residents. When he had the chance he voted against every measure we put forward. He really needs to up his game.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Antisocial behaviour affects all our constituencies and constituents, but the Home Secretary will know that when it comes to funding allocations, urban areas often attract the largest proportion of funds. In rural areas, antisocial behaviour will often be more thinly spread and might be of a different type, but it will still cause huge nuisance to local residents and communities. Working with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, will she assure me that proper rurification of the rubric of funding is undertaken, to ensure that the concerns of my North Dorset constituents are taken into account as much as those of constituents in large urban conurbations?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that disparity between forces, which can lead to adverse impacts for those forces that have a particular rurality. I am glad that Dorset is one of our pilot force areas for the immediate justice scheme that we are putting forward, as that will mean more resources for Dorset police and on the frontline. We have an increased number of police officers throughout England and Wales, which will increase the resource and the response to antisocial behaviour.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Colleagues across the House will recognise the importance of tackling antisocial behaviour with stronger and increased community policing. I would like to raise the issue of support for junior and trainee police officers. Anu Abraham was a 21-year-old student police officer on a placement in West Yorkshire who took his own life following bullying allegations and a lack of support. I met Anu’s family on Friday, and they wanted to make it clear that they feel the harm and lack of support that Anu experienced at the hands of the police killed him. The family now want Anu’s death and the miscommunication that followed to be reviewed by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Will the Home Secretary or the Policing Minister meet me and Anu’s family, to hear their concerns and discuss what can be done to prevent any further tragedies?
Suella Braverman
May I place on the record my deepest condolences and sympathies to the family of Anu Abraham? I cannot imagine what they must be going through right now, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for them at this difficult time. Every man or woman who puts themselves forward to serve in our police force deserves support and credit for their bravery and the high standards they uphold. I am happy to arrange some kind of appropriate meeting between an official or Home Office Minister and the hon. Gentleman, should that be the right thing to do.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary’s plan, particularly the part where the people committing these acts will have to clean up their mess within 48 hours. My constituents in Bassetlaw will be particularly pleased with that as it is a better record than my Labour council has for cleaning up graffiti, which can take at least five working days. Nitrous oxide is of course no laughing matter. Does the Home Secretary agree that the problem is not just that it is a gateway to other drugs, but that it also causes a significant amount of antisocial behaviour?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The use, supply and possession of nitrous oxide needs to be taken much more seriously. Young people, particularly 16 to 24-year-olds, have been able to acquire this harmful product far too easily. The decision I have made to ban it will ensure that many more young people are protected from its devastating effects.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which has been encouraging—I think everyone in the House welcomes it. Underage drinking and drug use is prevalent in Northern Ireland and does not seem to be getting any better. Will she ensure that discussions take place with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland so that parallel policies can be introduced alongside the antisocial behaviour action plan announced today, so that Northern Ireland can match it?
Suella Braverman
As Home Secretary, my responsibility covers police forces in England and Wales only, but I have met senior police officers in Northern Ireland. They do a great job and, within the realms of what is appropriate, I am always happy to liaise with them and support them in whatever way I can.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the plan end the opportunity to complete community service orders by working from home?
Suella Braverman
I do not envisage working from home to be used as a way of remedying the damage caused by antisocial behaviour. What I foresee, building on the very effective community payback scheme that we rolled out throughout the country, is people involved in graffiti, vandalism and criminal damage having to roll up their sleeves and make amends in real and direct ways to the community they have harmed. The consequence linked to their actions will send a powerful message and teach them a powerful lesson.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Criminalisation does not tackle problem drug use; it simply blights the lives of young people with criminal records. Why not look in depth at the reasons why people turn to drugs: the decades of cuts to youth services; the deep poverty in which many of our communities lapse; and the associated mental health crisis? Is it not time, therefore, that the Home Secretary recognises that problem drug use is primarily a health issue? And if it is a health issue, will she review the devolution of responsibility for drugs policy to Wales?
Suella Braverman
Dealing with drugs requires a robust policing and law enforcement response. We are taking a tough line against illicit drug use, and a rehabilitative element. That is why I am proud that this Government have created 55,000 new drug treatment places and are investing £580 million in drug treatment. There is a real programme of work based on rehabilitation and getting people off the devastating cycle of drug dependency.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Home Secretary will be aware that I wrote to her about the availability of nitrous oxide and I have spoken in the House about enforcement on fly-tipping, so I commend her for the tough action she has taken today. I want to turn to what she said about the Labour police and crime commissioner closing down police stations in the west midlands. My constituents are very concerned that he has no plan to keep a police station open in the borough of Solihull or a front desk at Chelmsley Wood police station. Does she agree that the Labour police and crime commissioner is short-changing my constituents in Meriden and the people of the west midlands?
Suella Braverman
I am afraid that where Labour leads, crime follows, and the west midlands is no exception. The Labour police and crime commissioner is more interested in closing police stations—he cannot even command the support of his own Labour members—than standing up for the law-abiding majority in the west midlands.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s antisocial behaviour action plan. I know that the vast majority of my constituents will join me in welcoming the policies aimed at tackling organised begging gangs and nuisance beggars. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me and my constituents that this is not about bringing back the Vagrancy Act by the backdoor, but that there is a plan to ensure that those in need who are begging on the street will be provided with the services they need, because the vast majority are suffering from mental health and addiction problems? We must remember that not all rough sleepers are beggars and not all beggars are rough sleepers.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has put in considerable effort to tackle this issue on the frontline, both in her role as a Member of Parliament and as a former leader of Westminster City Council. It requires a nuanced and thoughtful approach. We are repealing the Vagrancy Act, but we are also making it clear that we will prohibit organised and nuisance begging. We will introduce new tools to direct individuals to vital resources so that they can find accommodation and support. There should not be a reason for them to live in squalor and such hardship in this day and age.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s focus on antisocial behaviour today, which has long been a focus of Lincolnshire police. As she knows, Lincolnshire police find themselves in an anomalous funding position, as the lowest funded police force in the country. It is remarkable that Lincolnshire remains a low crime county, but the police need greater support. Will she reassure me that we will get to a funding position where Lincolnshire gets the uplift that we have seen in other parts of the country? That will allow the police to deliver on her antisocial policy.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the financing of police forces. I am aware of the challenges that Lincolnshire police are facing in that regard. The Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and I are looking at the measures and proposals on the funding formula. There will be an announcement very soon.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I warmly welcome the antisocial behaviour action plan and am delighted that South Yorkshire has been chosen as one of the pilot trailblazer areas for hotspot policing. In my constituency, we are fortunate that serious crime rates are low, but antisocial behaviour still blights the lives of many constituents in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, High Green, Penistone and Dodworth.
There is a clear link between antisocial behaviour and school absence. Sheffield and Barnsley have some of the highest rates of severe school absence of any local authority, with more than 2,500 children mostly missing from school across the two local authorities. Will my right hon. and learned Friend speak to and urge her colleagues in the Department for Education to set out a plan to reverse the rising tide of school absence and all the negative impacts it has not only on children but on communities?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend speaks with a huge amount of experience from her days as a teacher. She knows more than many how, with vital resources in schooling, effective teaching and proper support in schools and from parents, we can divert children from a life of crime, antisocial behaviour and devastation to themselves and their communities. There is a strong theme in this plan of diversion, investment in youth activities, but also in the Turnaround scheme. We are expanding the eligibility criteria and are working with professionals to ensure that children will be taken away from a life of crime.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When I have assisted constituents whose lives have been made a living hell by neighbours using drugs or blasting out music at all hours, it has taken far too long to solve the problem, so I welcome the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has set out to make it easier to evict such people. When will those changes take effect, so that the courts can consider any behaviour that creates a nuisance? Will local authorities be empowered—and required—to act where landlords are unwilling or absent?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to mention eviction powers. We want to ensure that it is easier for landlords to take action against antisocial tenants, whether in the social or private rented sector. Our measures in the plan will empower them to take swifter action.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Under the disastrous reign of police and crime commissioner Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester police were put into special measures. With the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), Stephen Watson was appointed chief constable under the revolutionary concept of charging criminals with offences. We saw a 42% increase in the charge rate for the 12 months up to September 2022. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that not only is this plan exactly the correct course to take, but chief constables and other senior police officers must start arresting people, as this Government want?
Suella Braverman
I could not put it better, but I will reiterate my hon. Friend’s sentiment because Stephen Watson, whom I met when I visited Greater Manchester police recently, is a real success story. His approach is one of common-sense policing, getting the basics right and high standards. Getting his men and women to fight crime and focus on the priorities people have is a winning formula. Stephen is a great leader in policing and we need more leaders in policing just like him.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
When we travel into our great cities and towns, we see mile after mile of graffiti. The message is clear: abandon hope all ye who enter here. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House that the perpetrators—the so-called graffiti artists—will be tracked down and made to clean up the mess they make, and be seen to do so publicly?
Suella Braverman
Simply put, yes. That is the aim of the community payback scheme, which has been very successful, as well as the measures included in this plan, whereby those who are inflicting ugliness, chaos and nuisance on communities need to make amends themselves, directly to the communities that they have harmed.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for personally listening to the concerns and ideas that we have had across Lancashire, and for supporting me and our fantastic police and crime commissioner, Andrew Snowden, as we try to tackle these issues. Can she outline how quickly Lancashire will receive the major £2 million funding boost for hotspot patrols and how she thinks that will make a difference in Hyndburn and Haslingden?
Suella Braverman
Let me put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend, but also to Andrew Snowden, the excellent PCC in Lancashire, who has led some great initiatives, notably on antisocial behaviour. The police have had a lot of success in clamping down on boy racers and other nuisance behaviour in some town centres in the area. Lancashire police will receive funding as one of the pilots for hotspot policing. That money will be diverted to increasing resources on the frontline to improve visible and responsive policing.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which comes at a particularly timely point for my constituents, as the first email I opened in my inbox this morning reported vandalism to a brand-new £20,000 fence around a community sports facility in Winslow. Also over the weekend, the Crew Café in Princes Risborough saw a break-in. That café sits at the epicentre of a hotspot of antisocial behaviour over the last year, seeing intimidation, broken glass and other vandalism. Can she assure me that the powers she has announced today give the superb officers of Thames Valley everything they need to combat these incidents and that, as broken windows theory teaches us, this will shut down higher-level crimes too?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to his constituency over the weekend to meet Thames Valley police and his excellent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber. They are leading brilliant work when it comes to rural crime. He is absolutely right. I believe in the broken windows theory of crime prevention. It is essential to take a zero-tolerance approach to so-called lower-level crime. As I said, there is no such thing as petty crime. It leads to more serious crime and more criminal behaviour. The antisocial behaviour plan is vital to stamp it out at the earliest possible opportunity.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Home Secretary already knows that antisocial behaviour and nitrous oxide abuse, in particular, wreaked havoc along our beautiful seafront in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea last summer, so I warmly welcome these steps to ban nitrous oxide and use hotspot policing. I thank her for meeting me and listening to my concerns, and those of colleagues across the House. Southend police welcome the moves and have two questions: will the legislation be in place to avoid our seafront being blighted this summer, and will our wonderful ice cream sellers and ice cream parlours be excluded from the ban, as I am sure they will be?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for her indefatigable campaigning to ban nitrous oxide and take a tough approach in response to that devastating drug. She is absolutely right that there will be exceptions to the prohibition for legitimate, lawful and proper uses; we do not want to stop the industrial use, the commercial use or the medicinal use of any substances. Ultimately, my hope is that the sight of these canisters on the ground, blighting our communities and making our places ugly, will become a thing of the past.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent has seen significant issues with antisocial behaviour and drugs crime, particularly with the horrific drug monkey dust, so I very much welcome the announcement that the Staffordshire police area will be one of the pilot hotspot areas. Will my right hon. and learned Friend outline what that means for frontline policing and for ensuring that more resources go to fighting crime on the streets of Stoke-on-Trent?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that his police force’s area will be a pilot area for hotspot policing. The pilots will start very soon—before the summer, we hope—and we have chosen the areas with the greatest need. When it comes to tackling antisocial behaviour, we see them as a priority, and we want to ensure that there is a proper response on the frontline as quickly as possible.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
On Friday, I held a crime surgery in Thornaby and heard horrific stories of the misery caused by youth crime and antisocial behaviour, so today I am delighted to see Cleveland benefiting both from additional hotspot policing and from immediate justice. Can my right hon. and learned Friend outline what residents across Stockton South can expect to see and, importantly, how quickly they can expect to see it?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his residents and for public safety up in Cleveland. I am very glad that Cleveland is a pilot both for immediate justice and for hotspot policing. What people will be seeing up there is more funding—more funding for more resource. That resource will, hopefully, be more police officers, who will be able to respond in a rapid way to areas of acute challenge when it comes to antisocial behaviour, so we can bring an end to what my hon. Friend calls the misery of blighting our communities, nuisance behaviour and, fundamentally, damage to the fabric of our way of life.
Point of Order
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 13 December, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) regarding the size of the current asylum backlog, the Prime Minister stood at the Government Dispatch Box and claimed, wrongly, that
“the backlog…is half the size that it was when Labour was in office”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 903.]
Six days later, the Minister for Immigration went even further, claiming at the same Dispatch Box that
“the backlog of cases was 450,000 when the last Labour Government handed over to us.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 8.]
Other Government Members have repeated those claims. I suspected that those claims were highly questionable, so on 19 December I wrote to the UK Statistics Authority, requesting clarification.
I am pleased to inform the House that the chief executive of the UK Statistics Authority responded to my request on Thursday. His letter to me is crystal clear. The asylum backlog when Labour left office in 2010 was not in the hundreds of thousands; it was 18,954. Under the Conservatives, it is now 166,261—more than eight times larger than it was in 2010. The UK Statistics Authority is using the Home Office’s own statistics, so it is somewhat odd that the Ministers did not know that they had been playing fast and loose with the facts.
I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how you feel Ministers should go about apologising to our constituents and correcting the record at the earliest possible opportunity, in compliance with their obligations under paragraph 1.3(c) of the ministerial code.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise his point of order. He is aware that the contents of Ministers’ contributions in the House are not a matter for the Chair, but he is right to say that the ministerial code requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors in answers to parliamentary questions at the earliest opportunity. As it happens, Ministers from the Home Office are present and will have heard—[Interruption.] Excuse me. The Ministers will have heard what he had to say, and I am sure that if they feel there is anything that needs to be corrected, they will do that at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any further issues, the Table Office will advise him on how he can pursue them. I think we will leave it at that.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that two of the relevant Ministers were sitting in the Chamber at the time, may I ask whether you have ever heard of a situation in which it is abundantly clear from evidence from the UK Statistics Authority that Ministers have given incorrect information to Parliament and they have chosen not to correct it straight away?
Madam Deputy Speaker
There is no obligation on Ministers who are in the Chamber to respond. [Interruption.] Could we have a bit of quiet, please? Ministers may wish to look at what has been said and come back, but, as I have said, it is up to them. It is clear what is in the ministerial code, and I am sure that the points have been heard. I suggest that we now move on.
Bill Presented
Inquests (Legal Representation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Maynard presented a Bill to prohibit public bodies from spending more on legal representation at an inquest than the amount spent by families of the deceased; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the availability and accessibility of legal representation for families at inquests; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 281).
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 27 March 2023 - (27 Mar 2023)
22:03 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:20 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 67 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:31 - divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:43 - divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 133, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) A suspensive claim, or an appeal in relation to a suspensive claim (only as permitted by or by virtue of this Act), shall be the only means through which a removal notice may be challenged.
(2B) Accordingly, other than claims identified in (2A), there shall be no interim relief, or court order, or suspensive legal challenges of any kind, available which would have the effect of preventing removal.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the only way to prevent a person’s removal is through a successful suspensive claim.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, page 40, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of line 12 and insert—
“(a) a protection claim,
(b) a human rights claim, or
(c) a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking.”
Amendment 77, page 40, line 22, after “a country or territory” insert
“where there are, in law and in practice—
“(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers;
(ii) sufficiency of protection against serious harm and violations of fundamental rights;
(iii) protection against refoulement;
(iv) access to fair and efficient State asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention.
(v) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure; and
(vi) if found to be in need of international protection, a grant of refugee status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention and”.
This amendment changes the definition of a “third country”.
Clause stand part.
Clause 38 stand part.
Amendment 78, in clause 39, page 41, line 19, leave out “not”.
Amendment 79, in clause 39, page 41, line 22, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
Amendment 134, in clause 39, page 41, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must declare as inadmissible any human rights claim, protection claim, application for judicial review, or other legal claim which is not a suspensive claim or an appeal in relation to a suspensive claim, and which, if successful, would have the effect of preventing the removal of a person from the United Kingdom under this Act.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the only way to prevent a person’s removal is through a successful suspensive claim, as defined in clause 37.
Amendment 80, in clause 39, page 41, line 37, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
Clause 39 stand part.
Amendment 81, in clause 40, page 42, line 10, leave out from “and” to the end of line 16 and insert
“decide whether to accept or reject the claim.”
Amendment 82, in clause 40, page 42, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 83, in clause 40, page 42, line 30, leave out “compelling evidence” and insert
“evidence that there is a real risk”.
Amendment 84, in clause 40, page 42, line 34, leave out from the start of paragraph (b) to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment 85, in clause 40, page 43, line 1, leave out “8” and insert “21”.
Amendment 86, in clause 40, page 43, line 3, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 40 stand part.
Amendment 87, in clause 41, page 43, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 88, in clause 41, page 43, line 28, leave out “compelling evidence” and insert
“evidence on the balance of probabilities”.
Amendment 89, in clause 41, page 43, line 31, leave out from the start of paragraph (b) to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment 90, in clause 41, page 43, line 40, leave out “8” and insert “21”.
Amendment 91, in clause 41, page 43, line 42, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 41 stand part.
Amendment 92, in clause 42, page 44, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in the case of a serious harm suspensive claim—
(i) the grounds in section 84(1) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or
(ii) the grounds that the person is a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking;”.
Amendment 93, in clause 42, page 44, line 25, leave out
“contain compelling evidence of such ground”
and insert
“set out the grounds for appeal”.
Amendment 94, in clause 42, page 44, line 27, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 95, in clause 42, page 44, line 30, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 96, in clause 42, page 44, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“whether to allow or refuse the appeal”.
Amendment 97, in clause 42, page 44, line 41, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 42 stand part.
Amendment 98, in clause 43, page 45, line 14, leave out from “considers” to the end of subsection (3) and insert
“there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is not bound to fail.”
Amendment 99, in clause 43, page 45, line 20, leave out
“there is compelling evidence that”.
Amendment 100, in clause 43, page 45, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 43 stand part.
Amendment 101, in clause 44, page 46, line 4, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 102, in clause 44, page 46, line 5, insert at end
“or if the risk of serious and irreversible harm faced by the person is such that the claim ought to be considered despite it having been made after the end of the claim period”.
Amendment 103, in clause 44, page 46, line 6, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 104, in clause 44, page 46, line 10, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 105, in clause 44, page 46, line 12, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 106, in clause 44, page 46, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) set out the good reasons for the person not making the claim within the claim period, and”.
Amendment 107, in clause 44, page 46, line 18, at end insert
“unless the Upper Tribunal considers that an oral hearing is necessary to secure that justice is done in the particular case”.
Amendment 108, in clause 44, page 46, line 22, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 109, in clause 44, page 46, line 30, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 44 stand part.
Government amendment 67.
Amendment 41, in clause 45, page 47, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) In cases where subsection (2) applies to a person who has made a protection claim or a human rights claim, that claim may no longer be considered inadmissible.”
This amendment stipulates that where a person has successfully made a suspensive claim against their removal from the UK, any asylum or human rights claim made by that person can no longer be classed as inadmissible.
Government amendment 69 and 68.
Clause 45 stand part.
Amendment 110, in clause 46, page 48, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (10).
Clause 46 stand part.
Amendment 111, in clause 47, page 48, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 112, in clause 47, page 48, line 41, leave out “23” and insert “28”.
Amendment 113, in clause 47, page 49, line 7, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 114, in clause 47, page 49, line 11, leave out “7” and insert “14”.
Amendment 115, in clause 47, page 49, line 18, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 116, in clause 47, page 49, line 22, leave out “7” and insert “14”.
Clause 47 stand part.
Amendment 117, in clause 48, page 49, line 32, leave out “or refuse”.
Amendment 118, in clause 48, page 49, line 35, leave out “or refuse”.
Clause 48 stand part.
Amendment 119, in clause 49, page 50, line 17, leave out from “provision” to the end of subsection (1) and insert
“to ensure compliance with interim measures indicated by the European Court of Human Rights as they relate to the removal of persons from the United Kingdom under this Act.”
Amendment 122, in clause 49, page 50, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision so as to deny or undermine the binding effect of such measures on the United Kingdom under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This amendment would recognise that the UK is bound to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and would ensure that any regulations made under clause 49 do not undermine this. This amendment is consistent with recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill of Rights Bill.
Clause 49 stand part.
Amendment 120, in clause 50, page 51, leave out line 21.
Clause 50 stand part.
Amendment 179, in clause 51, page 53, line 3, leave out from “must” to the end of subsection (1) and insert
“within six months of this Act coming into force, secure a resolution from both Houses of Parliament on a target for the number of people entering the United Kingdom each year over the next three years using safe and legal routes, and further resolutions for future years no later than 18 months before the relevant years begin.”
This amendment seeks to enhance Parliament’s role in determining the target number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 177, in clause 51, page 53, line 3, leave out “maximum” and insert “target”.
The purpose of this amendment is to set a target, rather than a maximum, number of entrants through safe and legal routes.
Amendment 180, in clause 51, page 53, line 6, leave out “making the regulations” and insert
“securing the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 179.
Amendment 173, in clause 51, page 53, line 7, after “authorities”, insert—
“(aa) the United Nations High Commission for Refugees,
(ab) the Scottish Ministers,
(ac) the home affairs select committee of the House of Commons,”.
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of consultees on setting the target for the number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 176, in clause 51, page 53, line 12, leave out “exceeds” and insert
“is greater or less than 10% of”.
The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to explain the reasons why, if the target for entrants through safe and legal routes is not met.
Amendment 178, in clause 51, page 53, line 17, after “exceeds” insert “or falls short of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 176.
Amendment 137, in clause 51, page 53, line 29, at end insert—
““Persons” means a person over the age of 18 on the day of entry into the United Kingdom;”.
This amendment would exclude children from the annual cap on number of entrants.
Amendment 72, in clause 51, page 53, line 31, at end insert
“under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.
Amendment 149, in clause 51, page 53, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations under subsections (1) and (6) must come into force no later than three months from the date on which this Act comes into force.”
This amendment seeks to require that regulations to establish the cap on the number of people permitted to enter the UK via safe and legal routes must be in effect by three months from this Bill’s entry into force.
Clause 51 stand part.
Government new clause 11—Judges of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal.
Government new clause 12—Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
New clause 3—Refugee resettlement target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make an order by statutory instrument setting an annual target for the resettlement of refugees to the United Kingdom.
(2) An order under subsection (1) must set an annual target of no fewer than 10,000 people.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set a resettlement target, by order, each year of at least 10,000 people.
New clause 4—Humanitarian travel permit—
“(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—
(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;
(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and
(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—
(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted;
(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;
(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and
(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.
(4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.
(5) The requirements are—
(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and
(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).
(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).
(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.
(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.
(9) In this section—
“appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1);
“entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;
“persecution” is to be construed in accordance with its meaning in the Refugee Convention;
“protection claim” in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—
(a) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”);
(b) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or
(c) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”); and
“serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”
New clause 6—Safe Passage Pilot Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a humanitarian travel permit scheme.
(2) The scheme under this section must come into operation within 3 months of the date on which this Act is passed and must remain in operation for at least 12 months.
(3) The scheme under this section must permit persons from designated countries or territories (see subsections (3) and (4) below) to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum immediately on their arrival in the United Kingdom.
(4) The regulations under subsection (1) must designate countries or territories from which nationals or citizens may be considered for humanitarian permits under this section.
(5) Countries or territories designated under subsection (4) may include only countries or territories from which the proportion of decided asylum claims which have been upheld in the United Kingdom in the 5 years before the date on which this Act is passed is at least 80 per cent.
(6) Regulations made under subsection (1) are subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an evaluation of the humanitarian travel permit scheme under this section not later than 15 months from the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 7—Refugee family reunion—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.
(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.
(5) In this section, “family members” include—
(a) a person's parent, including adoptive parent;
(b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) a person's child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;
(d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of a child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
New clause 10—Safe passage visa scheme—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament statements of changes to the immigration rules to make provision for a safe passage visa scheme (referred to in the remainder of this section as the “scheme”).
(2) The purpose of the scheme referred to in subsection (1) is to enable a qualifying person to travel safely to the United Kingdom in order to make an application for asylum (within the meaning given by paragraph 327 of the immigration rules) or a claim for humanitarian protection (within the meaning given by paragraph 327EA of the immigration rules).
(3) A person is a “qualifying person” for the purposes of subsection (2) if the person—
(a) is present in a member State of the European Union when the person makes an application to the scheme;
(b) is not a national of a member State of the European Union, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland; and
(c) would, on securing entry to the United Kingdom, be able to make—
(i) a valid application for asylum in accordance with paragraph 327AB of the immigration rules; or
(ii) a valid claim for humanitarian protection in accordance with paragraph 327EB of the immigration rules,
which would not be clearly unfounded.
(4) For the purposes of determining whether the conditions in subsection (3)(c) above are satisfied, the following are disapplied—
(a) the conditions in subsections (4) and (5) of section 80C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and
(b) the duty in section 2(1) of this Act.
(5) Changes to the immigration rules made under this section must also make provision for—
(a) applications to the scheme, including—
(i) identification of the relevant gov.uk webpage through which applications must be made;
(ii) the provision of relevant biometric data by the person;
(iii) the supplying of relevant information and supporting documentation related to applications;
(iv) confirmation that applications will be without cost to applicants; and
(v) provision for legal aid in relation to applications made to the scheme;
(b) any additional suitability requirements for applications to the scheme, including matters referred to in Part 9 of the immigration rules;
(c) entry requirements for those granted entry clearance under the scheme, including the requirement that the person be provided with a letter by the Secretary of State confirming that the person can enter the United Kingdom;
(d) limitations on the entry clearance granted under the scheme, including provision that clearance is provided solely to enable the person to make an application for asylum or a claim for humanitarian protection and requiring that such an application or claim be made immediately on entry into the United Kingdom; and
(e) appeal rights for those denied entry clearance under the scheme, including legal aid to be made available for persons making such appeals.
(6) The scheme referred to in this section is to be specified as a “safe and legal route” for the purposes of regulations referred to in section 51(6) of this Act.
(7) In this section “immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
New clause 13—Safe and legal routes: regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify safe and legal routes by which asylum seekers can enter the United Kingdom.
(2) The routes specified must include—
(a) any country-specific refugee and resettlement schemes already in operation on the day this Act is passed; and
(b) safe and legal routes additional to those in subsection (2)(a).
(3) The regulations must set out which routes specified under subsection (2)(b) are available to—
(a) adults, and
(b) unaccompanied children.
(4) The regulations must make provision about—
(a) who is eligible to access the routes specified under subsection (2)(b); and
(b) the means by which such persons may access the routes.”
New clause 17—Safe and legal routes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the date on which this Act is passed lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) all safe and legal routes which individuals from relevant countries may take in order to apply lawfully for asylum in the United Kingdom; and
(b) the numbers of applicants in each of the last five years who have followed each of those safe and legal routes.
(2) The report must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) A person originating from a relevant country may not be removed from the United Kingdom unless a safe and legal route from that country has been set out in a report under subsection (1).
(4) For the purposes of this section “relevant countries” means—
(a) every country or territory not listed in the Schedule; and
(b) in relation to all applicants other than men, those countries listed in the Schedule in respect of men.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out a comprehensive list of safe and legal routes to the UK from countries not listed in the Schedule, as the latter are by definition countries the Government considers “safe”. A person could not be removed from the UK to a country not listed in the Schedule unless a safe and legal route from that country to the UK exists.
New clause 19—Refugee family reunion—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulations and control ) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person—
(a) granted refugee status or humanitarian protection,
(b) resettled through Pathways 1 or 3 of the Afghan Resettlement Scheme, or
(c) who is permitted to enter the United Kingdom through a safe and legal route specified in regulations made under section 51(1) (see also subsection (6) of that section).
(3) In this section, “family members” include a person’s—
(a) parent, if the person was under the age of 18 at the time they made an application for protection status within the meaning of subsection (4) in the United Kingdom, including adoptive parent;
(b) spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18
(ii) aged 18 or over and dependant on the person;
(d) sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of the child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child is to be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.”
New clause 23—Asylum processing for low grant-rate countries—
“(1) Within 60 days of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must issue regulations establishing an expedited asylum process for applicants from low grant-rate countries who have arrived in the UK without permission.
(2) Within this section, “low grant-rate countries” are defined are countries with a grant rate for asylum applicants below 50% in the 12 months preceding the initial decision being taken.”
This new clause requires the Home Secretary to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from safe countries.
New clause 24—Safe and legal routes: family reunion for children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act enters into force, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provision for regulation and control) to make provision for the admission of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from European Union member states to the United Kingdom for the purposes of family reunion.
(2) The rules must, as far as is practicable, include provisions in line with the rules formerly in force in the United Kingdom under the Dublin III Regulation relating to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.”
This new clause seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide safe and legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with close family members in the UK, in line with rules previous observed by the UK as part of the Dublin system.
New clause 25—International co-operation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament a framework for new agreements to facilitate co- operation with the governments of neighbouring countries, EU Member States and relevant international organisations on—
(a) the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have made protection claims declared inadmissible by the Secretary of State;
(b) the prevention of unlawful entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries;
(c) the prosecution and conviction of persons involved in facilitating illegal entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries;
(d) securing access for the relevant authorities to international databases for the purposes of assisting law enforcement and preventing illegal entry to the United Kingdom; and
(e) establishing controlled and managed safe and legal routes.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) “neighbouring countries” means countries which share a maritime border with the United Kingdom;
(b) “relevant international organisations” means—
9. Europol;
10. Interpol;
11. Frontex;
12. the European Union; and
13. any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to consult with.
(c) “relevant authorities” means—
(i) police forces;
(ii) the National Crime Agency;
(iii) the Crown Prosecution Service; and
(iv) any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to include within the definition.
(d) “international databases” means—
(i) The Eurodac fingerprint database;
(ii) the Schengen Information System; and;
(iii) any other database which the Secretary of State may see fit to include within the definition.
(e) “controlled and managed safe and legal routes” includes—
(i) family reunion for unaccompanied asylum- seeking children with close family members settled in the United Kingdom; and
(ii) other resettlement schemes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a framework on new agreements to facilitate co-operation with the governments of neighbouring countries and relevant international organisations on matters related to the removal of people from the United Kingdom.
New clause 26—Equality Impact—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an equality impact assessment of the measures in sections 37 to 51 of this Act with, in particular, an assessment of the extent to which people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 will be particularly affected by the changes to legal proceedings and by the cap on numbers of entrants using safe and legal routes.”
Government amendment 66.
Amendment 73, in clause 57, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(o) section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.
Amendment 74, in clause 57, page 57, line 7, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) until regulations specifying safe and legal routes have been made under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations].”
Amendment 75, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(i) establishes and defines safe and legal routes to be open to refugees and asylum seekers with a legitimate claim to be able to come to the United Kingdom legally.”
Amendment 131, in clause 1, page 2 , line 29, at end insert—
“(6) Provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect to notwithstanding any judgement, interim measure or other decision, of the European Court of Human Rights, or other international court or tribunal; and notwithstanding any international law obligation.”
The intention of this amendment is that the provisions of the Bill should operate notwithstanding any orders of the Strasbourg court or any other international body.
Amendment 132, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Section 4 (declaration of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities) and section 10 (power to take remedial action) of the Human Rights Act 1998 do not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.”
This amendment would disapply other provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in addition to that already disapplied by clause 1(5) of the Bill.
Sir William Cash
I voted for the Bill on Second Reading because it was most emphatically going in the right direction, but I emphasised that we wanted to be sure that it would actually work in the national interest by preventing illegal immigration. The Bill is getting better with the amendments proposed by the Government today, for which all credit to the Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister. The number of Back Benchers who are supporting our constructive amendments, including mine, is growing.
This Bill to stop the boats is both legally and politically necessary, because illegal migration is out of control, partly because of a failure to distinguish between genuine refugees and others who are illegal and economic migrants. This is not only a real problem in the UK; increasingly, it is a real global and European problem as well, as can be seen from the dreadful tragedies in the Mediterranean in the last few weeks and months.
This legislation sets out a fair regime for dealing with people who have arrived here illegally. It gives them a reasonable but limited ability to raise any exceptional reasons as to why it is unsafe for them to be sent to Rwanda or another safe country. These are known as suspensive claims, and they are clearly defined in clause 37. Those claims ensure that we are compliant with our international obligations and that we would not send somebody overseas if they were not medically fit to fly or if they would face persecution in the destination country.
The success of this scheme depends on it working predictably and quickly. Those who come over on small boats need to know that they will not be able to stay here and that the vast majority of them will be removed to Rwanda or elsewhere. If courts intervene in unexpected ways, it removes the deterrence and the whole scheme breaks down, along with our ability to control our own borders.
However, this is also a procedural, legal and judicial issue, because under the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK courts have not been given suitable guidance by Parliament via statute to draw the appropriate boundaries that are needed in the national interest. As I pointed out on Second Reading, for example, the international refugee convention does not apply between the UK and France, because France is not a country where asylum seekers fear persecution, yet the European Commission is by all accounts refusing to make legal changes to EU law to allow returns of illegal asylum seekers from the UK to France. There are also provisions setting out other named safe countries. I ought to remind House what happened when the Dublin regulation was torn up by Angela Merkel and 600,000 or so refugees were allowed to pour into Europe.
When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, I was in the House of Commons. Human rights lawyers and activists claimed that the Act was a “constitutional Rubicon” enabling the courts to override parliamentary sovereignty. This was a massively overstated and exaggerated claim that is refuted by clear statements, which I hope those on the Labour Front Bench will take on board, made by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in the House of Lords on its Second Reading on 3 November 1997. He said of the legislation:
“It maximises the protection of human rights without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty.”
He also stated that
“the remedial action will not retrospectively make unlawful an act which was a lawful act—lawful since sanctioned by statute.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1229.]
But the question remained: what does statute provide?
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, that was demonstrated when we had the case of prisoner votes and Jack Straw, who took through the Human Rights Act, supported my motion to give instruction to the Government to get by exactly that issue.
Sir William Cash
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. In that context, “takes into account” is what the courts have to do with respect to the convention, but not necessarily to obey the Court. That is precisely what happened there.
In the House of Commons during the passage of the Human Rights Act, the Home Secretary Jack Straw made similar observations. The Government rejected giving the courts the power to set aside an Act of Parliament, which was being considered. This was a Labour Government rejecting giving the courts the power to set aside an Act of Parliament. He stated that this was because of
“the importance which the Government attaches to Parliamentary sovereignty”.
The White Paper at the time made that abundantly clear, even in respect of declarations of incompatibility by the courts, and furthermore made it clear that declarations of incompatibility would not necessarily lead to legislation.
I was glad to note, in principle, clause 1(5) regarding the application of section 3 of the Human Rights Act. In the context of parliamentary sovereignty, it is clear from the pre-eminent authorities that, in respect of section 3 of the Human Rights Act, any suggestion of a limitation of Parliament’s sovereign will would be permissible only to the extent that in doing so the courts give effect to the intention
“reasonably to be attributed to Parliament”
in enacting section 3. It must surely be clear to all of us, in the case of illegal immigration, that Parliament would never intend to condone illegality or criminality.
This analysis that I have put forward as to the interpretation of the Human Rights Act clearly requires further discussion with the Government. Furthermore, the pre-eminent authority also states that
“the Courts are thus not empowered to construe legislation compatibly with the convention at all costs”
and must not cross the constitutional boundaries, which would include not endorsing illegality.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, expounding a very Anglocentric view of sovereignty, but I will leave that to one side for the moment.
Is it not a legal flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument that at least some of the people who come to this country in small boats come not as immigrants but to seek asylum? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says this Bill
“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how…compelling their claim may be”.
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?
Sir William Cash
As I just said, I believe it is very important properly to protect genuine refugees. The problem we have been presented with over the last couple of years or so is that it is blatantly obvious that quite a significant number—I cannot put a precise figure on it, but it is very substantial and runs into the tens of thousands—have a serious case to answer in respect of their status.
Joanna Cherry
Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the facts simply do not support what he is saying, because the majority of people arriving in small boats who have had their asylum claim resolved have had their claim granted. That is the evidence.
Sir William Cash
That is certainly the case, but it is equally the case that we have 160,000 unresolved asylum cases. It is also true that there is no persecution in France on this account.
As the Government have rightly said, the Labour party voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, wants to scrap the Rwanda deal and opposes the Government’s Bill to detain and remove people swiftly from the UK. This amounts to demonstrating that the Labour party is in favour of open borders and is not on the side of the British people, who want us to deal with this problem.
The current Leader of the Opposition, in an article in Counsel on 9 January 2015, wrote, contrary to what the former Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary said, that the sovereignty of Parliament has nothing at all to do with the Human Rights Act. He clearly does not understand what the sovereignty of Parliament is, or the enactments and case law involved. Quite clearly, the statute itself was not intended to lead to circumstances in which illegal migration is not prevented but almost encouraged, to the profound detriment of practical control over our borders.
I tabled an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill in December 2021 that had a clearly expressed “notwithstanding” formula. The amendment was strongly supported by Conservative Back Benchers and would have greatly helped to ensure the flights to Rwanda. With this new Bill, we have a further opportunity to tackle the problem of illegal migration. This Bill is necessary because of the smuggling and criminality of the unscrupulous gangs that exploit migrants and cause death.
In addition, because of the consequences of the failure to control illegal migration, we have endured monumental expenditure of up to £6 million a day, disruption to local services, hotels, health services and social housing, and instances of criminality. It does no good to perpetuate a situation with such adverse consequences for our constituents and our voters, and the Government understand that.
Indeed, I am confident that, when the Bill is enacted, the courts will apply it and court procedures will be adapted accordingly, provided the intention of the words used in the Bill, as enacted, are clear, express and unambiguous, as I propose. It is not appropriate for the current situation to continue to the point where, as I have indicated in the past, the number of illegal migrants is growing exponentially.
My amendments, and further discussion with the Government, are conducive to resolving the issues properly, fairly and reasonably—with an appeal system and other measures, as I shall mention in a moment, and in line with domestic and international law—and to removing the unintended and unexpected legal consequences of the Human Rights Act and the courts’ rules in respect of illegal migration in small boats, which together have led to the breaching of our borders on an unprecedented scale. That is emphatically not in our national interest, and it was not anticipated when the Human Rights Act was originally passed. My amendment would ensure that what Parliament intends actually happens.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I hope that colleagues will bear in mind the fact that I cannot put time limits on speeches during Committee stage. I will prioritise those Members who have amendments on the Order Paper. I call the shadow Minister.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I start by reiterating the point that I made in closing the debate on Second Reading: we on the Labour Benches are absolutely clear that we must bring the dangerous channel crossings to an end, and that we must destroy the criminal activity of the people smugglers. Indeed, Labour has a five-point plan to do just that. It is a plan based on common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy, as opposed to the headline-chasing gimmicks that are the stock in trade of those on the Government Benches.
Our opposition to the Bill—and our introduction of the amendments on which I am about to speak—is based on the fact that it will serve only to make it harder for the Government to achieve their stated aims. The central premise of the Bill is that it will act as a deterrent by banning the right to asylum and replacing it with blanket detention and removals policies. For a deterrent to be effective, it must be credible, and the Bill fails the credibility test because there is nowhere near enough capacity to detain asylum seekers in the UK, there is no returns agreement with the EU, and the Rwandan Government are agreeing to commit to take only thousands at some unspecified future date. That means the boats will keep on coming, the backlog will keep on growing, and the hotels will keep on filling, all of which leaves the House in the somewhat surreal position of debating a Bill that everyone knows is not really worth the paper on which it is written, and yet we must all go through the motions and pretend that we are participating in a meaningful process.
Nevertheless, I assure you, Dame Rosie, and the entire House that Labour Members will do all that we can to amend and improve the Bill in a concerted effort to limit the damage that it will inflict on the international reputation of our country, on the cohesion of our communities, and on the health and wellbeing of those who have come to our country in the hope of sanctuary from the violence and persecution from which they are fleeing.
Sir William Cash
Is the hon. Gentleman implying that Labour Members will not oppose the Bill any further on these matters, because they want to improve and enact it, but no more?
Stephen Kinnock
I think I was crystal clear that we oppose the Bill. It will be entirely counterproductive and make all the challenges that we face worse. Labour Members believe in supporting legislation that addresses the substance of an issue rather than one that chases tabloid headlines.
The competition for the most absurd aspect of this entire process is pretty stiff, but the programme motion is a strong contender. Ministers in their infinite wisdom decided that we should debate the second half of the Bill on the first day, and the first half on the second day. Whatever the rationale for that, I suppose that there is something strangely appropriate about the idea that we should consider the Bill back to front given that so many of its provisions put the cart before the horse.
The other point that I wish to make at the outset is that the refusal of the Home Office to publish a full set of impact assessments ahead of Second Reading—and they still have not been published—is completely unacceptable. Surely, as a matter of basic respect for this House and for our constituents, Members should be entitled to expect to be given the opportunity to have an informed debate, based on comprehensive assessments of the impact that the Government expect their proposals to have.
The fact is that the Government’s entire handling of this shambles of a Bill has been utterly chaotic, while Ministers’ statements have generally been incoherent, inconsistent or simply incomprehensible. I spoke earlier in my point of order about the Government’s conjuring up statistics to suit their needs that have now been rubbished by the statistics watchdog. However, we are where we are, and on that basis I will move on to consider some of the substantive issues.
It is with regret that, given the time available, I will have to limit my remarks to our own Front-Bench amendments tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I begin with our new clause 25, which sets out how Labour would approach these matters if we were in government, in order to deliver meaningful progress on a range of issues, from border security, to authorised safe routes, as part of a comprehensive strategy to stop the crossings and keep people safe, in line with our international commitments. In particular, new clause 25 calls for a multifaceted overarching strategy for securing the agreements with international partners that our country urgently needs.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
We have already come to agreements with international partners and we are signing more all the time—a new deal with the French, a new deal with the Albanians—but we have had 480,000 asylum places granted here since 2015. How many hundreds of thousands more people does the hon. Gentleman want coming to the country?
Stephen Kinnock
It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that when the botched Brexit negotiations took place we left the Dublin convention, which is crucial for returns. We have to find a deal that replaces it. That is about protecting our borders, because it is about returning people when their asylum claims are not successful.
A strategy for securing Britain’s borders must begin with a clear and honest recognition that we cannot solve these problems unilaterally. This is a collective international issue that requires a collective international solution, so closer co-operation with our nearest friends and neighbours must be our starting point and our No. 1 priority. That means urgent action, which will be taken forward from day 1 of a Labour Government, to negotiate a returns agreement with the EU to replace our previous participation in the Dublin system.
That is just the start, however. We also need to restore access for our law enforcement agencies to the treasure trove of information—from biometrics to travel history—that Eurodac and other databases provide in support of efforts to ensure that the removal of asylum seekers from the UK to safe EU countries is possible.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Out of interest, the Labour party talks about safe and legal routes, so does it support a cap on the numbers coming through those routes? If so, how would it prioritise refugees, bearing in mind that there are hundreds of millions of people across the world who would like to move here and could conceivably get refugee status?
Stephen Kinnock
Yes, we do support a capped scheme for safe and legal routes, and it has to be based on prioritisation according to, for example, high grant rate countries and family reunions.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is all very well, but the reality is that those on the Government Benches have completely burned every relationship with our partners and allies across continental Europe and, as a result, we have left the Dublin convention. There is a direct connection between the massive surge in numbers coming on small boats and the Government’s botched Brexit negotiations.
Solving these problems also means establishing formal working arrangements to put the UK at the heart of international efforts to crack down on our real enemies here, the people smugglers, by relentlessly hunting them down and ensuring that they are brought to justice. The Labour party has set out a more targeted approach than the Government are currently undertaking; we would recruit a cross-border specialist unit in the National Crime Agency to go after the criminal gangs upstream, working with French experts and Europol. Finally, it means working closely with our European friends and allies to develop new safe and authorised routes from EU countries to the UK for those who are most in need of our help.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about making more safe and legal routes available and has suggested he would be supportive of a cap. At what level would he support such a cap, and what would he do to manage those people who continue to arrive once that cap was exceeded?
Stephen Kinnock
I do not know how many negotiations the hon. Lady has been in, but people do not generally go into negotiations by putting all their cards face up on the table. It is absolutely clear that a deal has to be done with the European Union. We do not do that deal from the Dispatch Box; we do it with hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, none of which the Conservatives are capable of. That is why they need to get out of the way so that a Labour Government can fix the problem.
Clause 51 stands as evidence that vague promises from Ministers are not to be taken seriously. I find it particularly telling that, in drafting the clause, the Government were not even able to come up with a definition of a “safe and legal route” or how one should work. Nor do they appear to have any idea of who such routes should apply to, when the measures might be introduced, how many people would be included or exempted from the cap, or who—other than local authorities —the Government may consult. The Opposition’s amendments would address those challenges.
On Second Reading, I said that under this Government, Ministers had done
“little more than pay lip service”—[Official Report, 13 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 640]
to the principle of authorised safe routes for refugees and others in protection. I stand by that assessment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the shadow Minister agree that, when it comes to honouring statements that we have made, we have an obligation towards those from Afghanistan who served alongside British soldiers? Some are in the system but are yet to be processed. Would the shadow Minister ensure that those from Afghanistan who are stuck in Pakistan and in Syria get here as asylum seekers, which is very much what they are?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The performance on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme has been abject. Under pathway 2 of that scheme, 22 Afghans have come over in the last year. They are being told that they can come only once they have accommodation, and they are being treated with a total lack of respect when we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition amendment to which he has referred gives the lie to the argument put forward by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, more recently, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that we on the Labour Benches support open borders in all circumstances?
Stephen Kinnock
That is one of the many myths that the Conservatives peddle—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right—and those myths need to be debunked. It is absolutely clear that the small boat crossings have to be stopped, but the key point is that the Bill will not achieve that objective. Our new clause 25 would actually put some flesh on the bones of something that might work, rather than chasing headlines and doing government by gimmick.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The hon. Gentleman must give up on his ridiculous argument that this Government have not taken safe and legal routes seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) said, almost half a million humanitarian visas have been issued since 2015. In Europe, we are second only to Sweden for resettlement; in the world, we are fourth only to Canada, the United States and another for UNHCR-sponsored humanitarian schemes. Some 45,000 people have come across on family reunion visas. We need no lectures on playing our part as a generous and compassionate country.
Stephen Kinnock
Of course, the Ukraine scheme, the British national overseas scheme and the Afghan scheme—when it used to work—are very welcome; there is no debate about that. But I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman keeps making that point. That is not the point of this debate; the point of this debate is how to address the challenge that we currently face. As hon. Members have pointed out, many people are fleeing war and persecution in the world, and this Government have utterly failed to offer them safe and legal routes. As a result, they come by unauthorised routes—that is a simple fact of life. The other point, of course, is that the Government have allowed the backlog to get completely out of control. The idea that they are making life better and easier for people fleeing war and persecution is for the birds.
I also want to mention areas in which Members on both sides of the House are broadly in agreement, not least because the list is quite short. The Opposition support the principle of Parliament’s having a say each year on the quota or cap for safe and legal routes, as envisaged by clause 51. Every country has a responsibility to do its bit, alongside other countries, to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. However, we also believe that the Government’s policy on safe routes cannot begin and end with caps alone.
The Bill presents us with a rare opportunity to have a serious debate about how best to live up to our international commitments to offer protection to those most in need, especially those fleeing persecution and war. The fact that so many detailed, well thought through proposals have been put forward by hon. Members in amendments and new clauses speaks to the depth of cross-party support for making safe routes work and providing genuine alternatives to dangerous crossings.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely scathing about the Bill, but he will be aware that, as recently as last summer, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change was writing about a solution to the small boats crisis that involved annual quotas, new safe and legal routes, an absolute prohibition on any arrival by a small boat, and only out-of-country rights of appeal. That is identical to what effectively appears in this Bill. It was written by somebody called Harvey Redgrave, who cites himself as the Labour party’s home affairs policy adviser between 2011 and 2015.
Stephen Kinnock
As I have just said, we support clause 51; I do not know whether the hon. Lady was listening. We support the idea of safe and legal routes that are capped. What she needs to understand is that for people escaping war and conflict, the idea of being detained in a deterrence centre that does not exist or of being removed to other countries when no removal agreements are in place is not a deterrent. For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. The Bill has zero credibility because it is impossible to operationalise. That is the key point that the hon. Lady seems to fail to understand.
Stephen Kinnock
I am going to make some progress.
A range of proposals have been put forward, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), who has a record of huge commitment to addressing these matters. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) also have a long history of working diligently on these issues.
The number of new clauses, including one of my own, that seek to build on and expand access to family reunion visas for refugees clearly reflects the high level of support for such schemes among Members on both sides of the House. In speaking to new clause 24 on behalf of the Opposition, I make it clear that providing better safe routes for unaccompanied children with family in the UK is not just right from a moral point of view; it will also demonstrate to our European neighbours, whose support on issues from returns to tackling people smuggling is so fundamentally important to this country, that we are serious about making progress in negotiations on the range of issues that I outlined in relation to new clause 25.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that so far the Bill comes with no children’s rights impact assessment? We are desperately concerned about the plight of children.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point about the lack of an impact assessment for children, but there is a broader point about the lack of impact assessment full stop. It is completely and utterly unacceptable that we in this House should now be debating a Bill with no impact assessment having been published in advance. That shows a sort of disrespect to the House that really needs to be put on the record.
I am having to limit my time to discussion of the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendments, so I will not be able to raise my many questions and concerns about some of the provisions on legal proceedings in clauses 37 to 49. Some clearly appear to pose a real threat to due process and to our respect as a country that upholds the rule of law. The entire Bill is shot through with inconsistencies, unresolved questions and bizarre contortions of logic that can only have the effect of worsening the very problems the Government say they are trying to solve.
Just one example of that is highlighted by amendment 41, which I tabled as a means of probing the Government’s thinking on a measure that simply does not appear to have been properly thought through. Clause 45 states that where an appeal against a removal notice is upheld, the duty to remove that person no longer applies—so far, so sensible. The problem is that nothing in the Bill says that any asylum claim made by a person in such a situation would then be considered: those claims would continue to be inadmissible. That means we will end up with situations where there are people who cannot be removed, because a court has ruled that doing so would pose unacceptable risks to their safety, but who also cannot lawfully remain in the UK because of the Government’s refusal to accept their claim for asylum. The law would effectively be saying that a person can neither leave nor remain in this country. If the Minister has an answer to the question of what then happens to a person in that situation, I would love to hear it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points he is making. I want to return to the point about detaining children, however, because we know that under this Government, hundreds of children have gone missing, and for some of them—hundreds, in fact—we still do not know where they are. Is it not right for children who come to this country to be placed immediately under the care of local authorities, which can then put proper safeguarding in place to protect those most vulnerable people?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She points to a broader failing, and to a clear indication of the shambles and chaos that we have within the broader asylum system. The backlog in the system is out of control, there are massive safeguarding issues, and really it is just more grist to the mill for the people smugglers and the traffickers. That is why this issue has to be addressed.
To sum up, this is a dog’s breakfast of a Bill, and this debate feels like something of a charade, because everyone knows that not only is the Bill unworkable, but it is not even intended to work. Nevertheless, we hope that colleagues across the House will support our amendments and new clauses in the Division Lobby this evening, because let us be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker: Ministers know full well that this Bill is an entirely counterproductive piece of legislation, but they do not really care. In fact, they will be more than happy to see it failing, because then they can blame our civil servants, the EU, the lawyers, the judges, the Labour party, the football pundits, or whoever they can think of.
Why are the Government doing this? Well, the answer is staring us in the face: they know that come the general election, they cannot stand on their record of 13 years of failure, so instead they will whip up division, stoke anxiety and fire up the culture wars. Our constituents know where the buck stops, though. They want solutions, not soundbites; they want the Labour party’s common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy, not government by gimmick; and when this Bill fails, they will know that only a Labour Government’s five-point plan for asylum will stop the dangerous crossings, fix our broken asylum system, and get our country back on track after 13 years of Tory failure.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Forgive me: I should have reminded Members at the beginning of the debate that when we are in Committee, it is customary to either call me by name or address me as Madam Chair, rather than Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a very common mistake, don’t worry; I should have reminded Members at the beginning of the debate.
I call Tim Loughton.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Thank you very much, Dame Rosie. I rise to speak to six amendments that stand in my name and those of right hon. and hon. colleagues: new clauses 13 and 19 and amendments 72 to 75. I am glad to hear the Minister refer to his support for safe and legal routes, because that is the basis of these amendments. I look forward to some warm words from him later on.
This is a very heated subject and a very controversial Bill, so I will start with something that I hope we can all agree on: coming across the channel in small boats is the worst possible way to gain entry to the United Kingdom. We need to be ruthless against the people smugglers who benefit from that miserable trade. We want to continue to offer safe haven for those genuinely escaping danger and persecution, and in a sustainable way. That is why safe and legal routes are the obvious antidote to that problem. The migration system, as it stands, is broken. Whatever we think about this Bill, it is only one part of the solution that we need to bring forward, and the Home Office needs to beef up the processing times and the removals of those who do not have a legitimate claim. We also need more return agreements.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Do the French authorities know who the people coming over here to seek asylum are, or are they just wandering around France unknown, as well as when they come here?
Tim Loughton
The reality, as the Home Affairs Committee found when we were last in Calais in January, is that the French authorities do not arrest a lot of the people trying to cross the channel; they turn a blind eye. These people are therefore not registered and the authorities do not have a record of who many of them are. They only show an interest in arresting and recording somebody who has come from a country with whom they have a returns agreement, where there may be a reasonable chance to return them. Otherwise—surprise, surprise—the French authorities’ problem becomes our problem if those people then get into boats.
Those are things that I hope we all agree with across the House, whatever our stance on this Bill. We also need to challenge some assumptions. Not all asylum seekers coming across the channel have a credible asylum claim. We are told, “Other countries do more,” but when we look at the totality of the issue, and the amount of people to whom we offer safe haven and support outside of the United Kingdom in refugee camps—those people who just want to go back to their own countries—it is more generous than virtually any other country in the world. We need to look at the totality.
Coming to the UK is not always the appropriate solution for many people. The resettlement schemes that we have generously operated already, particularly with regard to Ukraine and Hong Kong passport holders, are potentially huge. In the case of Hong Kong, it could be up to 2.9 million people. We have also heard the criticism from the French that we are too generous. They describe us as “El Dorado”, which is why so many refugees apparently want to come across to the UK.
The other reality is that even if we wanted to, we cannot take an unlimited number. The fact that almost 10,000 Afghan refugees legally brought here after the airlift from Kabul in the summer before last—more than 18 months ago—are still in hotels is testament to the fact that we have an accommodation problem. Whatever we come up with, we need a system that is disciplined, orderly and sustainable so that we can make sure that people are processed quickly and put in appropriate accommodation, because hotels for young children for a sustained amount of time, be that with their families, let alone on their own, are frankly just not the most appropriate place for them to be.
Wayne David
Is it appropriate, in the hon. Gentleman’s view, that former RAF camps are now being used and planned to be used for migrants?
Tim Loughton
None of this is ideal, but when people arrive in their hundreds—one day last summer it was more than 1,000—and all of a sudden become the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, there is a practical limitation on what accommodation is available physically to house them. That is why our hotels are being taken over and are full and why various military bases have been used, with mixed success. It is why the Government are having to look at other solutions. However, we have a serious problem accommodating our own constituents, as we all know, because of the shortage of local authority accommodation, and we just have to be realistic about how we can properly look after people coming across the channel.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This is not just about illegal migration. The population of this country is growing in net terms, as a direct result of illegal and legal migration, by something like a quarter of a million a year. That cannot long be sustained. Over 10 years it is 2.5 million people, which is the size of many significant cities. That cannot go on, because the housing situation for all of those people is an insuperable challenge.
Tim Loughton
I think I have made the point that whatever migration system we run needs to be effective, efficient and sustainable, but at the same time we need people to fill job vacancies in this country, and many of the people who have come here are self-sustaining. I had a meeting this afternoon with about 60 Hong Kong British national overseas passport holders who came here in flight from Hong Kong, and they are making a good go of starting a second life in this country. However we think we should operate migrant numbers, the numbers are not the important thing. It is being able to look after people safely and sustainably for all of our community that is the major consideration.
The other truth that is put about that we need to challenge is that the European convention on human rights is everything. If we look at the record of the judgments issued under the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights in the last 10 years, we see that 47% of them—almost half—have not been complied with. In certain countries that figure is higher. For example, 61% of judgments again Spain from the European Court of Human Rights have not been complied with, and for Italy it is 58%, while for Germany it is 37%. In many cases—particularly France, where the figure is a little bit lower—they are mostly for non-compliance with immigration laws. So let us not try and kid ourselves that the measures in this Bill are in some way completely absurd and out of court compared with what other countries have been doing.
Having said all that, doing nothing is not an option. It allows people smugglers to continue the human misery. It is condoning bogus asylum seekers, and it is allowing those bogus asylum seekers to bump the queue of genuine asylum seekers to whom we do have a duty of care that the vast majority of people in this country want to see carried out. So we need to get the balance right on continuing our generous tradition of allowing safe haven for genuine asylum seekers escaping danger with much more robust action to clamp down on those who have no legitimate claim to be resident in the UK. They are gaming our system, taking advantage of the UK taxpayer’s generosity and, worst of all, queue-jumping over the genuine asylum seekers who need help.
This is where safe and legal routes and the main amendment I am putting forward today come in, and I will be prepared to press it to a vote unless I have some substantial reassurances from the Government, because this is nothing new and it is not rocket science. It is actually something that the Prime Minister has quite rightly committed to in principle. My new clause 13, which is the basis of the safe and legal routes amendments, would require safe and legal routes to be part of this legislation. The regulations referred to in the Bill would have to set out specific safe and legal routes by which asylum seekers can enter the United Kingdom in an orderly and sustainable way.
The routes specified must include any country-specific schemes that we have already. Specifically, we have routes for Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and Hong Kong, but we need additional ones. Additionality is key to this, because as the Bill stands, the Government could just say, “Well, we’ve got those safe and legal routes, and we can just tinker with those.” However, let us take the example of the 16-year-old orphan boy from east Africa —he is not from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong—who has a single relative legally settled in the United Kingdom. There are precious few opportunities for him to be able to come to the UK on a safe and legal route. It is in such cases that we need to offer an opportunity, capped in numbers and capped with all sorts of considerations. We need to offer such people a realistic opportunity that they may be able to get safe haven in the United Kingdom.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much support what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, I support the need for such amendments to this Bill, probing or otherwise, to clarify what a safe and legal route is and how such routes will operate, because that seems to be at the heart of whether this legislation can actually achieve anything that it claims to set out to do. Does he therefore agree with me that we need clarity, because this Bill does set out where it considers it is safe to be from and, by definition, everywhere not listed in proposed new section 80AA is unsafe? We therefore need clarity about what would be a safe and legal route from the locations not listed in that proposed new section, because otherwise we will end up with “safe” or “unsafe” being ill-defined in legislative terms, and that does not help anybody.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have drawn up new clause 13 and the accompanying amendments in a way that is not overly prescriptive. It puts the onus back on the Government to come up with schemes, some of which will be safe and legal route schemes that we have run before. The family reunion scheme is something we have run for a long time, although it needs to be adapted outside of the Dublin conventions. I have also suggested a Dubs II scheme and, again, the Dubs scheme was very successful in bringing 483 unaccompanied single children from genuine danger zones safely to the United Kingdom. Those are the sorts of examples I mean. They do not need to create something completely new. We need to adapt what we already have.
That is why additionality is key. These need to be routes on which people from outside the four existing resettlement or asylum schemes can come here. The Government must set out those routes for both adults and children—I think most of us would agree that children need to be dealt with slightly differently—and the means by which those people can access those routes. It may be from the countries from which they are fleeing or from refugee camps, in a scheme like those we have had before jointly with the UNHCR. I think that is what has been mooted in the newspapers—it did not come from me—about 20,000 people being able to come here through agreement with the UNHCR, and that is another possibility. It may be through using reception centres that we have in other countries, including France, where a limited number could possibly apply, subject to a cap. Again, that is all for the Government to decide—I do not want to be overly prescriptive.
Bob Seely
As ever, my hon. Friend is making an incredibly interesting and important speech. There have been, in the last decade, 10 safe and legal routes, six of which are country-specific and four of which are general. Of the six, the Syrian one is now shut, but there are two for Afghanistan, two for Ukraine and one for Hong Kong, and there are four other non-specific safe and legal routes. If I understand correctly, he is arguing for a fifth safe and legal route. Can he explain and delineate how that fifth safe and legal route would be different from the other four that we already have?
Tim Loughton
Those four existing routes are country-specific for certain emergency situations that arose—for obvious reasons, Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and the rather prolonged emergency we are seeing unfold in Hong Kong. There will be other such cases that come up, and I believe the Bill as it stands gives the Home Secretary the power to determine, if there is a new emergency in a certain country and a sudden wave of refugees genuinely fleeing danger to whom the UK Government may want to give a commitment, to enable us to take some of those people, and I think everybody would agree with that. However, in between such a country-specific scheme and the four existing country-specific schemes, the numbers able to come here are minimal. If we look at the just under 500,000 who have come here since 2015, we see that almost 400,000 of those are accounted for by those from Hong Kong and Ukraine alone.
Bob Seely
Apologies if I was not making myself clear. Out of those 10 schemes in the last decade, four are non-country-specific safe and legal routes. My hon. Friend is arguing for a fifth, an additional safe and legal route. While I am not arguing against his case, I am asking how his fifth safe and legal generalised route will be different from the other four we currently have, which are non-country specific. We also have six country-specific schemes, one of which—Syria—has been shut.
Tim Loughton
I think I have given my hon. Friend two examples. The family reunion scheme, certainly in the terms in my new clause 19, is non-country specific. A Dubs II-type scheme is non-country specific. At the moment, if you are not country specific, you have had it, largely, particularly for young children. The numbers, I am afraid, do not add up.
There is another consideration that I should have mentioned earlier. We are told that everything used to be great and fine in terms of us being able to return failed asylum seekers to the EU and that it has all gone pear shaped since Brexit. In the last year that we were covered by the Dublin regulations and still within the terms of the EU, the UK tried to return 8,500 failed asylum seekers to the EU. Of those, 105 were admitted. So it did not work before. This is a long-standing problem, which we have not had any help in solving from our EU partners. That is why we need to take more proactive and robust action now and why the Bill, controversial though it is, is so necessary.
Tim Loughton
I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I will finish my comments.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument for additional safe and legal routes, but the Bill is designed to try to prevent illegal migration. Although I understand that those few people affected by his new safe and legal route may be deterred from illegal migration by the fact that they are part of that scheme, there will still be many other people who will not be. How will creating a few more safe and legal options for a small number of people prevent people coming across the channel who are not affected by those schemes?
Tim Loughton
We are not going to eradicate people coming in boats across the channel totally, unless the French agree to intercept and return them. However, we can limit it to those people who do not stand a credible chance of claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. One problem in the courts at the moment, with the many failed asylum claims that then go through the appeals process, is that there was no other way of getting here, other than on a boat. If the safe and legal route amendment, and everything that goes with it, goes through, that will not be an excuse because anybody could apply through a safe and legal route and, if they are turned down and then turn to a boat, that is not a defence.
Tim Loughton
I will be very indulgent, but I know many other people want to speak.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am very grateful. My hon. Friend makes the most important point in this debate. Judges and tribunal chairs are looking for factual reasons on which to refuse applications. I cannot think of a better one than the availability of, in a controlled way, more safe and legal routes. At the moment, without further action, and without concurrent action from the Government in passing this Bill and creating safe and legal routes, we are opening ourselves up to the risk of more people making those claims and of not being able to control the situation in the way we all want.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend, with his huge legal expertise and experience from his former roles. That is the point. We need to isolate the bogus asylum seekers who are paying people smugglers. We do that by making it clear that we are open to genuine cases of people fleeing danger, and there is a legitimate, practical, and usable route for them. If people do not qualify for that, they should not try to get in a boat because they stand no chance of having their claims upheld if they make it across. I am just trying to achieve a balance. If Members want the Bill to go through, we need to have safe and legal routes in it to make it properly balanced. If you do not like the Bill but you want safe and legal routes, you need to support the Bill to get those safe and legal routes. This is mutually beneficial to those on either side of the argument on the Bill.
New clause 19 outlines how a refugee family reunion scheme would work. It includes a wide definition of close family members, including people who are adopted. Again, this is nothing new but it is a generous scheme that would do what it says on the tin.
Amendment 74 is an important consideration. The Government have said that they want the Bill to go through to be able to clamp down on the small boats. I have no problem with that. There are some things in here that are not quite as moderate as I would like, but I think it is necessary for the Bill to go through so I am trying to improve it. However, the Government have said that they will consult on safe and legal routes—we need to consult on safe and legal routes because local authorities, and others, will bear the brunt of how we accommodate many of these candidates—and then come up with some safe and legal routes. That is not good enough. The two sides of the Bill must be contemporaneous. We must not to be able to bring in these tough measures until those safe and legal routes are operational so people can have the option to go down the safe and legal route, rather than rely on people smugglers.
The Government will say, “We need to consult.” Well, start that now because we need to consult with local authorities about how we get more people out of hotels now and into sustainable accommodation for the long term. The Government should be getting on with the consulting now, so that when the Bill eventually goes through—I suspect it may take a while to get through the other place—those safe and legal routes are up and running and ready to go. So amendment 74 is important.
Amendment 75 would add safe and legal routes as one of the purposes of the Bill in clause 1. Clause 1 is all about clamping down on illegal migration—quite right—but it should also be about the balance of providing those safe and legal routes. I want to put that in clause 1, at the start of the Bill. Amendments 72 and 73 are contingent on all of the above.
That is all I am trying to do. Lots of people are trying to misrepresent and cause mischief about the Bill, and in some cases on safe and legal routes. I will end on my own experience when I appeared on the BBC “Politics South East” two weeks ago. I was talking about safe and legal routes and I was challenged, “Why are you supporting this Bill when you were so keen on safe and legal routes and challenged the Home Secretary?” I said, “Because this Bill contains provisions for safe and legal routes.” It does. It talks about “safe and legal routes”, capping numbers and everything else. The following week on the same programme, with no recourse to me, the presenter read out an email from the Home Office, having got in contact with it, unbeknownst to me, to ask about my claim on safe and legal routes. The Home Office apparently replied:
“Nothing in the Bill commits the Government to opening new safe and legal routes or increasing the numbers.”
That was news to me, news to Home Office Ministers—[Laughter.] Hold on, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) may not be laughing in a minute. I was accused of being misleading. When I challenged that, it turned out that the Home Office communiqué actually said that the routes to be included as part of the approach set out for the new Bill would be set out in the regulations, which would depend on a number of factors, including the safe and legal routes that the Government offered at the time the regulations were prepared and, that, as the Prime Minister said, we would “get a grip” on illegal migration and then bring in more safe and legal routes. So actually that is provided for in the Bill.
The BBC completely misrepresented my comments and, I am glad to say, yesterday issued an apology and gave me a right of reply. Let us stick to the facts. Let us not get hung up on all the prejudice about this. We have a problem in this country, which is that last year just under 46,000 people came across in the most inappropriate and dangerous manner. We do not have the capacity to deal with people in those numbers, many of whom have unsustainable claims, and we have to get to grips with it. The Bill is a genuine attempt to get to grips with that issue. It would be much more palatable and workable if it contained a balance that has safe and legal routes written into it that come in at the same stage. I would challenge the Opposition to say that they have a better scheme for how we deal with this dreadful problem. Simply voting against all the measures in the Bill is not going to help anyone.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Do we support international human rights protections or do we not? Are we steadfast in our adherence to the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention and other international treaties we have signed up to, or are we not? To me, it is extraordinary that those simple questions are even apparently subject to debate, but those simple questions are precisely what this appalling Bill is asking of us, including in the clauses we are debating today.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been clear that the Bill breaches the refugee convention. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has written to us all today to warn it is:
“essential that Members of Parliament…prevent legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations being passed”.
Our view is that, because the Bill rides roughshod over international human rights law, it should be scrapped entirely. Short of that, the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and colleagues try to restore at least some level of respect for international law.
This is not only an abstract issue of international law. This is about the Afghan lieutenant we read about in The Independent on Sunday yesterday, who flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban and was praised by his coalition supervisor as being a “patriot to his nation”. Now he is in a hotel and threatened with removal to Rwanda. It is about LGBT people fleeing outrageous criminal laws in Uganda, whose Parliament last week voted for further draconian legislation, imposing endless imprisonment and even death sentences on LGBT people, as well as on those who do not report them to the police or even rent a room to them. This is all about trafficking victims, victims of torture and many more vulnerable people. The question is: are we committed to meeting our international obligations to those people? For me and my SNP colleagues, the answer must clearly be yes, but the Bill says no.
We therefore absolutely oppose clause 49 and the Government’s attempt to undermine the role of the Court of Human Rights. Clause 49 empowers the Home Secretary to ignore, and even to compel our courts to ignore, interim measures from the Court. It is said to be a placeholder clause, but here we are debating it with only a select bunch of Conservative Back Benchers apparently any the wiser as to what the Government’s intentions are with respect to it. The clause, as drafted, is totally unacceptable, but so, too, is the way the Government are treating Parliament. As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights states in his letter to us:
“interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and their binding nature, are integral to ensuring that member states fully and effectively fulfil their human rights obligations”.
We therefore believe the clause should be taken out, or that either our amendment 119 or amendment 122, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), should be supported to ensure that power is used consistently with the convention. The Prime Minister should stop dancing to the tune of the anti-ECHR minority. He should have the guts to put international human rights before internal party management.
I turn next to safe legal routes, which many amendments and new clauses understandably address. The lack of them and, in the case of the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, their poor and slow implementation, is clearly a contributor to irregular arrivals. Expanding them would help to tackle that issue, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) eloquently set out. Clause 51, as it stands, is completely inadequate. It provides for a limit not to be exceeded, rather than providing a target to aim for, and it allows the Home Secretary, instead of Parliament, to set the definition of “safe legal route”. Our amendment 179 and related amendments replace the cap with a target, and a longer-term target too, and seek to improve Parliament’s role in setting that goal and holding the Home Secretary to account for her efforts to meet it. We support other new clauses and amendments that seek to achieve similar aims. We support the various new clauses that highlight particular safe legal routes, such as the humanitarian travel permit, safe passage visa schemes, refugee family reunion and Dublin-style safe legal routes for children in the EU. The key point is, as has been said, that these routes should be a priority and an urgent part of the overall response, not an afterthought to be looked at a little way down the line.
On the remaining clauses relating to legal proceedings, frankly, most of the provisions in the Bill essentially dehumanise people who seek protection here, so that no matter what horrors they have endured, their individual circumstances are to be ignored and their ability to access rights and protections set out in international treaties is to be decimated. Instead, they are to be detained, locked up and either removed or left in permanent limbo. The clauses on legal proceedings buttress that regime by seeking to snuff out the ability of anyone to get to a courtroom to challenge what is going on before their removal takes place.
Stuart C. McDonald
I notice the Minister is listening very carefully indeed.
Why is there a “compelling evidence” requirement? More importantly, is that not totally inconsistent with the test of real risk? That is the point of amendment 83. The danger is that even a probability of “serious and irreversible harm” will not be enough because of the type of evidence that can realistically be provided in the ludicrously tight timescale provided for.
On timeframes, we have various amendments to challenge the time periods that have been formally set out by the Government. The notion that eight days is enough time for an application is for the birds, as we know from the chaotic processes used during previous attempts to remove people to Rwanda, when many who were served notice barely understood what was happening. Language barriers, difficulties in access to solicitors and legal aid, the requirements of prescribed forms and demands for compelling evidence in the application mean that eight days will never happen. Those processes give rise to the risk that even those who could in theory make a challenge will miss out unjustly.
On that very important point, can the Minister provide clarity on how he will ensure that legal advice is accessible and, importantly, what his Government’s position is on the availability of legal aid? Those are hugely important issues that are not really touched on in the Bill.
Given the ludicrously restricted timeframes, the restrictions on “out of time” claims in clause 44 are frightening. Our amendments from amendment 101 onward seek to challenge that. This time “compelling evidence” of a “compelling reason” for missing the eight-day deadline is required. What on earth does that mean? Is an inability to understand the notice, language difficulties or the impossibility of finding a solicitor sufficient? More fundamentally, are the Government saying it is okay to remove someone who is certainly going to face “serious and irreversible harm” just because they were a few hours late with the paperwork and did not have a decent excuse for that? It makes absolutely no sense.
The seven-day timeframe for appeals to be lodged in clause 47 is equally absurd for all those reasons. Again, how will access to legal advice and legal aid be ensured? Who did the Government consult when putting together that challenging timeframe? Why have the Government chosen to bypass the first-tier tribunal? Why are the Government suggesting using first-tier employment law judges to assess difficult issues of removal and serious harm?
Some will have an even more difficult route to challenge a refusal if the Home Secretary decides that a claim is “clearly unfounded”. The clauses do not seem to make any sense. If, as seems to be the case, to make a valid application someone needs to provide compelling evidence of harm, it is difficult to see how any valid application containing such compelling evidence can be deemed clearly unfounded. Going beyond that, the grounds for appeal to the upper-tier tribunal are, again, objectionably difficult. Just to get permission to appeal, compelling evidence of serious or irreversible harm is required, assessed on the papers with no further right of appeal. Our amendments to clause 43 seek to rectify that.
We object to the Bill instructing the tribunal how to do its work, in particular how to make assessments of fact. Judges—not the Secretary of State—should determine what new matters can be considered, and what evidence and facts are relevant to their decisions. Our amendments to clauses 46 and 47 and various other clauses seek to protect the independence of the tribunal. We object strongly to the ouster clause in clause 48, in particular the restrictions on the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Amendments 100 and 108 seek to challenge restrictions on onward rights of appeal. These are serious and significant issues of profound importance. Removing the oversight of the courts is unacceptable and unconstitutional. We had a well-developed and functioning system of appeals and judicial oversight. The Government should stop dismantling it. Instead, the Bill will leave most people seeking to assert their rights able to do so only after they have been removed. The notion that such challenges can be successfully undertaken from thousands of miles away is absurd.
The fundamental question is, what happens if someone is successful in making a suspensive case? All that clause 45 states is that they cannot be removed; it does not allow them access to the asylum process or any other assessment of their case. They, like tens of thousands of others who cannot be removed simply because there is nowhere to remove them to, will be left in limbo—a limbo that is disastrous for the taxpayer but life-destroying for the individuals involved. A desperate outcome from a desperate Bill.
Finally, although we support almost all the other amendments and new clauses tabled by Opposition Members, we have concerns about new clauses 23 and 25. New clause 23 would require the Secretary of State to use her broad discretion to put in place a fast-track asylum procedure for so-called “low grant-rate countries”. It contains an amazingly wide definition of a low grant-rate country, which would include nationalities where 49% of applicants had successfully sought asylum.
New clause 25 has aspects that are fine, but crucial to what it tries to do are co-operation agreements for the removal of people who have had claims declared inadmissible. However, there is no definition of “inadmissible” separate from the definition in clauses 2 and 4. That goes to the heart of all of the problems with the Bill. We will continue to listen carefully to what is said about those new clauses, but we are concerned that they need further work.
In short, we oppose every aspect of the Bill. We object to the outrageous timeframe for its consideration and to the lack of impact assessment before we debate it. Our amendments try to mitigate some of its worst aspects but, ultimately, it remains an unlawful Bill completely and utterly beyond repair.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 132, which appears in my name. Together with amendments 131, 133 and 134, it has been drawn up with the express purpose of ensuring that our legislation does what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly said should be our priority: stopping small boats and the evil trade that sustains them.
We are fortunate to live in one of the greatest countries on earth. Unless we believe in a literally unlimited right of immigration, in any sane legal order, we in the United Kingdom must have the ability to effectively control our borders. It is only by having such control that we can maintain democratic consent for both legal migration and our system for allowing asylum to those in need, as we have done rightly and generously for those fleeing the repression of the Chinese state in Hong Kong, the bestiality of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the cruelty of Putin’s war in Ukraine. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration said from the Dispatch Box, almost half a million humanitarian visas have been granted by this country since 2015, of which 50,000 came from existing global safe and legal routes.
At the moment, we do not exercise the control to which I alluded a moment ago. Contrary to what Opposition Members may pretend, no amount of operation with the French or investment in our infrastructure at the border—welcome though those things are—can deter people attempting the crossing in the tens of thousands each year.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point about this nation being hospitable and generous, particularly over the last few years. Does he agree with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) that there is a problem not just with illegal routes and illegal immigration, but that over time we have had more and more legal migration? I am afraid that our population is now rising so quickly that it is fundamentally undermining our ability to provide public services.
Mr Clarke
I certainly believe that, vitally, we will only have democratic consent for legal migration if it is clear that that happens at the behest of and with the consent of this House and, critically, that we do not have an illegal immigration situation that is beyond this House’s control.
The reality is that if we are to effectively deter the evil trade of people smuggling, we need to tackle the incentives. That means making it crystal clear that coming here illegally will lead to swift detention and removal. It is neither compassionate nor sustainable to allow what is an abuse of our immigration system to continue. I can testify that, having sat in meeting after meeting with the Home Office as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the cost to the Exchequer of millions of pounds each day for hotels to house asylum seekers is not something that we should take lightly. That is, in part, why I tabled my amendments.
Bitter experience teaches us that Tony Blair’s Human Rights Act will otherwise act to frustrate the will of Parliament. The Government have therefore rightly drafted the Bill to disapply section 3 of the Act. However, I believe that other sections of the Act will be engaged too, and they should also be disapplied for the express purpose of this legislation. I say that not on my own authority but on that of Professor Richard Ekins of Oxford University and Sir Stephen Laws KC, the former First Parliamentary Counsel. As they argue in their February Policy Exchange paper:
“New legislation should expressly disapply the operative provisions of the 1998 Act, specifying...section 3 (interpretation of legislation), section 4 (declaration of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities) and section 10 (power to take remedial action)”.
They go on to say:
“Without legislative provision to this effect, it is inevitable that claimants will challenge the Home Secretary’s understanding of the legislation, inviting the courts either to interpret the legislation to read down her duty to remove persons from the UK (or reading in new procedural requirements) or to declare the legislation incompatible with Convention rights and thus authorising ministers to change it by executive order and ensuring that political pressure would be brought to bear to that end.”
Having disapplied section 3 on the basis that it leaves open the possibility of systemic legal challenge, I can see no legal, philosophical or practical argument against doing the same where a similar risk exists.
Ultimately, we know that our best—and probably only—chance to avoid this legislation being entangled in human rights law is for this place to be absolutely clear and unambiguous about our intentions. My amendment flows in that spirit. We should show the determination now—not after the fact, if and when the fears of many of us in this House have been realised—to make our intentions clear in the Bill.
I wish to speak briefly in favour of amendment 131, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), which has a comparable aim to my amendment in respect of the ECHR. I do so for the reasons set out by the Lord Chancellor at the time that the United Kingdom entered into the convention. He said:
“The real vice of the document, therefore consists in its lack of precision. I should be unable to advise with any certainty as to what result would be arrived at in any given case, even if the judges were applying the principles of English law. It completely passes the wit of man to guess what results would be arrived at by a tribunal composed of elected persons who need not even be lawyers, drawn from various European states possessing completely different systems of law, and whose deliberations take place behind closed doors.”
In a nutshell, that is the risk to which we expose the legislation if we proceed without that protection.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take these amendments seriously and work with us, over the course of the crucial weeks ahead, to ensure the legislation respects the will of the House and, I believe, the will of the British people.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
First, I add my voice to the concerns already raised by a number of Members about the lack of an impact assessment, an equality impact assessment and a children’s rights impact assessment, as we commence the Bill’s important Committee stage. In the Home Affairs Committee report on small boats and migration, we made it clear that:
“There is no magical single solution to dealing with irregular migration. Detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change that deters journeys such as dangerous Channel crossings.”
So it is regrettable that we do not have all the information, including the costing and the impact assessments, when debating these clauses today, particularly when the Bill is being rushed through the Commons.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady has rightly called for a number of assessments, but is the real test of the Bill not the impact assessment of newspaper headlines? That is all it is about.
Dame Diana Johnson
Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in the House about the small boats issue. It is worth reflecting on the fact that currently the largest number of people coming across in small boats come from Afghanistan and that the backlog in the Home Office system—now over 166,000—has been growing for some time, creating a knock-on effect on how quickly the system can deal with people arriving in this country, process them and remove those who should not be here.
It is also worth reflecting on the Home Affairs Committee report on the small boats crisis, published last summer, which said that the Government needed to address four things: clearing the backlog and speeding up the processing of people arriving in small boats; the issue of safe and legal routes, which I will say a little more about in a moment; the need for international co-operation; and the need to deal with the criminal gangs and to have return agreements with other countries in place. I remain worried about the argument that the Bill will deter people from getting into small boats, which goes back to my concern about the lack of evidence.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to the Home Affairs Committee trip to northern France in January. One key thing I remember from that trip is that if someone is standing on the beach in Calais or northern France, with the British coastline visible just 30 miles away, it is too late; they are going to take their chance and get into a boat.
I worry about the Home Office’s capacity to deal with the momentous change that the Bill will bring. It has not been very good at dealing with the asylum applications that have been building for many years, and I worry about its capacity to deal with the large-scale detention of people, families and children that the Bill will introduce.
My amendment 137 is on the issue of establishing a cap on the number of migrants using safe and legal routes. It will be difficult for the House to identify and make provision for crises that will unfold in the year ahead. In 2010, we could not have known the true extent of refugees from the first Libyan civil war or from South Sudan, or the number coming from Syria in 2011 or from Ukraine just one year ago. We cannot know what global challenges we will face in the next year, so an arbitrary target could be seen as a restraint on Governments being able to respond dynamically and appropriately.
Who will be included in the cap, and will it include children? Every child has the right to protection from persecution, discrimination and violence. That is a cornerstone of international and domestic law. Turning away a child fleeing a war zone or a genocide because of a cap decided months earlier in this House, could undermine the key principles of the international child protection frameworks that we have signed up to, including our own Children’s Act 1989, which gives clear focus to our international obligations in domestic legislation. The Government say that clause 51 will allow them to exceed the number set out in the cap each year if needs be. In that case, it is not really a cap, is it? It might be a target, but one that would have difficulty dealing with what is happening internationally.
We should reflect on and acknowledge the willingness of the British people to step up to the plate when crises appear, as thousands did last year when they took in displaced Ukrainians, and the wholesale support for unaccompanied children being given shelter when we debated the Dubs amendment a few years ago. If the Government are determined to introduce the cap, children should not be included and “people”, as set out in the clause, should be defined as those over 18 years of age. Setting a cap on the number of children who can claim asylum could result in one child being turned away while another is chosen—it is a “Sophie’s Choice” regulation. I ask the Minister to think again, and recognise the special position of children and our obligation to them.
The most obvious and appropriate way to support refugee children is to ensure they have access to safe and legal routes, which are clearly set out and defined. That is why I have added my name to new clause 13 and amendments 72 to 75, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I also support new clause 17 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Our Home Affairs Committee report made it explicitly clear that ensuring that there are accessible, safe and legal routes to the UK is a key plank of an asylum system that is both fair and effective, and also provides a clear disincentive and deterrent for illegal routes. I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the need for additionality. We cannot just say that the current schemes are sufficient, welcome as they are. There must be a package of measures to deal with the current situation, along with clearing the backlog. It cannot be right that that is left until some future date when we will know what the safe and legal routes are. That needs to be up front as part of the Bill, so that we have both the deterrent and the options around safe and legal routes.
New clauses 8 and 10 are about safe passage visa schemes. The Home Affairs Committee report mentioned using reception centres in France to allow people to make asylum claims from France—the Government rejected that idea, but some imaginative thinking about how we can assist people to make claims would be helpful. That is why it is worth the Government considering what new clauses 8 and 10 would mean. We have juxtaposed checks on passports and customs with the French, but there may be more room for negotiations with the French about making claims in France directly. New clause 8 is a little more prescriptive than new clause 10; that might be helpful as well.
I have added my name to amendment 122, which was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The amendment would clarify our legal responsibilities and fulfil the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Last year’s Home Affairs Committee report underlined the importance of strong international co-operation and relationships in dealing with migration issues. I believe that those would be weakened by walking away from our international legal obligations.
In conclusion, the Government must ensure that the Bill does not undermine our legal or moral obligations. They should clearly establish safe and legal routes in the Bill. If they are determined to tighten our refugee provisions, we must not turn our back on child refugees by arbitrarily placing a cap on, or excluding, those vulnerable children who turn to us for support.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 131, which stands in my name and in the name of colleagues. I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for their very constructive engagement in recent days; on the basis of the commitment that I hope we will hear from him this afternoon, I do not propose to press my amendment to a vote this evening. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); I am very glad that he has just returned from his cup of tea, because I am about to make a great speech in defence of parliamentary sovereignty in his honour.
The fact is that we need a new asylum system in our country. Indeed, the world needs a new framework for protecting the rights of refugees in an age of mass migration, with the huge people movements that we are seeing. Part of that is safe and legal routes, which are the natural corollary of the Bill; I support the principle described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and set out in his amendments to that end. I particularly endorse the work that has gone on in the Home Office—I want to see more of it—around community sponsorship. It is one of the existing global routes that we have, and we want to see it widened significantly. Even more fundamentally, the new framework that we need must honour the founding principle of both the European convention on human rights and the refugees convention: that the primary responsibility for managing asylum rests with the nation state. That is the purpose of the Bill and of my amendment.
It is worth stating why, as part of the new framework that we need, we need a law requiring the removal of people who arrive here illegally. The fact is that even if we had the best safe and legal route in the world, we would still have thousands of people—tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands a year—seeking to come here by unsafe, illegal routes. We simply cannot accommodate all those people. That is why it is absolutely right that this Bill creates a limit, with a cap on the total number of refugees we will receive. What that cap should be is up for debate, but the need for one is clear.
Unless we want open borders—Opposition Members deny that they want them—we have to do something about the many, many people who will still try to come once the cap has been reached. The only logical answer is to deny leave to stay to people who enter illegally, to detain them and to remove them somewhere safe and free: either back to their own country or to a third country that is willing to have them. That process must be swift and unquestioned. Nothing but the certainty of detention and speedy removal will deter illegal migrants and break the business model of the smugglers.
That power of removal was established in the Nationality and Borders Act, but as we know, a judge in Strasbourg was then woken in the middle of the night by a lawyer acting for an assortment of campaign groups. The judge—sitting in his pyjamas, for all we know—issued an interim order that caused the Home Office to stop the policy before the first plane took off.
Joanna Cherry
What the hon. Gentleman has just described is the process of getting an interim injunction in England or an interim interdict in Scotland. Is he not aware that that happens just about every day of the week in our domestic legal systems?
Danny Kruger
The difference is that our domestic legal systems should not be subject to the findings of a foreign court. Moreover, the process should be transparent, it should be possible to appeal and the Government should have been able to be involved in the process. For action to take place in that way is profoundly undemocratic.
Danny Kruger
Let me explain myself more clearly. There are two things profoundly wrong with what happened last June. The first is the explicit tolerance of illegality—the claim by activists, backed by Opposition politicians and by judges, that people who break into our country should be allowed to stay and settle here. The second is the idea that the laws of the British Parliament can effectively be struck down by courts claiming a greater sovereignty, in deference to a higher power than parliamentary statute: the power of international law.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The United Kingdom has signed up to many international treaties. Why do we sign up to treaties if we are not going to allow them to be implemented or follow them?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this is a treaty to which we have signed up. Under a treaty we have certain obligations, but those obligations do not include obeying such interim orders. There is no legal basis for us to obey them; that is a recent convention, and it is not in statute that we should obey such an order. Moreover, even if it were a substantive judgment, it does not give direct effect to what the British Government do. We need to change these things. That is why this Bill is necessary: it will mandate, not merely permit, the Government to remove illegal migrants, so that there can be no doubt in the mind of Ministers, officials or contractors what the law requires them to do.
Stella Creasy
One of the reasons why Winston Churchill helped to set up the European Court of Human Rights was to protect citizens across Europe, including in the UK, from overbearing Governments who did not have respect for the role of courts in keeping them honest. With the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, let us see some honesty: is he saying that he, in contrast to the Prime Minister, wants us to leave the ECHR? If the amendment were passed, it would mean our having to, and we would be in the same position as Belarus. Will he be honest: does he want us to be Belarus?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady mentions Winston Churchill, who of course had no intention for the UK to sign up to the European convention. It is true that he sent some lawyers over there, but actually the original intention was for the UK not to sign up. There was no need for the UK to sign up to it. We did so, but at that time there were no rule 39 orders. There was no opportunity for judges, in the middle of the night, to issue these interim orders and stop UK policy. That was not the case then, and it should not be the case now.
Even substantive judgments, with which I accept we need to comply—Opposition Members are quite right about that—should not have the direct effect of halting removals. A substantive judgment against the UK would simply start a process of negotiation like the one we had after the Court ruled against us on prisoner voting. My amendment would put Strasbourg and the ECHR in their proper place: as a treaty partner, not a higher power or a superior lawmaker to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members seem to think that the ECHR has a power superior to the sovereignty of this House. I invite them to stand on that platform at the next election: by all means go ahead and suggest that this House is not sovereign.
I come not to bury the ECHR but to praise it. The convention is a noble document—as we know, it was written with the help of British Conservative lawyers—but really it just codifies the liberties enjoyed under English common law and statute. We should not have done so, but sadly we have put ourselves under
“the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court”.
We should not be dictated to when it comes to the control of our borders. I challenge any hon. Member who thinks that the judges in Strasbourg have superior jurisdiction to that of this Parliament. My amendment would restore the proper balance of power.
The heart of the matter, and the reason passions run so high around the Bill, is what kind of country the UK is, or what we think it is. Opposition Members think that this country is a cruel, petty, small-minded small island that ignores its responsibility to the most vulnerable people in the world. That is what they think this country is, but our side of the House does not think so. We know that we have obligations to the world’s refugees and we are determined to fulfil them, but we think the first and foundational principle that defines the UK—the source and basis of all our generosity and our engagement with the problems of the world—is that we are a law-governed nation and that the laws that govern us are made here, in this building, by the representatives of the people. That is the principle that holds everything together. That is why Britain is respected abroad. That is the basis of our peace and prosperity, and our extraordinary history. It is why, directly or indirectly, so many people from other countries want to come and live here, whether they come legally or illegally—because we are a safe, prosperous, law-governed and sovereign nation. No human rights framework, no international convention, can dictate to us that we should tolerate illegality, let alone illegal entry to our country and all the privileges of residence here.
We need, with this Bill, to remember the people who sent us to this place and what they expect of us. They expect us to defend the interests and the values of the law-abiding citizens of this country, and to put the laws that we make here ahead of the interpretation of a foreign court. Statute is sovereign. Parliament is sovereign. The public expect us to have the courage to discharge our duty and take back control of our borders, as we promised we would when we left the EU. I believe the Bill will do that, with some strengthening. I know that the Government share my view, and I look forward to working with them ahead of Report to make the Bill watertight.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), with whom I agree about the source of human rights. Sometimes we need to have an arbiter, a human one, who will prevent us from being our worst selves, and I fear that the Government are being their worst self in this instance. I fear that the Bill, with its flagship title—no pun intended—will not stop the boats. I want to stop the boats, because every person who gets into a rickety boat on the French side of the channel and takes the risk of crossing it is a potential tragedy. We should all want those boat crossings to stop. However, I am convinced that the Bill will do nothing of the sort.
This Bill is dozy and it is dangerous. It is dozy because it will not work and will be counterproductive; it is dangerous for genuine refugees—we will not know who they are unless we seek to assess them in the first place—and it is dangerous for Britain’s reputation and therefore to our power overseas, soft or otherwise, thus undermining our sovereignty. It fails the moral test, not just because of the impact on those who seek sanctuary on our shores, but because it is based on a hysterical and bogus pretext. The context is important here, and so is the language. The fact that the Home Secretary and other refer to the UK’s being “swamped” by refugees is an outrage as much as it is totally and utterly inaccurate. In a league table of European countries, the United Kingdom ranks 20th among those taking refugees, per capita. It takes a third of the number taken by France, and a quarter of the number taken by Germany.
The bogus premise on which the Bill is based is set out clearly and obviously. Intelligent Conservative Members—and I am sure they are all intelligent—understand that, yet they continue to promulgate this nonsense. Nevertheless, language has consequences. Do Conservative Members not realise that when far-right protesters stood on the pavement screaming abuse at some terrified person fleeing persecution and simply awaiting an assessment, that was caused in no small part by the incendiary language used by politicians and people in the media? It is outrageous.
Lia Nici
And I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given way. Does he not realise that we are in this position because the left wing-supporting lawyers have taken us to this point? When I knock on my constituents’ doors, they ask, “Who is running this country? The Government, we who voted you in, or the left wing-supporting lawyers?” We are in this situation because left-wing extremists are trying to stop our democracy from functioning.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Lady for articulating the case so clearly. When all is said and done, we should ask why we have a problem. I have set out irrefutable numbers showing where we are in the world, and in Europe, in terms of the number of asylum seekers we receive on our shores: far fewer than most European countries, far fewer than many smaller European countries, and an absolute blinking fraction compared with the likes of Lebanon, for instance. Nevertheless, we have a problem, and why do we have a problem? Because the Home Office is dysfunctional.
It is outrageous that there are people sitting in hotels and hostels being jeered at by right-wing protesters, wound up by those on the other side of the House who have used—if I am being generous—intemperate language. Why are there so many people in those places? Because the system is broken. We are not “swamped” by refugees; we have an asylum system run by an incompetent Government, and what is perhaps the most morally outrageous aspect of this whole debate is the fact that these people, whether or not they are genuine asylum seekers—and we will not know whether or not they are unless we blooming well assess them—are being blamed for the Government’s incompetence. What a moral outrage. There is, of course, a case for making changes in the law, and I do not believe in open borders, but what the Government are proposing is uncontrollable borders. As I have said, language has consequences, and we should be careful about how we use it.
Laura Farris
We in the Home Affairs Committee heard from Dan O’Mahoney, the clandestine channel threat commander, that the number of arrivals on small boats with any identifying documents is almost zero, because the people smugglers encourage them to dispense with all “pocket litter”, as he described it—passports, phones and SIM cards—on the basis that it will confuse those at the Home Office and make it impossible for them to distinguish between asylum seekers who are genuine and those who are not. Is not one of the problems experienced by the Home Office the fact that it is confronted with people who cannot prove who they are? Is not that, and the direction given by the people smugglers, at the root of this issue, rather than Government incompetence?
Tim Farron
In which case, the hon. Lady would propose a Bill that aimed to stop the boats and undermine—
Tim Farron
I am trying to respond to the hon. Lady’s first point. [Interruption.]
Tim Farron
If the hon. Lady really wanted to deal with the issue that she has just articulated, she would do something to undermine the business case of the people smugglers. Of course these people are doing what they are guided to do—
Laura Farris
The hon. Gentleman is challenging the Government to pass legislation that requires the arrivals to produce documents. The last Labour Government tried that with the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, which made an asylum claim contingent on the provision of adequate documents. I do not know what has happened to that legislation—perhaps the Labour Front Bencher who winds up the debate can illuminate us—but the truth is that successive Governments have tried to require the provision of identification documents, but 20 years later people are still arriving without them, and are being given asylum on the basis of what the Home Office cannot prove.
Tim Farron
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention, but if she really wanted to achieve that, she would support safe and legal routes. That is the way to tackle those problems. The simple fact is that we are dealing with a political issue. Why? Because the Government have failed to retain control of the asylum process. They do not trust their own process. I believe in assessing people to establish whether they are genuine asylum seekers or not, and then returning them if they are not. I want a system that is fair and tough, but the Government are proposing a system that is unfair and weak.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but we also need a system that is timely and does not leave people hanging on for years and years. The Government say that they have cut the backlog by 50%, whereas the UK Statistics Authority says that it has increased by 777% on the Government’s watch. We cannot have an honest debate when the statistics are so badly skewed.
Tim Farron
Exactly. It is very easy to make the case that the Government are making when these are all faceless people, but a couple of months ago, I met an Afghan citizen in the constituency of my friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell). This guy had been waiting 13 months to have his case heard. He had been an interpreter for the British forces in Afghanistan, and we had left him behind. His wife and two children were hiding back in Afghanistan, waiting and rotting. That is not due to the fact that we do not yet have the Bill; it is due to the fact that we have a Government who are incompetent and uncaring when it comes to people who have served our country and whom they have let down badly.
Wera Hobhouse
Is not an obvious sign of the Government’s failure the fact that only 22 Afghanistan citizens have been resettled under the Government’s resettlement scheme, while thousands are waiting in danger?
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Lady for making that important and powerful point.
Let us deal with another of the dozy charges aimed at those of us who think this Bill is at best mistaken. We are asked why people would want to come here, escaping from war-torn France. Why do they not stay in France, as it is not a dangerous country? I could make some quips about the current state of play over there, but I will not. Let us remember that 86% of people fleeing their homes go to the neighbouring country and stay there, so only about 14% of refugees go beyond their neighbouring country, and a fraction come to Europe. In case Conservative Members need a geography lesson, we are at the end of the line; we are on the other side of the channel, at the far west of Europe. We are the place that they get to last. We have already established that France takes three times as many refugees as we do.
Yasmin Qureshi
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case. On the question of figures, is this not part of the bogus nonsense being spouted by the Government when the Secretary of State goes on television to say that 100 million people are making their way to the United Kingdom and then someone else goes on television to say that about 1 billion people are making their way to the United Kingdom?
Tim Farron
Yes. There are arguments for stricter or less strict measures for dealing with migration and asylum, and it is important to discuss those, but it does not help when we have bogus nonsense figures being spouted, sometimes in this place. That just creates more heat and no light.
Let us deal with the charge that France is a safe place, that people should not be allowed to come here from there and they should just stay there. France could say that to Italy and Spain—
Tim Farron
I will not give way again, sorry. I have taken loads of interventions and I am testing everyone’s patience; my speech is now 11 minutes in.
France could say the same to Italy or Spain, and then Italy or Spain could say, “Stay in the sea.” What we are seeing now is an attempt to undermine Britain’s part in the globe. We were told by some Conservative Members that we were leaving the European Union but not Europe, and that we would now be “global Britain.” Ignoring for a moment the moral obligations we have to people seeking sanctuary, let us remember what message it will send to our neighbours, friends and allies around Europe and elsewhere if we unilaterally decide that we are not going to play the game. This undermines our soft power and our sovereignty. This is why we support new clause 3, which deals with setting a target and gives a clear sense of Britain stepping up to the plate and being part of a global operation.
The Government talk about deterrence, but the Bill fails to understand the horrors that people have been through. People who have left Sudan or Eritrea often go through Libya, and I would ask Conservative Members to spend a moment to research what it is like for a refugee passing from the horn of Africa, for example, through to Libya and then crossing the Mediterranean. What are their experiences? We tell those people that it will be scary and that we are not going to treat them very nicely when they cross the channel, but that is nothing compared with their experience of crossing Libya. I ask Members to inform themselves about that in particular.
The Bill is clearly not aimed at tackling the criminal gangs. The simple fact is that the criminal gangs’ business model will remain alive and well. Why? Because people will arrive on these shores and then not claim asylum. They will go under the radar, which fuels modern slavery and criminality. More people will be exploited, especially women and girls. There is no question whatsoever that this Bill will do anything to tackle the business model of those gangs—it is clearly not intended to, which is another outrage. It is indeed a traffickers’ charter. It will therefore lead to more deaths in the channel. It is a recipe for uncontrollable borders, because there will be nobody applying for asylum. They will just slip under the radar. If the Government had done an impact assessment, they would know that. Maybe they did, but they have not shared it with us.
The simple fact is that we need safe and legal routes. People from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong stand a chance, one way or another, of having a safe route to the United Kingdom. But if you are a young Christian man seeking to avoid being conscripted in Eritrea, a woman seeking sanctuary from Iran or a person from a religious minority in Sudan, you have no chance whatsoever of getting here. That is morally outrageous. We are turning our back on our long-held principles and obligations. That is why new clause 6 is so important and why, with your permission, Dame Eleanor, we will push it to a vote tonight.
New clause 6 would ringfence asylum seekers from those countries that already have an 80%-plus grant rate—places such as Sudan, Eritrea and Iran. It proposes a pilot scheme for 12 months—this is measured, small and not all that ambitious—just to give the Government an opportunity not to be duplicitous about this and to show that we are at least providing an experimental and evidence-based safe route. I urge the Government to accept the new clause; otherwise, we will seek to divide the House. New clause 4 talks about a humanitarian travel permit, and new clause 7 deals with refugee family reunion.
If the Government seriously want to make the case that the Bill is going to undermine the business case of the people traffickers, evil as they are, they will fail to do so unless they provide meaningful, tangible, credible safe and legal routes. Those routes do not currently exist, and these new clauses allow the Government the opportunity to create them. If they will not accept them, this will prove that they do not have a plan to stop the boats and that they are just getting into the gutter to grub for votes.
To be fair, I think the Government have misjudged those who seek sanctuary here. I have met many of them. I have been to Calais and other places, and I have had to interrogate why people would choose to come to the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Devizes set out many of those reasons, but I have never discovered among those people any who have heard of the national health service or our benefit system. The lie that they are somehow coming over here to sponge off or threaten us is just that: it is simply untrue.
But those people have heard of something: they have heard of a Britain that is safe, where they can raise their children, where they can be who they are and have whatever faith they may be and whatever political views they may hold—a place where they can raise and feed their family in safety. I cannot imagine anything making me more proud than that being the reputation of this country. No amount of small-minded attempts to change the law by this “here today, gone tomorrow” Tory Government will dent that reputation. I think the Government have misjudged not only the asylum seekers, but Britain too.
Let me tell the House a story about my constituency, and then I will shut up. Let us be honest, the Lake District is not the most diverse part of the United Kingdom, yet in August 1945 half the children who survived the death camps, including Auschwitz, came to Windermere to be rehabilitated and to start their lives afresh, because that is who we really are. That is who Britain really is and we should be proud of that. Let us absolutely stop the boats, but let us do so in a way that makes sense and that is neither dozy nor dangerous.
Sir John Hayes
It is conventional in this place to say that it is a delight and a joy to follow the preceding speaker, and generally one does so as a matter of convention, but I am always pleased to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), even though I disagreed with almost everything he said. I know that he speaks with integrity and that he believes in his heart what he has said today, but I have to tell him that his purity—if I may put it in those terms—and his absolute Christian dignity have got the better of his reason in respect of this issue.
The hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine, expect this House to be where power lies, for it is this House that is answerable to them. He owes his political legitimacy to his relationship with the people he described in his constituency, as I do to those in mine. When other powers in other places supersede the authority of this House, in the way the European judges did when they held up the planes for those being sent to Rwanda, our constituents feel not only frustrated but let down. They feel let down because they see the will of this House and the will of our Government being impeded, and indeed frustrated, by those overseas powers.
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is deeply confused about the difference between treaty law and statute. Perhaps she will explain that.
Yasmin Qureshi
I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s mind to the 1970s when, in this country, a Conservative Government passed legislation saying that a married woman, or any woman, coming to this country had to go through a virginity test, and it was the European Court of Human Rights that overturned that British legislation. Are you really telling me that you think that legislation was correct?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think the hon. Lady means the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, not me.
Yasmin Qureshi
Is the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) really telling me that he thinks that decision by the European Court of Human Rights was wrong?
Sir John Hayes
I never knowingly defend the Heath Government, so I will not accept any connection with their measures. Indeed, it was Edward Heath who, against the interests of the British people, took us into the European Union in the first place, but I will not go down that road as it is not relevant to the amendments before us.
In the spirit I have just outlined, I will address the significance of the Bill and the amendments before us, in the context of the Government’s determination not only to tackle the issue of immigration per se, but to deal, in particular, with illegal immigration in the form of boats arriving in Dover. Just as we won the referendum campaign with the simple slogan “Take back control,” so it seems to me we will win this argument with a similar slogan: “Stop the boats.”
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is an authority on all matters of this kind.
Daniel Kawczynski
When I arrived in this country as an immigrant in October 1978, I was bowled over by the hospitality and kindness I came across. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, in order to maintain the British people’s welcome for outsiders coming here, we have to deal with illegal migration? That is why it is so important that we support the Bill this evening.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is right, of course. In a sense, his comments reflect the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but the spirit, character and reputation that Britain enjoys depend on both lawfulness and propriety. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our generosity should be defined by proper rules and standards.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) challenged the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on the issue of people not bringing documents, I was left to wonder, as others may have been, why on earth a legitimate asylum seeker who is pleased to come here on the basis he outlined would want to discard the documents that would prove their case. Why would they do that? That is the kind of question my constituents ask me. I have to conclude that many people disguise their identity and discard their documents not because they want to make it more straightforward for the Home Office to deal with their claim, for clearly it would not make it more straightforward, but because they have something to hide.
Last year, 33% of the people arriving in small boats were from Albania. That proportion has now fallen because the Government have done something about it. So much for inefficient Ministers and the inefficient Home Office. They dealt with the Albania issue, and they will now deal with this issue with equal alacrity and skill.
Stella Creasy
I fear the right hon. Gentleman may have misread the statistics, because it was Afghans who made up 33% of arrivals. Between October and December 2022, only 9% of small boat arrivals were Albanian.
Perhaps, as a general principle, we should not try to process claims in the Chamber. We should look at the evidence. Many of us who deal with asylum seekers have had that conversation, about why papers are missing, and we have been told very clearly that the traffickers tell them to tear up and remove their papers because that makes it easier for the traffickers. When was the last time the right hon. Gentleman spoke to someone who came to the UK by an irregular route and who did not have their paperwork? What did they tell him? Can he tell us about the evidence he has from actually working with these people and understanding the pressures they are under?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady informs many of her arguments in this place with anecdotes, sometimes with undue success, but I will not be drawn into an anecdotal debate because I want to address the issue in a rather more serious way—I do not mean to disparage her, of course.
In addressing amendments 133 and 134 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), amendment 131 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and amendment 132 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), I want to be clear about the purpose of this Bill and why these amendments make sense. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with this matter as definitively as it can reasonably be addressed. The purpose of the Bill is to tighten the arrangements in respect of illegal immigration, and the amendments strengthen that aim. Our job, against a backdrop in which people are arriving in small boats and breaching our borders with impunity, is to re-establish the sovereignty of this country and the integrity of our borders by delivering legislation that does just that.
These amendments are designed to do two things. First, they would give the Government more power to achieve this objective. Secondly, they would limit the opportunities, which we know will be taken, to frustrate the Government’s will and, by extension, Parliament’s will to do more to address this matter.
I commend the Minister and the Home Secretary for their work on the Bill, but I am certain that the expectations it creates, the time it absorbs and the opposition it will undoubtedly generate, mean that, if it fails and the Government are found wanting, Conservative Members will pay a heavy price. The Minister knows we have been down this road before with the Nationality and Borders Act, which we were told would do the job. I do not think Ministers were deceiving us—they genuinely believed it would do the job—yet, although we did exactly what I described by devoting time and political capital, raising expectations and bringing about opposition, we found that we could not achieve what we wanted to and that we needed additional legislation to do so.
We will not be given a third chance. This is our second chance to deal, once and for all, with the boats arriving at Dover and with the tidal wave—the Home Secretary described it as a “swarm”—of people who know they are arriving illegally and are breaking the law, for they know they have no papers and no right to be here. They therefore make a nonsense of an immigration system that must have integrity if it is to garner and maintain popular support.
Of course, people enter and leave countries, but they need to do so legally. Surely it is not too much to express that simple statement. It is not too much to expect a Government to maintain lawful control of our borders, yet I constantly hear from Opposition Members that this is militant, unreasonable, extreme. It is anything but. It is modest, moderate, just and virtuous to have a system that ensures the people who come here do so lawfully, and that people who arrive here seeking asylum are dealt with properly. That is a modest aim, and it will be made more achievable by the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Devizes and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.
Given that the Minister is an old, trusted and good friend, I hope that, when he sums up the debate, he will agree to enter into a dialogue with those of us who speak for the people. We claim no more—no greater plaudit—than that we are the spokesmen of the hard-working, patriotic, lawful majority of the people of this country. In speaking for those people, we hope that he will enter into a dialogue with those of us who have tabled and supported these amendments with the aim of improving the Bill, of doing his work with him and for him, and in so doing honouring the pledge that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made to the people of this country. Honouring that pledge is the right thing to do, the just thing to do and, indeed, the virtuous thing to do.
Joanna Cherry
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Eleanor. It is convention to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, but I find it hard to say that because I do not agree with anything that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said. It is an extraordinary proposition to say that, to use his words, it is virtuous and just for the United Kingdom to pass legislation that is in breach of our international obligations. These are not obligations that have been imposed on us from above. They are obligations to which we freely signed up. If the Government and Conservative Members do not like the obligations to which they freely signed up, they should have the courage of their convictions and join their chums in Russia and Belarus as non-signatories to the European convention on human rights. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but it is true: those are the other two countries in Europe that cannot live with the obligations in the European convention on human rights.
I want to make another preliminary point before I go any further. The right hon. Gentleman does not speak for my constituents—he does not speak for the people of Edinburgh South West. The contents of my mailbox and my conversations with constituents show that he does not speak for them. He does not speak for other voters in Scotland, either. We are proud of our international obligations, and we would like to remain a signatory to the European convention on human rights.
There is widespread concern about this Bill, and not just from lefty lawyers, to whom the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) referred earlier.
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not at this stage; I want to develop my point. I have been a lawyer for many years, and it pains me to say this—because I am a lefty lawyer —but if the hon. Lady knew much about the legal profession she would know that most lawyers are actually not lefties. However, what most lawyers do have, in contrast to the Conservative Members who have spoken so far today, is respect for the rule of law and for legal obligations freely entered into. Nobody took the hand of the United Kingdom and forced it to sign the convention. We did so freely, of our own volition. I repeat that, if Conservative Members do not like the obligations any longer, because they occasionally throw up results they do not like, they should have the courage of their convictions and leave the convention.
Joanna Cherry
I want to develop my point. I will take interventions in a moment. I do not want to take up too much time.
I rise to speak mainly to amendment 122, which is in my name, and to support the amendments tabled on behalf of the Scottish National party by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I also add my support to the excellent and forensic points made, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). It is a great pity that the Minister chose to take no notes while my hon. Friend was speaking, because he made some very good points and it would be really nice to hear why the Government disagree with them. At the end of six hours of debate, it is going to be difficult for the Minister to answer those points, given that he paid no attention to them and did not make any notes.
I tabled amendment 122 in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am very grateful to those hon. Members who have lent their support to it. I am not going to press it, because the Committee has only just commenced its legal scrutiny of this Bill. That is not because we are dragging our feet, but because the Bill has been bounced on us at such short notice. We have very little time to undertake that scrutiny, but we hope to report before the Bill has finished its passage through the Lords. At that point, I hope we will be able to recommend some detailed amendments.
Amendment 122 is a probing amendment that gives me the opportunity to explain to the Government the legal basis of our obligations to obey the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, because an awful lot of what we in Scotland call mince—which is a technical legal term—has been spoken about that so far.
As a preliminary point, I also want to stress the widespread opposition to this Bill. Our own Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Council of Europe all have severe concerns about this Bill’s impact on our international legal obligations. The UNHCR also has severe concerns about it, as have the Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, many other very respectable civil society organisations and many of our constituents.
Over the weekend, I received a number of letters from primary 7 pupils at Oxgangs Primary School in my constituency of Edinburgh South West. The gist of their letters was that we are a wealthy nation—the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who is no longer in his place, referred to the United Kingdom as a wealthy country; it is not a country but a union of nations—and we need to do more to help refugees. As other hon. Members have said, the majority of displaced people in this world just go to the country next door. It is only a very tiny fraction who come to the United Kingdom, looking for our help. I think that what those young people were trying to say is that we have a moral obligation to them. I think they were also making the point that human rights are universal. The Government need to remember that. This Bill seeks to carve out certain categories of people to whom human rights will not be applicable in the same way as they are to me and my constituents. That is simply wrong.
The purpose of amendment 122, which relates to clause 49, is to ensure that we recognise that the United Kingdom is bound to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and that any regulations made under clause 49 do not undermine that principle. The amendment is consistent with the unanimous recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights when we reported on a similar provision in the Bill of Rights Bill.
It is important to set out the legal basis on which the United Kingdom is bound to comply with those interim measures, and I will take a couple of minutes to do so. Under rule 39 of the rules of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court may indicate interim measures to any state party—not just the United Kingdom—that has freely signed up to the convention. They are usually sought in connection with immigration removal or extradition cases, and they amount to a requirement that the removal or extradition be suspended—not stopped—until the case has been fully examined. Case law from the Court has established that requests for interim measures are granted only exceptionally, when applicants would otherwise face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm. They are granted from time to time against the United Kingdom, but in fact that is very rarely the case. In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights received 1,020 requests from across the Council of Europe for interim measures and granted 625 of them. However, between 2019 and 2021, the interim measures under rule 39 were applied for in 880 cases against the UK, but granted in just seven of them.
This rides a coach and horses through our freely entered into international legal obligations in respect of interim measures—it really is taking a hammer to crack a nut. Interim measures appear in the rules of the Court rather than in the convention itself, which has led some commentators—including some Conservative Members —to argue that the UK is not bound to comply with them. This is particularly the case because article 46 of the convention, which concerns the
“Binding force and execution of judgments”,
only commits the UK to abide by final judgments of the Court, and does not mention interim measures.
Joanna Cherry
I will give way in a moment. I just want to develop my point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that we have been arguing about this for years. This is an important point to make.
It is sometimes assumed that this Parliament just took on the character of the English constitution when it unified with the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is worth considering that there are other notions of sovereignty. In my country, the people are sovereign, not the Parliament, and they can choose to share their sovereignty with, for example, the Edinburgh Parliament, this Parliament and other international institutions. The endless obsessing about the sovereignty of Parliament is not particularly helpful. Where I really disagree with the hon. Gentleman is in this: I think that the Human Rights Act was an elegant solution to fulfilling our rights under the convention, while also respecting the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Sir William Cash
I wish to reply to the hon. and learned Lady by saying that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament rests with the United Kingdom Parliament. I know that she would quite like to leave it, but, on the other hand, she is bound by it, and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 specifies quite clearly that the sovereignty is guaranteed.
Joanna Cherry
The Union between Scotland and England was freely entered into. I know that some people are under the misapprehension that now it is some sort of “Hotel California” situation, where we can check out but cannot leave, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Union. The views that I am expounding about sovereignty are not just my eccentric views, but the views that have been expounded by many well-respected Scottish jurists, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is worthwhile sometimes to take a step back. With all due respect to some of my English friends, they get a bit hysterical about parliamentary sovereignty. Sovereignty can be shared and, ultimately, I believe that sovereignty lies with the people. I will just leave it at that.
Laura Farris
It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I will try to avoid too much mince in my own speech, but to continue in the respectful tone that she has struck.
I wish to take a little of the heat out of this debate and to say that I think the British people would recognise in the United Kingdom a country that has honoured its commitments since the launch of the 1951 refugee convention to offer sanctuary to those with a well-founded fear of persecution. The record of the past seven years, where close to half a million people have been granted asylum on humanitarian grounds, bears testimony to that.
I think that the British people would also recognise that there are peculiar and unique problems that have arisen with the small boat crossings. Five years ago, in 2018, 300 people made that journey; last year, it was 45,000. Of those, 80% were men aged between 18 and 40, all of whom had paid a people smuggler and all of whom had the physical strength and wherewithal to make a journey across continental Europe through the small boat route. We know that a third of them arriving last year were Albanian.
I just want to read what Dan O’Mahoney told the Home Affairs Committee—I see that the Chair is in her place—when he appeared before it last October. I am quoting verbatim. He said about the Albanian arrivals:
“The rise has been exponential, and we think that is in the main due to the fact that Albanian criminal gangs have gained a foothold in the north of France and have begun facilitating very large numbers of migrants… Whatever sort of criminality you can think of…there are Albanian criminal gangs dominating”—
in this country—
“whether it is drug smuggling, human trafficking, guns or prostitution.”
He said that a lot of the Albanian migrants
“are not actually interested in seeing their asylum claim through… We typically put them in a hotel for a couple of days, and then they will disappear”
into the underworld.
That unique and specific problem requires a unique and specific answer. We all agree on safe and legal routes. I will not improve on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) in his powerful speech. I heard from those on the Labour Front Bench, for the first time tonight, that they also endorse quotas, which is part of this Bill, and we agree with that.
In case my intervention earlier was not clear enough, I was simply saying that Harvey Redgrave, writing in a thoughtful piece for the Tony Blair Institute last July, talked about not only safe and legal routes, out-of-country rights of appeal and quotas, but an absolute prohibition on small boat arrivals. That really is the disputed issue in this legislation.
I rise to speak in response to amendments 131 and 132, which were tabled by two Conservatives, one of whom, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), is in his place.
Sir John Hayes
Before my hon. Friend moves on, many countries have a cap per se on immigration. In Australia, Parliament debates an annual cap; when David Cameron and George Osborne were running the Conservative party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Home Secretary, we said that that number should be counted in the tens of thousands. Perhaps that is what we should go back to.
Laura Farris
It is certainly true that the promise inherent in the refugee convention—an offer to the world at large, conceived in an era before easyJet, before people going on holiday to any country and before mass migration—must be looked at through a different lens in the year 2023. Many of our international partners are now talking in that way, and we may have to have a debate on a different occasion to talk about the issue more broadly.
Laura Farris
I am just going to make a tiny bit of progress, because I have not really started and there is not much time.
I want to respond to amendments 131 and 132, which would do slightly different things but have the same effect. I will look at you, Dame Eleanor, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will not be offended if he has to look at my back. Amendment 131 would exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and amendment 132 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 in so far as they may be relevant to decisions taken under this Bill.
I want to say at the outset that I understand the impulse that has brought my hon. Friend here—namely the frustration with the exercise of the rule 39 injunctive relief decision in July, which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West covered so well in her speech. She will know as well as I do that rule 39 is not an inherent part of the European convention on human rights; she said in her speech that it is a rule of the Court.
That decision was taken by a single judge alone. The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out that that is common and standard in injunctive proceedings, but it is none the less somewhat surprising to see that matter go through in the eyes of the High Court, the Court of Appeal here and, finally, the Supreme Court, and then be overturned by the decision of a single judge in Europe. We do not even know who the judge was, but we know that Tim Eicke, our own British judge who sits on the European Court, has never sat as a High Court judge. He is a barrister. I say that with deference to his brilliance, and of course I am not criticising him; that is standard for the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is odd to see our own Supreme Court, with some of the most brilliant justices in the world, being overruled, under a Court rule, by somebody who is probably not of their status. I think that is a true statement.
Joanna Cherry
I went on to say that in the case of Paladi v. Moldova, the Grand Chamber said that a failure to comply with interim measures amounts to a violation of article 34 of the convention, because the high contracting parties have undertaken not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of applicants to bring their claims before the Court. Whereas it was originally in the rules of Court, the Grand Chamber has now said that failure to obtemper or comply with that would be a violation of article 34 of the convention.
Laura Farris
I take the hon. and learned Lady’s point. We are obviously adhering to that, but as a rule of the Court.
Moving on, I was glad to read recently, whether in a press release or in a tweet—I cannot recall—the Home Secretary saying she was glad that constructive talks were now taking place between representatives of the British Government and members of the European Court of Human Rights, focused on resolving that issue. I say that is good because I think it should be possible to resolve that issue, since it is a rule of the Court rather than a principle of human rights. I hope we can move on from there.
If I may say so, with great respect, I do not accept that that decision in itself justifies these two amendments. I think both are weak for legal and constitutional reasons, and I will set out why. First, on amendment 131, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) said that he had relied on a paper written for Policy Exchange by Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws. I challenge the expertise of both those people—I question it. One of them has contacted me in the past, but neither are practitioners, and it shows in their writing that they are not regularly in court.
Laura Farris
I will in a moment; I am going to make my points.
On the first element of amendment 132, which seeks to exclude the operation of the Human Rights Act, the only realistic basis for someone who arrived via small boat to challenge their removal to a safe third country under the Human Rights Act would be either article 2 or article 3 of the European convention—the right to life, or not to have one’s life endangered, and the right to freedom from torture.
Laura Farris
I am sorry; I will come to my hon. Friend in a moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wrote an article in “Conservative Home” today in which they said and endorsed:
“Individuals would not be removed if they are medically unfit to fly, or will face persecution in the destination country.”
That is the non-refoulement principle, which is at the heart of the refugee convention. One thing that shows the lack of expertise in this area is that the same principle ripples through the common law, the refugee convention and the European convention of human rights; it applies across the board. It is even set out in terms in this legislation. Therefore, it would be pointless to derogate from the Human Rights Act on that question, because the principle that protects people from persecution is so embedded in any event.
Sir William Cash
I just wanted to point out, in case other Members of the House do not know, that Professor Ekins is a professor of law at Oxford University and Sir Stephen Laws is a former first parliamentary counsel. I think those are rather good credentials compared with the views of what I would describe as ordinary barristers.
Laura Farris
No disrespect is intended, but it is clear that they are not frequently in court arguing these cases, because if they were, they would know the way the law ran.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady and I do not agree about a lot of things, but I believe she has expertise in this area as a barrister—that is correct, is it not?
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady has expertise and has practised in this area, so I suggest to her hon. Friends that her views deserve a degree of respect.
Laura Farris
On the Government side of the House, I am probably the Member who has most recently been in the immigration tribunals, so I have an idea, but it is not my principal practice area.
The other thing that I think is relevant is that Parliament has in the past successfully recalibrated the interpretation of the convention and changed the way it is interpreted, and had no difficulty with that. The Bill already takes a number of novel steps in relation to established law. First, it creates an absolute duty of removal on the Home Secretary that applies irrespective of any human rights claim, with the exception of the non-refoulement principle. Secondly, the Bill expands powers of immigration detention, granting the Secretary of State a power to determine the period that is “reasonably necessary”, in some ways overriding established Hardial Singh principles. Thirdly, it limits the rights of appeal: the individual has a right of appeal, but that is capped at one. In my respectful submission, the Government must have the opportunity to see those clauses enacted, because I believe that they will be upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.
Back in 2012, the coalition Government changed the immigration rules in relation to the deportation of foreign national offenders and the application of article 8, which is the right to respect for private and family life. Parliament took the view that that was too often being interpreted in favour of the ex-convict, and, as a result, set new rules—from paragraph 398 onwards of the established immigration rules—to make it clear that there were limited circumstances in which article 8 should be engaged. Parliament said in terms that the balance should be struck in favour of the overwhelming public interest in deportation, above any article 8 claim unless there were very compelling circumstances to the contrary. That was upheld in successive decisions by our appeal courts, beginning with MF (Nigeria) in the Court of Appeal.
The decision by Parliament to circumscribe the ambit of article 8 when it applied to criminals was taken to the European Court of Human Rights for years, but the court would not hear the issue at all until 2017 in the case of Ndidi. I reminded myself today of how that case was approached. In fact, a quite compelling article 8 argument was made: the person had arrived in the United Kingdom as a baby and had never been anywhere else, and the offending was quite low level—drug dealing rather than any harm to the person. The courts here had said that he must be deported to a country that he had never been to before. He challenged that in the European Court of Human Rights, which said, “No, the British Government are absolutely entitled to circumscribe the application of article 8 in the way that they have.” His claim was rejected.
My simple point is that we can do things—in the way that the Government are seeking through the Bill—that may well be compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I have struggled to find any example of the court overturning primary legislation, which is what the Bill is, or constructing it in a way that is disadvantageous to the member state. The fact that so many Members refer back to the prisoner voting case does not enhance their argument. That case is 20 years old and has been reversed. I accept without reservation that it was wrongly decided—I think there was overreach—but I have heard no example from the last 20 years to suggest that the Court is still making the same mistakes.
We have talked about the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 not being a success, but that was not because the European Court of Human Rights said that it was unlawful or overreached; we simply concluded that it did not yet work. For those reasons, I think that the Bill already goes very far and should be given the chance to work through.
Sir John Hayes
This is a fascinating description of the three ways in which we can deal with this matter. One way is to leave the convention altogether, which is what I would favour but is not what we are proposing or debating tonight. The second is to have some kind of “notwithstanding clause” of the kind that has been proposed. The third is to assume, through the interpretation of the Court of the will of Parliament and Government, that we will have our way. My hon. Friend is making a good case for the third way, but the problem with that is that it places a great deal of faith—although she says that she does so on the basis of precedent—in the Court to honour the will of this House. I am not sure that I would have the same degree of faith. If she does not like the work of Professor Ekins and so on, I recommend that she look at the speech given at Cambridge University by the Home Secretary—when she was Attorney General —on the interpretative matters that my hon. Friend describes.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should sit down when allowing an intervention.
Laura Farris
I am sorry, Dame Eleanor.
To respond to my right hon. Friend’s intervention, it is dangerous to conflate what has been understood on the Conservative Benches to have been called “overreach” in the application of rule 39—on which I agree—with an overenthusiasm of the Court to involve itself in primary legislation, which is what the Bill will be. I see no precedent for that concern, so I hope that I can allay my right hon. Friend’s fear to some extent.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
To add to the list of our right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), is there not a fourth option in—call me old fashioned—ensuring that His Majesty’s Government meet our international obligations wherever that may be? That is option four, and one that I think commands quite strong support across the Committee.
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me to my final argument.
Wrenching change from either the applicability of the Human Rights Act or the jurisdiction of the Court is a dangerous path to go down. The European convention on human rights is fundamental to the devolution settlements in Wales and Northern Ireland, and it also plays a distinct role in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As we are so near to the 25th anniversary of that agreement, I want to read out how the European convention on human rights was framed as an integral safeguard:
“There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions and that all sections of the community are protected, including…the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)…which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe”.
At the time of the conclusion of that agreement, there was a climate of deep scepticism about British courts following the establishment of, for example, Diplock courts and other things that were controversial. The European Court of Human Rights is not just something to which lip service is paid; it is integral to the proper functioning of that agreement.
I must mention our proud history in the formation and construction of the European convention on human rights—it is well known that David Maxwell Fyfe was a Conservative MP. It is unsurprising, then, that we are one of the states with the lowest number of adverse findings. We should be very wary of quick fixes. We said throughout the Brexit debate that we would be taking back control of our borders, but it is more complex than that. My point tonight is that leaving the convention, or derogating from it, is not the answer. That will not do the job and will undermine the effect of the Bill, which I think will be upheld as lawful by the European Court of Human Rights in the event that it is referred there.
Stella Creasy
I wish to reassure the Committee that I will speak only to the amendments that have been selected for this evening—I know that we have debates on other amendments scheduled tomorrow, and I have amendments in both selections.
I beg your leave, Dame Eleanor, to reflect on the fact that, while this important debate has been taking place, Jess England, a member of my staff, has just won parliamentary staffer of the year. Jess has first-hand knowledge of the things that we are discussing because she has for years helped me work with people seeking asylum—refugees from around the world who have come to the UK and have a connection to Walthamstow. I put on the record my gratitude to Jess, whose award is long overdue. If she were here now, she could bring much light to this debate as somebody who knows about the reality for people fleeing persecution.
It is a genuine honour to follow the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). We may be in different political parties, but I recognise how brave she has just been to make that speech and to speak up for the importance of human rights, which has increasingly become an extreme view in the Conservative movement. I recognise the power of her speech and its many points, and the expertise that she put on the record. The House benefits from light, not heat, in such debates.
There is clarity in that there is not a single Member among us who wants to help the smugglers; not a single Member among us thinks that small boats crossing the English channel is an acceptable or reasonable way to proceed. The difference is in how we address the issue; whether we pour oil on that fire or seek, in our amendments, to recognise the best of Britain—to be the actual patriots in this Chamber. So far, we have talked so much about the ways people travel, but not about who is travelling.
Different statistics have been bandied around. We know that the vast majority of people in those boats are from seven countries, so let us recognise first and foremost why it matters that the legislation meets the test not of the mode of travel but of who is travelling. People fleeing persecution do not form orderly queues at the border when there is a war. When they are facing persecution for their political or religious beliefs, they cannot turn to the state to ask for their paperwork to be put in order and emailed to them so that they may cross the border with copies of it.
I reflect on the fact that the former Member for Blackburn, who was responsible for incorporating the Human Rights Act into UK legislation used to say to me, “There was left and right in Parliament, and then there were those people who dealt with the UK Border Agency and those who did not.” When dealing with people who have fled persecution, we know at first hand that it is not a simple, straightforward linear experience that accommodates well the kind of bureaucracy and administrative process that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) wishes for. That is why the refugee convention itself says that refugees should not be prosecuted for destroying their documents, for issues around immigration fraud or, indeed, for their mode of travel, recognising the reality that when the decision is life or death, life matters. I see no irony in suggesting that.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a really important point, which is not pertinent only to the small boats. We witnessed exactly the same issue with Ukraine. People were fleeing Ukraine in fear of their lives; we opened up safe routes, but many of those people had to leave all their important documentation behind.
Stella Creasy
I agree. Some of us are still dealing with people from Afghanistan—people who put their lives on the line to help British forces but have not been able to come here. They listen to the Minister talk about the idea that somehow we have taken 25,000 people under the schemes. We have not—their families are still stuck. If the Minister wants the casework, I have raised on the record before the case of a family who were split up on the way to the Baron hotel.
Stella Creasy
If the Minister will take the casework, I will take the intervention. That family need to be here.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady cannot trade in anecdote rather than facts. The facts of the matter are that the scheme has taken 25,000 individuals since just before the fall of Kabul. Those are the facts. As I always say to the hon. Lady, I am very happy to look into individual cases. But in this Chamber, we should deal in facts—not fiction.
Stella Creasy
The Minister knows that that is not how the scheme has worked; he knows that only 22 people have been resettled. He already has in his inbox the case I mentioned—it is long overdue his attention. Every single day, I think about that family. They were told that they should go to the Baron hotel. They could not get there because there was an explosion. They are now separated—the family are in hiding and the father is here, desperate and out of his mind about what to do. He was promised a safe and legal route by this Government, but of that promise there came no reality.
That is why I cannot support this Bill in its current form. First and foremost, it does nothing to the smugglers themselves. We all agree that the smugglers are the people we want to stop. Why is there not a single measure in the Bill that directly affects them? The idea that we can cut off their market does not recognise that we have seen these kinds of measures before. All that happens is the prices go up. People disappear; modern slavery increases.
Stella Creasy
Of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
Sir John Hayes
When we tackle illegal immigration, we are doing several things. We are attacking it at source by getting to the smugglers, we are dealing with the issues in the channel and on the coast, and we are creating a legislative framework fit for purpose. They are separate parts of a strategy.
Stella Creasy
I look forward to having a debate with the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow about my amendment 293, which would remove the word “Illegal” from the title of the Bill. It is not illegal to seek asylum. What he is talking about is not what the Bill will do. I have tried to urge him before not to process people’s claims in the Chamber; this is about the evidence of what we see.
I have multiple anecdotes about people who have been failed by our asylum system, the processing and the promises they were given of a safe and legal route. That is why this evening I wish to speak to the amendments about safe and legal routes. If the Government think this legislation is about illegal migration, by default there must be a legal process—so those safe and legal routes deserve much more scrutiny and attention. The Government have failed to provide a children’s rights assessment and equality impact assessment. It is so worrying that they are asking us to trust them when they cannot set out how they think people who are entitled to seek asylum because they are fleeing persecution should do so.
When I look at this Bill, I see that it needs a drastic overhaul even to meet its own ambitions or the pledges in article 31 of the refugee convention that somebody destroying their documents should not be penalised by the suggestion that their claim must be malicious. We should look at the actual evidence as to why smugglers encourage them to do that. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings suggests that somehow the Bill will do what the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 failed to do and what this Government’s policies keep failing to do. Let us learn from Einstein—that most famous refugee, who this country turned away. He said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
My new clause 17 is a probing one, on that basis. If the Government talk about safe and legal routes, we should know what those are intended to do. It simply says that the Government should set out what a safe and legal route is and which countries are therefore unsafe and require a legal route. After all, the Bill sets out countries considered to be safe. Ergo, all the countries not listed must be unsafe. The Government should tell us in Parliament how people should be able to access those routes and therefore not make dangerous journeys.
I also support new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) in new clause 10. We would all agree that all these new clauses need further work, but they all get towards a simple principle: to ask what is the role of a safe and legal route in this legislation. If the Bill is about illegal migration, what is the point of safe and legal routes? My amendment 138, which will be debated tomorrow, is about how that might then play a role in asylum processing itself.
There is a simple message in all this work. I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); that might surprise people, and I am sorry he is not in the Chamber to hear it. He said that the processing and assessing of claims matters. Absolutely, and that is why the failures we have seen for a number of years have not been to do with the refugees themselves but to do with the politicians and their failure to get to grips with this. That is why it matters that the Government are not using the correct figures from the statistics authority. They are not showing us the true scale of the problem, which legislation has consistently failed to deal with. That is why we need to do something different, such as clarifying what a safe and legal route is and how it fits into the refugee convention and our processing. In a war, there are not simple processes of admin and bureaucracy that we can push people towards, so it matters all the more that we respect and recognise that in how we treat people who still think that life is better than death and who still choose to run.
I say to some Conservative Members that one of the top countries from which the people in the boats come is Iran. I have sat in this Chamber and heard people call out the Iranian Government and speak of their concern about the persecution of people in Iran. Not half an hour later, those people talk about how awful anybody in the boats is, although Iranians are the third most common country represented in them. There is no safe route from Iran.
Stella Creasy
The Minister says there is. I am in touch with people right now, brave defenders of democracy, who have no route out and are at risk.
Robert Jenrick
Since 2015, the UK has taken more than 6,000 Iranians directly for asylum purposes. What the hon. Lady says is simply not true.
Stella Creasy
The Minister needs to be clear about how those people have been identified. There are people tonight in Tehran at direct risk of harm and needing our help. The challenge with this legislation is that it refuses to set out a safe and legal route, saying that it will be done in secondary guidance. None of us can therefore be confident enough to say to those people, “Hold up—wait for the queue and the bureaucracy. There is somewhere for you to go. Don’t worry, because help is coming.”
The Government must connect with international organisations and uphold the international rule of law. The honest truth is that the only way the world will be able to stand up to dictators and persecutors and against war is by collaborating. We have seen that in such a powerful way in Ukraine, yet we do not seem to be capable of learning the lessons by setting out schemes and being able to say to people, “Actually, there is a way forward, and we will all share the burden of standing up for these values.” That is what a sensible asylum policy would do, because it would be effective. We would cut off the boats at source by having proper, safe and legal routes for people so that they would not need to get on a boat to claim in the first place. Irregular routes are inevitable because of why people are running in the first place.
I also want to speak briefly to amendments 131 and 132—I pay testament to the Member who spoke to me previously about them—which are about our role in the European Court of Human Rights. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is not here, because I was hoping he might want a chance to clarify his earlier remark, in which he genuinely tried to suggest that Winston Churchill opposed us being part of the European Court of Human Rights. As somebody who served on the Council of Europe and repeatedly saw pictures of Winston Churchill—
Stella Creasy
I will, if the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence; I am sure he wishes to hear what I have to say. I thought it was worth hearing from the man himself, because his argument for a European Court of Human Rights was that:
“In the centre of our movement”—
don’t tell anybody that he wanted a united Europe—
“stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”
What Winston Churchill saw then, we still see now, which is overbearing Governments who do not respect the courts of law and do not want the scrutiny of law. These amendments speak to precisely that fear: that legislation in this country might be poorly drafted, burdensome or, indeed, oppressive. What we all want, and what we would find common cause with Winston Churchill on—that does not happen often—is the importance of keeping politicians honest by putting them up to the scrutiny of the courts. Now I will happily give way, to see how the hon. Gentleman feels he can be honest and whether he wants to support these amendments and take that point away.
Tom Hunt
I will attempt to answer on behalf of my colleague, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who I spoke to earlier about this. One of his key points was that what the late Sir Winston Churchill signed up in 1950 did not involve rule 39 audits. The way in which the situation has evolved means that what we are dealing with today is totally different from the situation that faced this country in 1950, so to make that comparison is crude, and it is wrong. I am sure that when my hon. Friend comes back and makes a further intervention at some point, either today or tomorrow, he will powerfully deal with the critique that the hon. Member has just put in front of him.
Stella Creasy
I hope that the hon. Member for Devizes is at dinner, because after having made that speech, I am sure he needs something to eat. I simply say that that was not what Winston Churchill stood up for—as those of us who have served on the Council of Europe and read his speeches in detail know—let alone subsequent Conservative Governments. Those Governments were part of the development of the Council of Europe, where we did not just scrutinise the judges but helped appoint them and vote for them: we had a direct role in choosing them. That does not accord with what the hon. Gentleman was arguing, which was that this is out of kilter. Every single step of the way, the United Kingdom has been part and parcel of developing the European Court of Human Rights—and rightly so, frankly, because the libertarian in me speaks up for the Court. If given the temptation to be overbearing, without scrutiny and without the courts to keep them honest, Governments of all colours will do things that none of us think right.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, and then I do want to come to a conclusion.
Simon Hoare
Is it not an unassailable truth that the fundamental principles that drove Churchill, the Conservative party and this place to support these initiatives remain as true today as they did those years ago? Of course, it has been a living, iterative, organic process, but the fundamental underpinning principles that established it still remain true, and if Churchill were here today, he would be making precisely that point.
Stella Creasy
I think we have all expounded quite clearly on how that the interpretation that the hon. Member for Devizes sought to set out of what Churchill thought might not be an entirely complete representation of what that gentleman—he made sure that we were among the first signatories to the European Court of Human Rights, and he continued to campaign and lobby for it and its development and evolution up until his death—would in fact have thought.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, but then I really must bring my remarks to an end.
Yasmin Qureshi
The thing I am having difficulty understanding is this. We signed the European convention on human rights, and we have signed many other international conventions. If we are not going to abide by the rules of those conventions, why did we sign them?
Stella Creasy
My colleague sets out the other, more pragmatic point that I would like to put on the record, which is that actually it does not matter what Churchill thought. If we want to resolve how people are travelling around the world to seek safety and sanctuary because they are fleeing persecution—if we want to be a grown-up on the world stage—not upholding international law is not the best way to make sure that we are in the room when decisions are made about how to share that burden.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister himself has said that he has no plans for us to leave the European Court of Human Rights, because I think it does reflect a recognition that we need to uphold international law and to be part of those conversations. The answer to the Government’s concerns is not this legislation; it is to go to the Council of Europe and be part of those debates and discussions about the role of the Court and how it operates; it is to show that we are prepared to fight for our values, not just here but internationally. We can then arrange the kinds of schemes that will be inevitable in making sure that we, as a world, can deal with the conflict and disruption that means that there are more people fleeing persecution. It is to say that this is not to do with somebody’s nationality or how they travel, but the risk that they face. That is the most simple and, frankly, patriotic point.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There are 14 people trying to catch my eye. The last two speakers spoke for 22 minutes and 19 minutes. If everybody contributes that far, not everybody will get in—it is up to you.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I have heard your strictures, Mr Evans, and I shall try to be as brief as I possibly can. I rise to speak in support of the amendments to which I am a signatory, and I will focus in particular on amendment 131, which has been the subject of so much of the debate this evening.
Illegal migration is a severe problem, and one that is causing increasing concern to constituents of most, if not all, hon. Members. Speaking from my own experience as the Member of Parliament for a semi-rural constituency in north Wales, many hundreds of miles away from the channel beaches, I can say that I receive more correspondence about this issue than virtually any other national issue. Over the years, the people of this country have shown themselves to be generous and welcoming to those who are genuinely in peril—that is borne out by the warmth of the welcome they have given in recent years to Ukrainians fleeing from Putin’s aggression, and to Hongkongers escaping China’s anti-democratic oppression. Equally, however, they are incensed by the rapidly rising influx of illegal migrants, who are themselves the pitiful currency of the loathsome trade of people smuggling. As such, the Prime Minister is quite right to make plain that stopping the small boats is at the top of his list of priorities, and this Bill is therefore highly welcome.
The Government have taken a robust approach to the problem, and that robustness will be highly welcomed by the people of this country, whose patience has been tried too, and beyond breaking point. There is a concern, however, that the Government’s perfectly proper aim of breaking the business model of the people smugglers might be frustrated by the human rights legislation that is routinely and, frankly, cynically abused by those who wish to degrade this country’s ability to defend its own borders and territorial integrity. In clause 1(5) the Government recognise that concern. That provision excludes the operation of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that so far as is possible, legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
Excluding section 3 is itself a bold step for which the Government are to be commended, but given the severity of the problem, as Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws have pointed out, it remains debatable whether clause 1(5) alone will be sufficient to safeguard the Bill’s measures against cynical procedural attacks via the European Court of Human Rights. It is for such purpose that amendments 131, 132 and 133 are framed. Anyone doubting the need for such amendments should consider the case of N.S.K. v. United Kingdom, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). To repeat, in that case a duty judge of the European Court of Human Rights made an order, on 13 June last year, granting an application for a rule 39 measure preventing the removal of an asylum seeker to Rwanda.
That order was made ex parte, without any opportunity for the UK Government to argue against it. Furthermore, the order was made after both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had rejected applications for interim relief. The Supreme Court in fact went on to refuse an application for leave to appeal. Remarkably, however, the rule 39 order was made the day before the Supreme Court announced its refusal, apparently contrary to the rule that domestic proceedings must be exhausted before applications to the European Court will be entertained. The position therefore is that the most senior judges in the land had considered the merits of the applicant’s case and found against it, yet a European judge made an order frustrating the removal of the applicant without considering the merits of the Government’s case and apparently contrary to the European Court’s own rules.
Interim measures are not strictly legally binding, but the European Court’s own jurisprudence, as has already been pointed out, asserts that any failure to comply with them amounts to a contravention of article 34, by hindering an applicant’s right to apply to the Court alleging a breach of the convention. The possibility—arguably, the probability—is that domestic British courts will feel constrained to act in compliance with interim measures and, indeed, to follow other judgments of the European Court, and that alone could prove fatal to the aims of the Bill. I do not believe that the Government or this House should allow that to happen.
Appropriate further safeguards should be introduced to the Bill to ensure its effectiveness, and it is for that purpose that amendment 131 was tabled. It would ensure that the legitimate and proper aim of the Government to protect our national borders is not frustrated. Put simply, the people of this country will not thank us if the Bill does not work, and there is a distinct danger, if the European Court is allowed, that that is precisely what will happen.
I believe that amendment 131 is absolutely necessary, and for similar reasons I support the other amendments to which I have put my name. It has already been pointed out that those amendments will not be pressed to a vote, but I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), when he winds up, will confirm that he will engage in dialogue with those of us who are concerned about the absence of those amendments and seek a way forward that will ensure that the Bill will work, which is what every hon. Member of this House should want.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I receive help from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project for my work in this area. I also co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on migration, so I have spent a long time thinking about these issues. I have taken a long look at our history, and it is interesting to hear us talk about Winston Churchill. I doubt that Government Members know that he crossed the Floor on the issue in 1904 to oppose the Aliens Act 1905 and lead a rebellion against it. He was quoted at the time talking about
“the old tolerant and generous practice of free entry…to which this country has so long adhered”.
Just to add some more spice to the discussion about the history of this place and our role within migration policy, it is important to recognise that.
I rise to speak specifically to my new clause 10, which I am pleased to say enjoys a wide range of cross-party support. I thank all Members who have engaged with me on this amendment. It is meant to be a serious contribution to the debate about the humanitarian crisis in the channel. However, I worry that that seriousness is not shared by everyone in this Chamber.
Since arriving in Parliament in 2019, I have tried not to become too jaded or too cynical, but I must admit that at times it has been difficult. Today, debating this Bill, is one of those times, because we have repeatedly been told that these proposals are about stopping the boats. The Prime Minister even had it printed on his lectern. To be clear, it is a moral outrage that people need to get in a blow-up boat, risking life and limb, to exercise their rights under the refugee convention to claim asylum here. We need a solution to this humanitarian crisis in the channel, but that is not what the Bill offers. Instead, it doubles down on the same failed hostile environment framework that has characterised the Government’s approach to asylum and migration. It is simply not working.
Since 2018, 56 people have tragically drowned in the channel—brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts and cousins to many families already in the UK—yet the number of dangerous crossings has risen, even after the Government’s Rwanda policy was announced, and that announcement in itself was deemed to be a deterrent. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has become law and people continue to make these journeys.
I am proud that my city, Sheffield, calls itself a city of sanctuary. The people I meet who support refugee rights often quote the lines of a poem called “Home”, by the Somali-British writer Warsan Shire:
“no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land”,
and,
“no one leaves home unless
home is the mouth of a shark.”
Those lines are important, because they explain why people attempt these crossings.
We have heard a lot of talk about families today. I regularly engage with and talk to asylum seekers and refugees in the system, whose family members are being persecuted because of them leaving the country. They have brothers who have been arrested by the police on spurious grounds, or their parents have sadly been murdered as a result of their identity. We really must shine a light on how the Government’s strategy is doomed to fail and, perhaps more importantly, why the success of that strategy would be a horror. The only way that the deterrence framework can work is if the hostile environment it creates is worse than what people are running from.
That is why I feel jaded. I do not think this is really about stopping the crossings and saving lives. These proposals are not about how people come here to claim asylum; they are about stopping people from claiming asylum at all. This is not about fairness. It is about populist electoral politics, throwing red meat to a section of hard-line, anti-refugee opinion. What better example is there than the cruelty of stripping away the modern slavery provisions of asylum seekers who have survived human trafficking? This legislation, as it stands, would persecute the persecuted and criminalise the victims of crime.
To be frank, I suspect there are some of the Conservative side of the House who think it is a good thing that the Bill violates the UN conventions on international human rights law. The Government’s credibility is so shredded that they believe the only route to future electoral success is to wage a culture war, gleefully reciting pre-rehearsed lines about lefty lawyers, while the situation of some of the most vulnerable people in the world gets worse and worse.
However, the Government could prove me wrong, and I give them that opportunity. A start would be supporting and looking into the proposals of new clause 10, which builds on the proposals of the PCS union and Care4Calais, two organisations working at the frontline of the crisis. It offers a practical solution to a humanitarian crisis in the channel by creating a safe passage visa. The visa would give entry clearance to those already in Europe who wish to come to the UK to make an asylum claim.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute further to the debate on this vital Bill, which promises tangible action to address the frustrations of my constituents. As I have said previously, I very much support the actions of this Government and the Prime Minister in taking a tough new approach to tackling illegal migration. I want to challenge some of the things Opposition Members have said, particularly the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is not currently in his place. He spoke about there not being any safe and legal routes beyond those country-specific schemes. In fact, 50,000 people have come since 2015 through routes open to any country. Those include the refugee family reunion scheme, the UK resettlement scheme, the community sponsorship scheme and the mandate resettlement scheme. In total, that means that 480,000 people have come via safe and legal routes since 2015.
Stoke-on-Trent has been more generous than most other places in the country, and many feel that their generosity has been taken for granted and that their genuine concerns about irregular migration have been ignored, or even held in contempt, particularly by the Labour party and the lefty activist lawyers who are determined to frustrate the democratic will of the people. Because their determination to frustrate the will of this elected House is so strong, we need at this Committee stage to close all potential loopholes.
The amendments to which I have attached my name are those that I felt would make this a “belt and braces” Bill against scurrilous actions. The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will ensure that a successful suspensive claim will be the only way to prevent removal —no ifs, no buts, and no tying it all up in challenges to circumvent the intended will of this Parliament. Time and again, we have been shown that any lack of crystal clarity will be exploited by activist lefty lawyers. The danger is that people will lose faith in the democratic process, and in mainstream parties, if democratic mandates and Acts of Parliament are constantly frustrated by loopholes we have left.
Unprecedented pressure necessitates unprecedented actions, and the actions in the Bill will break the people smugglers’ model of taking money to get people illegally into Britain, with what has been a relatively small chance of ever being removed under the overwhelmed legacy system that this Home Secretary is having radically to reform. I hope those actions will be properly resourced, not just financially but in terms of available skills and workforce professionals, including some of those who will be based at the Home Office hub in Stoke-on-Trent. But our job today is to make this Bill unambiguous in confirming its intent to enable the removal of illegal migrants and ensure the primacy of this House in delivering on the democratic will.
Small-boat people smuggling is a dangerous and unacceptable trade in human lives, and only by smashing the traders’ business model can we really bring it to an end. That means we must also frustrate the business model of activist Labour lawyers who look for any loophole or ambiguity for their own political ends of making borders irrelevant and impossible to protect. Therefore, in addition to supporting the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). The Human Rights Act should not be misused to remove control of our national border and the same applies to the European Court.
I welcome that the Government have stipulated in clause 1 the intention that the Bill will be exempt from section 3 of the Human Rights Act, and in line with the belt-and-braces approach that is necessary. As my right hon. Friend for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who is not in his place, said, it makes sense to disapply sections 4, 6 and 10 to close the loopholes of any supposed incompatibility where it is impossible to use section 3.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of standing up for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. He has proudly put his signature to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on the ECHR, which I have also signed. Let us be crystal clear about what that amendment will do. It is about making it perfectly crystal clear to UK courts that rule 39 orders that come from the European Court of Human Rights and are not based in law, are not to be taken into judgment by UK courts when it comes to the removal of illegal economic migrants who have come from safe, mainland France. We are simply reconfirming what was in the original convention back in the 1950s, when rule 39 orders did not even exist, or were not even mentioned. We want to ensure that we deliver on the will of the people in places such as Stoke-on-Trent that my hon. Friend serves so well.
Jack Brereton
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I entirely agree. The people of Stoke-on-Trent absolutely want robust action on this. We will not continue to tolerate the powers of Strasbourg and the European courts overriding the decisions of this House and our British courts.
If we do not stop illegal entry and misuse of the asylum system, we will not be able to give proper attention to those in genuine need. Nor will we enjoy the support of the general public. The Bill is about fairness and ensuring that resources are available for those in genuine need, but it needs to have belt and braces to ensure it does not end up in a lucrative legal battle for activist lawyers. Real change is needed to tackle the unprecedented pressures and to look to the improvements that are needed. I look forward to those constructive discussions with Ministers. We must never again allow our generosity and compassion as a nation to be abused by people smugglers with dangerous small boats.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
That was a much shorter contribution, so things are looking brighter to get everybody in.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Bills of major constitutional significance are usually treated on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the Whole House. The Government refused to send the Elections Bill and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill to Committee of the whole House and sent them upstairs to Public Bill Committees, yet they find time for this Bill, which stretches any claim to reflect what was in the Tory manifesto, to have its Committee stage here in the Chamber. I wonder why that is. One effect, of course, is that there is no opportunity to hear from stakeholders by taking evidence on the Bill. Perhaps that is not a surprise because there does not seem to have been a single briefing or intervention from anyone with any interest or experience in the field of immigration, asylum policy or law that is actually in support of what the Government are proposing.
The only people cheering on the Bill are the populist hard-right elements on the Conservative Back Benches—and, I suppose, the Cabinet—and their friends in equally right-wing media outlets. Even then, it seems that this is a Bill that pleases no one. The range of amendments tabled from the Back Benches, on both sides of the Committee, shows the risk the Government are taking and the damage they are doing by pursuing wedge-issue and dog-whistle politics. The Brexiteers, seemingly with the tacit support of the Home Secretary, are seeking to use their amendments to expunge any last vestige of what they see as European influence in the United Kingdom by taking us out of the ECHR.
Meanwhile, on the Opposition Benches, many of us, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), are proposing a wide range of amendments that seek to reduce or negate some of the worst aspects of the Bill. Amendment 76, for example, on which I hope we will be able to test the will of the Committee, would make it much clearer that the need for protection, the experience of human rights abuses, or being a victim of slavery or human trafficking would be grounds for a claim to suspend a deportation process. Amendment 77 puts much stronger restrictions on the definitions of a third country to which asylum seekers could be deported. Many other SNP amendments have similar effects. They aim to introduce some element of fairness and respect for human rights, whether on the time available for appeals and considerations, or the grounds on which such claims can be made.
The key issue in this evening’s grouping is that, if the Government really want to stop people arriving here on small boats, they have to provide safe and legal alternatives. The reality is that at the moment for the majority of people who currently arrive here and successfully claim asylum, such routes do not exist. What are the safe and legal routes for someone from Eritrea or Iran? That question has been asked multiple times and has not been properly answered. If there were safe and legal routes available, people would not be coming. Incidentally, the Bill is supposed to have a deterrent effect and is backdated to 7 March, so I wonder how many people have been deterred already. Have landings on the south coast of England suddenly evaporated? I suspect not and that perhaps shows that the Bill is not going to have the effect the Government want it to have.
Even where schemes for safe and legal routes exist, such as for Afghanistan, like the proposals in the Bill, they go nowhere near far enough. My amendments, including amendments 177 and 179, make the point that it is far better to think in terms of targets than caps for safe and legal entrants. This country is crying out for people to come here and help make our health service, social care system, hospitality industries and agricultural sector work more effectively and efficiently, but too many people who could be—and want to be —productive are left sitting in hotels at the taxpayer’s expense, when they could be earning a wage that pays for their accommodation and contributes back into the tax system.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 131 to 134, which seek to strengthen the Illegal Migration Bill by preventing spurious claims—whatever they may be—being used to resist the removal of those arriving in Britain illegally. The amendments aim to close any potential loopholes that would limit the Bill’s effectiveness.
I have listened carefully to many thoughtful and technically excellent speeches from hon. Friends and hon. Members across the Committee for whom I have the greatest respect. I cannot match their legal expertise and detailed understanding of the legal complexities of the Bill, but I want to argue for the principle of strengthening the Bill, which I think the Government have accepted, to ensure that it is effective. It is essential that it be effective, because more than 40,000 people arriving illegally on small boats in a year is a serious safety issue, national security issue and economic issue, with £6 million a day being spent on hotels to house migrants. It is a crime issue, with many illegal immigrants engaging in illegal activity or being drawn into slavery and exploitation. It is also a sovereignty issue. Many ask: who is really in control of British borders—our elected Parliaments or foreign courts?
If the Bill does not work and does not result in the swift deportation of those who arrive here illegally, it will not have a deterrent effect and we will not stop the boats. The objective of the amendments is therefore to strengthen the legislation to significantly reduce the likelihood of unjustified legal challenges that use human rights legislation that was never meant to provide cover to international gangs.
I thank Ministers for their consideration of the intention of the amendments. Some of those who oppose them and the Bill will cite compassion. I wholeheartedly agree that those who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution deserve our compassion. Many should be—and are—offered a home here in the UK. Our compassion should be directed at those who are genuinely helpless and without agency—such as children—but not those who have a choice about whether they leave their home country, or those who choose to exploit others through international human trafficking.
In many ways, this debate epitomises the great argument of our times between those whose understanding of human rights is that anyone should, more or less, do whatever and go wherever they want, and those who believe that strong boundaries, firm rules and proportionate restrictions are essential for strong families, communities and nations. It is an argument between those who think that, as a wealthy country, we somehow have unlimited resources and who do not acknowledge that population growth over recent years has seriously limited and stretched our capacity, for example on housing, and those who realise that even though we are in a wealthy and fortunate position, there are serious limits on our resources.
Many of those who argue against strong borders and strong action against illegal immigration are not personally affected by illegal immigration. Their wages are not threatened by the black market economy, they do not rely on essential local resources that are taken up with housing migrants, their children are not sent to school with young men who are clearly not children, and their sense of agency and national identity does not rest on the integrity of our borders or the sovereignty of our Parliament.
For those whose lives and culture are not negatively impacted by thousands of people arriving here on small boats, it makes sense to argue for open borders in the name of compassion, but for many people, including many of my constituents, those are luxury beliefs. The reality is that high and clearly visible levels of illegal immigration are a threat to ordinary people’s safety, security, identity and sense of fair play. Believing in and upholding strong borders and firm boundaries is not uncompassionate or bigoted; it is a prerequisite for a fair, safe and cohesive nation.
Ultimately, when boundaries are not upheld or laws not enforced, it is always the vulnerable that suffer, as criminals exploit loopholes and drain much needed finite resources away from those in genuine need. [Interruption.] I will not give way because I have been given a five-minute limit by the Chair.
We all want genuine asylum seekers to be able to find safety here in the UK. As the Minister said, this country is surpassed by only three other nations in our acceptance of refugees from UNHCR schemes. But the exploitation of our borders and laws by those who are not in genuine need and, worse, by abhorrent international people-smuggling gangs is neither fair nor compassionate and it must end. A strengthened Illegal Migration Bill will deter people from making the treacherous journey in small boats, and give us the resources and focus to go after those safe and legal routes that everyone in the House agrees should be there.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak against the Government clauses before the Committee today and in favour of several amendments that seek to limit their horror and inhumanity.
The changes made by clauses 37 to 48 to the legal and human rights of asylum seekers breach the UK’s human rights obligations. The proposed timescales and tests, combined with the lack of judicial oversight, build in unfairness and undermine access to justice. It is difficult to see how a vulnerable and traumatised person will be able to engage with the process, especially as the provisions do not set out any right to legal advice and representation.
That is one of the many reasons that I support new clause 26 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), which would require an equality impact assessment about how people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 will be impacted by the Bill. Indeed, protections for vulnerable people, pregnant women and children are being tossed aside in favour of new powers to indefinitely detain people at greater risk of harm, including survivors of torture, trafficking and modern slavery.
The new and sweeping powers of arbitrary detention are nothing short of spine chilling. The Bill will increase the number of people detained, while removing the bulk of the essential safeguards that were put in place to protect people, adding to the inherent harm caused by indefinite detention. That is despite the UK’s immigration detention system being plagued by mismanagement, profiteering by private companies and incidents of systemic and direct abuse and neglect, including the scandals reported at Brook House immigration removal centre, the Manston short-term holding facility, Harmondsworth IRC and many others.
What is the purpose of this sweeping and illegitimate restriction of people’s liberties? What is the crime that such individuals have committed to be treated worse than serious criminals and to have fewer rights? Today, this Government propose to punish people for seeking asylum. Not satisfied with that, they seek to ensure that those people cannot challenge this injustice—all essentially to deter anyone else from coming to the UK to seek sanctuary. They are literally planning to persecute the already persecuted.
Denying access to asylum on such a basis undermines the very purpose for which the refugee convention was established. The convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly. The United Nations Refugee Agency has said:
“Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and ‘legal’ routes available to them.”
The reality is that the UK offers safety to far fewer refugees per capita than the average European country, such as France or Germany, and to far fewer than the countries neighbouring those from which 70% of the refugees from the global south flee. That is why I support new clause 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), which sets out a requirement to introduce a safe passage visa scheme. She has spoken eloquently about the stories behind the numbers and statistics—the people with real lives, hopes and dreams.
If the Government seriously wanted to protect the lives at risk from small boat crossings, they would back more generous family reunification rights and support safe, functioning routes. Instead, the Bill is the latest in a long line of measures that form their hostile environment and the toxic, racist and xenophobic narrative that is taking hold in many parts of the world, based on fear and the manipulation of that fear. It is immoral, deeply cruel and divisive. It breaks international law, it crushes human rights and it is shameful.
Tom Hunt
I have waited for a very long time to speak on the Bill. On Second Reading, I think I waited for four hours but did not get called. I have waited for a good amount of time today, too, but it has only made me more determined to get my points across.
I did not sign any of the amendments before the Committee, but I have sympathy with many of them, particularly amendment 131 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), amendment 132 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), and amendments 133 and 134 in the name of my hon. Friend and very senior colleague the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Although it might surprise some people, I have a little bit of sympathy with amendments 72 to 75 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but I do not think that now—before we have sorted out the scourge of illegal immigration and its impact in this country—is the right time to pursue such amendments.
In a general sense, it will not surprise people to know that I welcome the Bill. We have 45,000 people a year entering the country illegally. They are mostly young men, as has been statistically proven; many are from safe-origin countries; and every single one of them has gone through France and multiple other safe European countries but has refused to claim asylum. They have decided to shop between different safe European countries, and they have come here. Being an economic migrant and moving to the UK because there are job opportunities here is a very noble dream, of course, but my advice to them is to engage with our legal migration points-based system, and we will make a determination as to whether their dream and our needs meet.
We are the party that believes in controlling our borders. We are the party that believes in strong border controls. Labour Members get incredibly sensitive whenever anybody suggests that they believe in open borders, but I simply say to them, “Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence that you believe in controlled immigration. Show me the evidence that you don’t believe in open borders. When I look at your record, every single thing you vote on is against precisely those things, so I don’t think it is unreasonable for me and colleagues to come to the conclusion that you are opposed to all border controls. As I say, show me the evidence.”
I turn to amendment 131. When the Rwanda policy was first introduced, a lot of us supported it because we saw what had happened in Australia. Australia had had a massive problem with illegal immigration, but it went down the route of offshore processing, and today it no longer has that massive problem. It is quite simple. A few Opposition Members are saying, “Australia did not work”, but we looked into this in detail and met Australian officials, and it did work. We think that going ahead with the Rwanda policy, if it were given a chance to work, would provide a significant deterrent. It would save lives at sea, and would enable us to operate the compassionate, controlled asylum system that virtually all of us in this place want.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), but before I do, I want to reflect on the unusual circumstances in which we once again find ourselves. This is the second time in only a few weeks that we have assembled to scrutinise a Bill in a Committee of the whole House. Both this and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill are extraordinary pieces of legislation that threaten to break with international law and long-standing human rights conventions, which this nation once took great pride in championing, as the Home Secretary herself admits on the face of this Bill.
The Bill before us today is perhaps unprecedented in the scale and ferocity of the criticism that is attracted, not just in the UK but in the wider international community. The UNHCR has said that
“the effect of this Bill…undermines the very purpose for which the 1951 Refugee Convention was established”,
yet the Government have given Members just 12 hours to consider the Bill at this stage without any opportunity for taking evidence or for the kind of detailed, forensic scrutiny that would normally be found in Committee. By contrast, the Immigration Act 2016, which my party rightly opposed, represented a far less dramatic departure from international norms than this Bill, yet it went through 15 Committee sittings and received 55 pieces of written evidence. As the director of the Institute for Government has rightly observed, the Committee of the whole House is a useful mechanism to legislate on the most sensitive of matters, particularly those relating to the Northern Ireland Executive, but in the hands of this Prime Minister it has become a tool to steamroller through legislation and stifle dissent, which I fear will prove to have disastrous consequences.
Members of the House have the right to be afforded the time we need to scrutinise legislation properly, but that right counts for little compared with the rights of refugees fleeing unimaginable horrors in the pursuit of safety. I would not wish to give the House the impression that I believe this Bill is reformable in any way, far from it. This is an utterly hateful piece of legislation, the central purpose of which is to criminalise and demonise desperate men, women and children fleeing conflict and persecution.
As the Archbishop of York has rightly said, these proposals represent “cruelty without purpose.” We are entering the endgame of a dying Government who are devoid of any plan for the future of our country, who long ago lost the trust of the British people and who now believe their only hope of clinging to power is to stoke division, fear and xenophobic hatred, and to lay the blame for their own failings on innocent refugees.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does not wish to press new clause 10 to a vote, but I have no doubt that she, like me, wishes to see the Bill in its entirety consigned to the scrapheap. She raises an incredibly important point about the necessity of establishing safe and legal routes for those who want to claim asylum. Without the promise of safe passage to the UK for those seeking sanctuary, the plans before the House today are destined to fail, as Ministers know all too well. They understand this Bill is little more than an attempt to stir division and to compound the misery of refugees for cheap political gain.
More importantly, I make it clear that I will never support the principle of differentiating between refugees based on how they arrive in this country, which is a clear violation of their convention rights. Establishing safe routes to Britain is the only way we can guarantee that no one is ever again forced to risk their life and the lives of loved ones on a small boat in the channel.
Finally, I remind the House that more than 230,000 visas were issued to Ukrainians last year. I have said many times that we should be doing far more to assist those fleeing the war in Ukraine but, to date, not a single Ukrainian has been forced to resort to small-boat crossings or people smugglers to reach the UK. Mercifully, not a single Ukrainian life has been lost in the channel. We have a model that already works, and it is time to ensure that everyone seeking refuge is able to get here safely. It is time to extend safe routes for all.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I rise to support the more than 50 amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We do not believe that this Bill, which is abhorrent in how it rips up people’s human rights, is fixable. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) suggested earlier, human rights are not a luxury. They are for everybody, everywhere, all at once. We should not try to remove them from anyone, particularly those who have suffered serious trauma.
We tabled our amendments to highlight the Bill’s many and varied deficiencies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who has been incredibly diligent in going through the Bill to see what we could take out to try to reverse some of its more harmful aspects.
In clause 37(7), for example, we aim to set tighter rules for the kinds of countries to which we might want to return people, because not all third countries are particularly safe. We should be much tighter about where we return people, which is a point to which I will return tomorrow.
Clauses 40(4)(a) and (b) outline the assurances the Government claim they will take into account in considering a serious harm suspensive claim:
“the Secretary of State must take into account the following factors—
(a) any assurances given by the government of the…territory specified in the removal notice; “
I guess the Government will just take it on trust when another Government say they will not do any harm to a person who might be a critic of that Government. They will just have to say, “Oh, no, it will be fine. Just return that person, and we will look after them.” We will not find out whether they will actually be looked after until after they have been returned.
Clause 40(4)(b) lists
“any support and services (including in particular medical services) provided by that government”.
I have had constituency cases of people receiving HIV/AIDS treatment in this country that has got their condition under control, but the Government cannot guarantee that they will be able to continue their treatment if they are returned to another country. In some cases, returning to a country where that condition cannot be managed is tantamount to a death sentence. A constituent of mine who is waiting for a decision on her case is in renal failure, but she cannot make progress with her treatment because the Home Office will not get its finger out and give her a decision. This is a very pressing issue. The Minister squints at me, but if he actually turned to any of the cases that I raise with him, we would make some progress.
Alison Thewliss
As the Minister well knows, it is to be set in regulations, which this Parliament cannot amend, so it is not for Parliament but for the Secretary of State. He knows how statutory instruments work in this place, as do we, and he knows that this is not something that this House can amend. He is being a bit economical with the truth if he is suggesting that the House can amend it; it cannot. He knows that.
What we are looking to do in amendment 179 and in the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is to expand the list of those who should be consulted on this and to set a target, not a cap. It is not enough to set a cap. I ask Members to imagine that they are the 101st person with a cap set at 100. It could separate a family, separate siblings or separate a husband and wife who do not meet the threshold; they could just fall on the wrong side of the cap threshold. The Government need to do a whole lot more to make sure that we are actively doing our bit in the world, and setting a cap is nowhere near doing our bit in the world.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, because I will be speaking again tomorrow, but I wish to mention the issue around documents. It has been raised by several Members, including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place. When Afghanistan fell, I was contacted by constituents who were terrified for their family members still in the country. Some 80 families in my constituency had relatives in Afghanistan, but I am aware of only two of them who were able to be reunited with their families. Clearly, the Government did not do enough. These are people who have family in this country, who could be safe and who could be out of Afghanistan, and they are not.
People in Afghanistan had documents. If the Taliban had found those documents on them, they would have seen that they had worked for British forces and that would have been a death sentence, so people in Afghanistan burned those documents. That is why people turn up here with no documents—those documents would have been their death sentence had they been found in their possession. Members on the Conservative Benches who seem to think that not having documents is some kind of admission of guilt fail to understand the very real pressures that asylum seekers face when they make these dangerous journeys, and when they try to seek sanctuary here to regain the relationships with the people whom they know. They will run and run and keep running until they find safety. That is the reality, and that is what the Bill denies people.
Yasmin Qureshi
I wish that I could say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as I normally do, but I am actually incredibly sad about having to do so. The Bill is one of the most repugnant pieces of legislation that this Government have tried to pass through the House. First, this Government and the Home Secretary know that they are breaching human rights laws, and also that this legislation will not work. They want to go ahead with the Bill because they want to throw red meat to some of their voter base. They want to appeal to some of the hard right-wing voters in our country—the people who will be voting for the Conservative party when they see this legislation go through.
I do not make those allegations lightly. I have been here since the beginning of this debate and heard the justifications that Conservative Members have given, with “lefty lawyers” somehow being used as a term of abuse. I am a barrister—I spent many years studying to be one—and I find this Bill repugnant, so hon. Members might want to call me a lefty lawyer, but I spent 14 years doing nothing else but prosecuting. I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting criminals, rapists, murderers, drug dealers and all sorts of really obnoxious people. Now I and people like me, if we are not supporting this Bill, are to be called “lefty liberals” or “lefty lawyers” or “woke” as a form of insult. Those who have to resort to that type of terminology are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. They have no argument left—if they had any proper argument, they would be making it.
We have heard much discussion of the European convention on human rights. It is surprising to hear everybody say, “Oh, the European Court did this to us.” Hang on, wake up—we actually signed up to the convention on human rights. We signed up to the refugee convention. We are a signatory to the NATO treaty. When states are signatories to those conventions, they are supposed to abide by them and, within the European convention on human rights, the European Court of Human Rights is part of the process. For the Government to think they can pick and choose what they do not like from it is outrageous.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) denigrated the European Court of Human Rights earlier. I asked him directly about the fact that in the 1970s a Conservative Government had legislation requiring virginity tests for young women applying to come into this country, and it was the European Court of Human Rights that declared it to be unlawful. When I asked whether he disagreed with the European Court of Human Rights, he side-stepped it and said he could not defend the Heath Government—but that was not my question. My question was fairly and squarely about whether he disagreed with that particular decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and the reason he avoided it was that he knows that decision by the Court was absolutely correct.
The European convention on human rights, as we know, was incorporated into the British Human Rights Act 1998. Section 19 of that Act says that every piece of legislation that comes before our Parliament must have a declaration on it to say it is compatible with human rights law. The Home Secretary knows full well that this legislation is not going to be. That is why, on the face of the Bill, she states that the Government are not sure whether it is compatible with human rights law—but when she goes on the television, she says, “Oh yes, it is compatible with human rights.” I would like her to tell us which one she thinks it is, because I can tell her that it is incompatible with any human rights convention and with our own Human Rights Act, passed by this Parliament.
I really think that Conservative Members should use a better argument. But what argument do they use? I have found it sickening, not just on this Bill, but in the whole debate on immigration and asylum for the last number of years, to hear politicians such as the Home Secretary saying that we are being swamped and invaded, and other hon. Members saying that we have 100 million people coming. Sometimes they say 1 billion people. Come off it! Everybody knows there are not 1 billion people trying to come into this country, nor 100 million refugees, because 84% of refugees normally go to the country nearest to them.
Moreover, of the people who have been coming on the boats recently, more than 75% were successful in their asylum claims. This narrative that Government and the media, the Daily Mail, the Express and The Sun, are running, that somehow they are all bogus asylum seekers, is a load of rubbish as well. I expected the media to talk rubbish—I expected them to lie—but it really pains me when elected Members of Parliament use that kind of divisive language.
It is because of that sort of divisive, disgusting language that we have had incidents of assault on people living in asylum hostels and incidents of others attacking them, swearing at them or protesting against them. That is because of the language that is used in this country in the discourse on immigration. I have to say to every hon. Member here, especially on the Government Benches, and the media, if they are listening, “Please, for God’s sake, just temper your language and do not peddle untruths.” That is what they are—untruths. A lot of those people are coming on boats because there is no alternative.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady needs to be quite careful with her language when she says “your Government” and so on.
Yasmin Qureshi
Thank you for reminding me, Dame Rosie.
The Conservative Government have had control for the last 13 years, but they have not been able to deal with this. Instead of making proper constructive proposals, they have gone for the best headline in the Daily Mail—or should I say the “Daily Hate”? They do not think it is worth it. This legislation is absolutely horrendous. I am really sad that we are here again. A few years ago, we had the Nationality and Borders Bill and others. With every such Bill, it is said that we are going to control illegal migration. But guess what: nothing happens. It is all hot air; it is all smoke and mirrors. It is trying to fool the people of this country that you are trying to deal with something when you know you are not doing—
The First Deputy Chairman
Yes, but the hon. Lady needs to stop referring to “you”, which means me.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am sorry, Dame Rosie.
Many Members have spoken about various safe routes. Many suggestions have been made about how to deal with the small boats. Colleagues have spoken about the legal side of it. If there is any humanity in this Government, they should think about withdrawing the Bill and actually dealing with the small boats, and will they please stop trying to appease populist sentiment?
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak to the Liberal Democrat new clauses 3, 4 and 6. I struggle to put into words my dismay about the Bill. I have been listening since the beginning of the debate and, apart from a few Members who have spoken with real insight, Conservative Members cannot hide their frustration that, three years on from Brexit, we still do not control our borders and that we are in fact further away than ever from doing so. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding. Britain is only ever part of a global community—we do not rule it—and we get what we want only through co-operation; we will succeed in stopping illegal immigration only by co-operating, not by breaking international agreements.
No one can be opposed to stopping people traffickers who are exploiting desperate men, women and children, but the Bill is no way to go about that, and it will not be successful in preventing the boats from coming. All that it will achieve is to punish those who least deserve it. Will the Government finally listen to what we on the Opposition Benches have said for such a long time, which is that we must create safe, legal and effective routes for immigration if we are serious about a compassionate and fair system of immigration?
New clause 6 would facilitate a safe passage pilot scheme. New clause 4 would require the Home Secretary to set up a humanitarian travel scheme, allowing people from specified countries or territories to enter the UK to make an asylum claim on their arrival. The only way to ensure that refugees do not risk their lives in the channel is to make safe and effective legal routes available.
My inbox has been full of constituents’ outrage at the Government’s plans to abandon some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In Bath, we have welcomed refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, and we stand ready to do more. Meanwhile, the Government are intent on ending our country’s long and proud history as a refuge for those fleeing war and persecution.
The Home Secretary has been unable to confirm that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Clause 49 allows the Secretary of State to make provisions about interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights; the Law Society has raised concerns that that shows an intent to disregard the Court’s measures and break international law. The Government’s promises that people fleeing war and persecution could find a home in the UK through a safe and legal route must be true and real—they must not promise something that does not happen. Now is the time to put action behind the words. So far the Bill has not even defined what a safe and legal route is; on that, I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Let me give one example of why it is so important that we have safe and legal routes: Afghanistan. Just 22 Afghan citizens eligible for the UK resettlement scheme have arrived in the UK. The Minister said that we had taken thousands before the invasion of Kabul, but we are talking about a resettlement scheme set up in 2022, a year ago. Only 22 people have been resettled through that scheme. That is the question—we are not talking about what happened in 2015 or before the invasion of Kabul; we are talking about the safe and legal routes that the Government set up. The reality is that 22 Afghans have been resettled under the scheme, and the Minister cannot walk away from it.
It is a shameful record. Women and girls especially were promised safety, but have been left without a specific route to apply for. We cannot leave them to their fate. Every day we hear about the cruel way the Taliban treat women and girls, who are excluded from education and jobs. They have to do what they want to do in hiding and they are not safe. The Government have promised them safety, but they cannot come. We must ensure that this new promise of safe and legal routes cannot be broken.
The Bill sets out a cap on the number of refugees entering via safe routes, but it does not use a specific figure. There is also no obligation on the Government to facilitate that number of people arriving. The Government’s current record does not inspire confidence. The UK grants fewer asylum applications than the EU average. In 2022, only 1,185 refugees were resettled to the UK, nearly 80% fewer than in 2019. That is why the Government should support new clause 3, which requires the Secretary of State to set a resettlement target of at least 10,000 people each year.
Refugees make dangerous journeys because they are in danger. If we are serious about stopping illegal people trafficking, we must provide safe routes for refugees first, not punish refugees who have the right to be here first. As it stands, the Bill criminalises desperate people making perilous journeys to seek safety—refugees who are coming because they believe they will find sanctuary here. We must show them compassion. We must not show them our backs.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the Secretary of State for being here at the beginning of the debate and the Minister for being here now to hear our contributions. The issue has proven incredibly contentious in this Chamber and on social media. We have heard the views of so many—some more distasteful than others; I say that respectfully. The principle is that we have a clear responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable, but we cannot extend the invitation to everyone, with no questions asked. We need to discuss the steps we can take to perfect our asylum system. I will speak to new clause 6 in relation to safe passage, and to new clauses 24 and 25, which refer to Northern Ireland.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised significant concerns about this Bill in relation to parallels between trafficking, slavery and asylum. The Bill will have an unintended, but nevertheless devastating, impact on victims of modern slavery. The Committee has stated that illegal immigration is often used as a weapon to exploit people for profit, and that criminal gangs are often the ones luring vulnerable people on to boats and into the UK. Some 5,144 modern slavery offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2019, an increase of 51% from the previous year. In addition, poverty, lack of education, unstable social and political conditions, economic imbalances, climate change and war are key issues that contribute to someone’s vulnerability and to becoming a victim of modern slavery. We cannot close the door on genuine victims of trafficking and slavery, and we cannot allow the Bill to undermine the security of victims.
I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on this debate, if I can. According to recent Home Office statistics, nearly 550 people were potentially trafficked into Northern Ireland last year, an increase of 50% from 2021, when the figure was 363. In the past four years, the number of people referred through the national referral mechanism in Northern Ireland increased by 1,000%, so we have an issue—maybe we do not have the numerical amounts that are here on the UK mainland, but for us in Northern Ireland, these are key issues. I also wish to highlight new clause 19, which refers to the Bill’s extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to new clauses 24 and 25, which refer to Northern Ireland taking on three particular provisions relating to trafficking and exploitation. I believe it is important that we have the same opportunity to respond in a way that can help.
There is no doubt that detention due to asylum is going to have an incredible impact on some migrants. We are often too quick to group asylum seekers under the same label, forgetting that a large proportion of the women and young children who come here illegally come from war-torn countries, where they have been ripped away from their families and displaced, with no other option but to get out and to make the best of a potential life somewhere else. There are real, genuine cases out there—there are families who need legitimate help—and as a big-hearted country, I believe that we have a duty to provide that help.
Under the new legislation, the Home Office would be given new powers to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children, but those provisions only apply to England. I ask that they be extended to other areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as is being considered. When it comes to detention, there is no doubt that we do have to compare circumstances. There is a difference between those people who I just mentioned—the women and children who are displaced—and those who come with no children and no family, and who are usually young. They have the ability to build a new life elsewhere if possible, because they are healthy, whereas for women and children who have been forced out, detention policies need to be different.
To conclude, in order to keep within the time limit that others have adhered to, I am in support of some of the aspects of this needed Bill. I respect its contents and the Minister’s efforts to come up with a solution that strikes the right balance, but I think we all need some assurances about how it addresses the issues of modern slavery and trafficking, which too many people are forced into each year. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State, the Minister and their Department will do all they can to ensure that this issue is dealt with, but given the sheer volumes and the impact that they are having on our country—on our great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I urge that this be dealt with as a matter of national security and a matter of urgency: the quicker we get it sorted, the better. Let us also ensure that those people who are genuine asylum seekers are given the opportunity to come to this country. That is something I wish to see happen as well.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Let be me clear: this Bill is inhumane. It is not an illegal migration Bill: it is an anti-refugee Bill, and an extension of the failed hostile environment policy introduced by the Conservative party.
Mary Kelly Foy
No, I am not going to give way at this point; I have waited since 5.30 pm. Sorry, Bob.
Anti-refugee MPs have been emboldened by the Home Secretary’s rhetoric of hate, as we can see from the amendments and new clauses and by what we have heard from many Government Members. Unbelievably, the Bill has the potential to be even worse than when it came to the House on Second Reading. Let us not forget that the day after an immigration facility was attacked—it was firebombed—the Home Secretary spoke of an “invasion” of southern England. It has been reported today that the Home Secretary even fuelled a rebellion against her own Bill in order to introduce tougher amendments.
Robert Jenrick
This has been an excellent debate covering the provisions of the Bill relating to legal proceedings, the cap on the number of refugees to be admitted through new safe and legal routes, and safe countries of origin.
Let me deal briefly with the substantive Government amendments in this group. First, new clause 11 enables the Senior President of Tribunals to request first-tier tribunal judges, including employment tribunal judges, to sit as judges of the upper tribunal. This amendment extends existing deployment powers, which are an important tool for the judiciary to manage the fluctuations in demand in our courts and make best use of their time.
We have also brought forward new clause 12, which enables appeals under the Bill to be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission rather than the upper tribunal in appropriate cases. That is necessary to safeguard the sensitive material that would cause harm to the public or individuals if it were revealed in open court. The test for certifying suspensive claims will require that the Home Secretary certify that the decision being taken relies partly or wholly on information that in her opinion should not be made public. I hope that those Government amendments will receive the support of the Committee of the whole House.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister very much for giving way. He will recall that, at the beginning of the debate, I raised a point of order about the fact that he, on 19 December, said that when Labour left office in 2010, the asylum “backlog…was 450,000”—his words. I have received a letter from the UK Statistics Authority completely debunking that claim. It says that in fact the backlog was 19,000, and the backlog now is 166,000. As he is at the Dispatch Box, I thought it would be a perfect opportunity for him to apologise to the House and to correct the record, as per his duties under the ministerial code.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for looking out for me. It is understandable that there would be confusion on this point because, as I think the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said on Second Reading, the situation that we inherited in 2010 was a complete shambles. Indeed, a former Labour Home Secretary described the Department as “not fit for purpose”. What we were referring to was John Vine, who was the chief inspector of borders and immigration. He conducted a report into the shambolic handling of immigration by the last Labour Government, and he said:
“In 2007, the UK Border Agency created the”—
euphemistically titled—
“Case Resolution Directorate…to conclude approximately 400,000-450,000 unresolved legacy records.”
He said:
“Such was the inefficiency of this operation that at one point over 150 boxes of post, including correspondence from applicants, MPs and their legal representatives, lay unopened in a room in Liverpool.”
That room, I am told, was colloquially known as the “room of doom”. Well, we are fixing the system, and I am pleased to say—
Robert Jenrick
No, I am not going to give way again. The hon. Member has had his moment. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the work that the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have already done, the legacy backlog is falling rapidly, and we intend to meet our commitment to clear it over the course of the year.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
I do not want to detain the Committee for too long, so let me turn to the key points that have been raised tonight. First, with respect to the powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others relating to the important question of injunctive relief, rule 39, and how we as a sovereign Parliament handle ourselves and ensure that we secure our borders, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions and I recognise the positive intention of the amendments they have tabled. I am keen to give them an undertaking that I will engage with them and other colleagues who are interested in these points ahead of Report.
We are united in our determination that the Bill will be robust, that it will be able to survive the kind of egregious and vexatious legal challenges we have seen in the past, and that it will enable us to do the job and remove illegal immigrants to safe third countries such as Rwanda. I would add that the Bill has been carefully drafted in collaboration with some of the finest legal minds, and we do believe that it enables us to do the job while complying with our international law obligations. However, we are going to engage closely with colleagues and ensure that the final Bill meets the requirements of all those on our side of the Chamber.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me speak briefly about the point raised by a number of colleagues about rule 39 and the events of last summer. The Government share the frustration, certainly of Conservative Members, about what happened with the Rwanda flight in June. A case was conducted late at night at the last minute, with no chance for us to make our case or appeal its decision. That was deeply flawed. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) was right when she said, in a thoughtful contribution, that that raises concerning issues. I think it raises issues of natural justice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and others in Government are taking up with the European Court of Human Rights. We want to find a more satisfactory way for the Court to behave in such circumstances in future.
Let me turn briefly to the swathe of amendments tabled by the Scottish National party. At this rate, there will be more SNP amendments to the Bill than there are refugees whom they accommodate in Scotland. Instead of pruning the already excessive forest of legal challenges that we find, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) proposes a Kafkaesque array of new ones. She wants to turn the robust scheme in the Bill into a sieve, and we cannot allow that to happen. The mandate of the British public is clear: they want us to stop the boats. That is what the Bill does, and that is what we intend to achieve.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his contribution. We have listened carefully to his arguments. As the Prime Minister said, it is precisely because we want to help genuine refugees that we need to take full control of our borders. Safe and legal routes, such as those we have brought forward in recent years, which have enabled almost half a million people to come to our country for humanitarian purposes since 2015, are exactly how we will achieve that. I commit to engage with my hon. Friend and other colleagues ahead of Report on setting up safe and legal routes, if necessary by bringing forward further amendments to ensure that there are new routes in addition to the existing schemes, and accelerating the point at which they become operational, with our intention being to open them next year. I also confirm that we will accelerate the process of launching the local authority consultation on safe and legal routes at the same time as the commencement of the Bill. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.
As a former Secretary of State for local government, one provision in the Bill—it was mentioned by a number of colleagues on the Conservative Benches but curiously not by those on the Opposition Benches—is extremely important to me. Government Members will not make promises in this place at the expense of local authorities and our constituents. For the first time, not only will we bring forward more safe and legal routes, but we will first consult with local communities and local authorities, so that those routes are not virtue signalling, but are wedded to the genuine capacity and ability of our communities to house people, to find GP surgery appointments and school places, and to bring those individuals into the country while ensuring that community tensions are not raised unnecessarily. That is a critical distinction.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Well, I will give way, because at one point in his remarks he said that he was for the cap, and then he said he was against it. Perhaps he can explain.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman is making good points about local authority consultation. Will he therefore support new clause 27 tomorrow, which would make it a legal requirement for the Home Office to consult local authorities before deciding on hotels?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. We have been debating it for the past five and a half hours, but he does not seem to have read it. The Bill says, for the very first time, that before we create a safe and legal route we will consult with local authorities. We should all see that as a good step forward. The public are sick of hotels being filled with illegal immigrants and they do not want the wellbeing of illegal immigrants put above that of the British public. That is a crucial change we are making.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you for allowing me to speak again, Mr Evans.
What we have had today is an absolute disgrace of a debate. The timetabling of this really important Bill has been absolutely shocking. Whatever side of the debate we are on, we must understand that it is of incredible constitutional significance. There are questions here about whether we are breaking some absolutely fundamental treaty obligations, yet we have been treated to nothing more than a few slogans and not a single effort to address any of the amendments we tabled in good faith. Those amendments were not just tabled off my own bat, but in consultation with the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—lots of respected organisations that deserve to have their voice heard here and deserve to be treated with respect by this Government. The whole process has been an absolute embarrassment to Parliament. Where is the impact assessment we should have had before the Bill? That is just as disgraceful as the lack of respect for the amendments tabled today.
What we have had today is not a serious debate. We have had slogans and dog-whistle rhetoric. We have a Government who have shown that they are all slogans and absolutely no respect for Parliament.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am anticipating four Divisions and I will try to assist the House as to when they are likely to happen. First, we go to Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash
In the light of the firm and clear assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister in relation to my amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 76, in clause 37, page 40, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of line 12 and insert:
“(a) a protection claim, (b) a human rights claim, or (c) a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking.”—(Alison Thewliss.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 and 3 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Constitutional Law
That the draft Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (Corporate Joint Committees) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.
Income Tax
That the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.—(Fay Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall now take motions 4, 5, 6 and 7 together. Energy Security and Net Zero Department for Energy Security and Net Zero 11 “Science, Innovation and Technology Department for Science, Innovation and Technology”. 11 “International Trade Scottish National Party” “Energy Security and Net Zero Scottish National Party”.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
The Speaker’s Absence
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 29 March to attend the funeral of the Right Honourable the Baroness Boothroyd, former Speaker of this House.
Standing Orders etc. (Machinery of Government Changes)
That, with effect from 26 April, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:
A. Select Committees Related to Government Departments
(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows—
(i) leave out items 10 and 14;
(ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items:
(iii) in item 1, by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” in each place it occurs and inserting “and Trade”; and
(iv) in item 3, leave out “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” in each place it occurs and inserting “Culture, Media and Sport”.
B. Related Provisions
(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)—
(i) relating to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee;
(ii) relating to the Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business and Trade Committee; and
(iii) relating to the Science and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
C. Liaison Committee
(3) That the Resolution of the House of 20 May 2020 (Liaison Committee (Membership)), as amended on 20 May 2021, be amended, in paragraph (2)—
(i) by leaving out “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Culture, Media and Sport”;
(ii) by leaving out “Science and Technology” and inserting “Science, Innovation and Technology”;
(iii) by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” and inserting “and Trade”;
(iv) by leaving out “International Trade,”; and
(v) by inserting, in the appropriate place, “Energy Security and Net Zero”.
(4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (7), by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” and inserting “and Trade”.
D. European Committees
(4) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended—
(i) in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Culture, Media and Sport”, by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” and inserting “and Trade”, by adding in the appropriate place “Science, Innovation and Technology”;
(ii) in respect of European Committee B, by leaving out “International Trade”.
E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders
(5) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” and inserting “and Trade”;
(6) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” and inserting “and Trade”; and
(7) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” and inserting “and Trade”.
F. Planning: national policy statements
(8) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows—
(a) by leaving out “Energy and Industrial Strategy” and inserting “and Trade”
(b) by inserting, in the appropriate place, “Energy Security and Net Zero”; and
(c) by inserting, in the appropriate place, “Science, Innovation and Technology”.
Select Committees (Allocation of Chairs)
That, with effect from 26 April, the allocation of chairs to select committees set out in the Order of the House of 16 January 2020, pursuant to Standing Order No. 122B, be amended as follows:
(a) by leaving out:
(b) by inserting:
Election of Select Committee Chairs (Notice of Election)
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 122B(7) and 122C(1), the Speaker may announce a date for an election of chairs of select committees before 27 April in respect of which the requirement of notice is not met.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I can now announce the arrangements for the election of the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. Nominations will close at 5 pm on Monday 24 April. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, Table Office and Public Bill Office, and online. Following the House’s decision today, only Members of the Scottish National party may be candidates.
Nominations must be accompanied by the physical signatures of five Members elected to the House as members of the Scottish National party. Nominations may also be accompanied by the signatures of up to five Members elected to the House as members of any other party or of no party. Nomination forms should be handed in to the Public Bill Office or the Table Office on days when the House is sitting. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 26 April, from 11 am to 2.30 pm in the Aye Lobby.
Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission
Ordered,
That Mr Nicholas Brown be discharged as a member of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission and Mrs Sharon Hodgson be confirmed as a member under Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Policing and drug and alcohol treatment in Hull
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition regarding the policing of antisocial behaviour in Hull, and the drug and alcohol use that often underpin it.
This problem has increasingly blighted my constituency, particularly after the weakening of powers to combat antisocial behaviour and the loss of many experienced police officers, plus the cuts to Hull City Council. One example is buses being forced to change their routes because young people have thrown rocks at drivers and endangered passengers. Often drugs and alcohol are directly involved, if not the cause of this unacceptable behaviour. Yet direct and sustained measures to tackle the blight has been lacking and the Government have today excluded Hull from the community pilots on antisocial behaviour.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider reallocating funding for both the Police and drug and alcohol treatment in Kingston Upon Hull to restore it to 2010 levels in order to reduce anti-social behaviour.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Kingston Upon Hull,
Declares that they consider that levels of anti-social behaviour in the constituency are growing at a rapid rate.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider reallocating funding for both the Police and drug and alcohol treatment in Kingston Upon Hull to restore it to 2010 levels in order to reduce anti-social behaviour.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002818]
HMS Dasher
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
It is a real honour and a fitting tribute to have secured a debate on HMS Dasher, 80 years to the day when it was lost. HMS Dasher was a Royal Navy aircraft carrier that went down off the coast of Ardrossan in my constituency, resulting in the deaths of 379 people—the single biggest loss of life of service personnel in world war two not to have been caused by enemy action—under the command of her new captain, Lennox Albert Knox Boswell.
HMS Dasher had been involved in flying exercises on that fateful Saturday. She was both fully fuelled with 75,000 gallons of ship oil and 20,000 gallons of aircraft fuel, and carrying more than 100 depth charges and at least six torpedoes. At 4.40 pm, Boswell announced that the exercises were complete and the ship was to return to Greenock, where the crew were to be granted shore leave. However, that was not to be, and no one could have predicted the tragic events that were about to unfold.
The Royal Navy Research Archive records that there was a tremendous explosion. The officers on the bridge looked in astonishment as the ship’s 2 tonne aircraft lift flew about 60 feet in the air before falling into the sea behind the ship. The fleet air arm deck was completely destroyed, with the lift between the hangar and the aircraft blown sky high, then into the sea on the port side of the Dasher. The ship was plunged into deathly darkness as lights and machinery failed, and a strange silence descended on the fatally wounded ship. Within eight short minutes, it sank almost vertically beneath the waves.
Those who could abandoned the ship, jumping overboard from any point of exit they could reach as the fires in the hangar deck grew more intense. With oil burning on the water, many crewmen who had managed to jump overboard were caught up in flames when the aviation fuel floating on the water’s surface was ignited by the flames of the ship. While help was quickly scrambled to undertake rescue efforts, the ship had gone down so quickly—witnesses estimate it took no more than seven or eight minutes—that there was little chance of saving those on board. Of a crew of 528, only 149 survived, with 379 losing their lives on that fateful day.
To this day, the remains of the ship lie in the firth of the Clyde, south of Millport and between Brodick on the Isle of Arran and Ardrossan on the mainland, and the exact cause of that terrible incident remains unknown. The ship was not under enemy fire, and there are no records of German U-boats or aircraft in the area at the time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand about this issue. Many families of those who sadly passed away on HMS Dasher still have no clarity to this day. They worry that they themselves will be gone, knowing nothing about their loved ones’ ending. Some have formed the view that bodies are buried in a mass grave somewhere; others are convinced that someone has to know something about what happened. Many will never give up hope that they will have some closure on what happened, and like the hon. Lady, I also have that hope. Does she agree that if documentation exists in relation to this issue that is hidden from the public, we in this House should do all we can through the Minister to encourage that it be fully disclosed, for the sake of those who need clarity in order to move on and to grieve in peace?
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There have been some explorations about mass graves, but no evidence has been uncovered to back up that theory. However, there is an issue of men unaccounted for from that day, which is a cause of grief for families.
At the time, the Westminster Government ordered a complete news blackout for fear of damaging morale, and fearing questions as to whether or not faulty US construction could have been a factor in the tragedy. Local media were ordered to make no reference to the event, and survivors were also ordered not to discuss the events of that day. As a result, the many lives lost and the bravery of the crew and rescue teams have not always been acknowledged as they ought to have been. There has been speculation that the authorities ordered the dead to be buried in unmarked mass graves, but none has ever been found. The Royal Navy insists that a mass unmarked grave would have been against Admiralty policy, and that all sources relating to the sinking of HMS Dasher are now in the public domain.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
This is a story that I became aware of only a few days ago, and it is a horrific story by any standards. In January 1941, five men—the youngest of them only 15—from the village of West Wemyss in Fife were killed saving the village from a rogue sea mine that had gone adrift. As happened with the Dasher, people were not allowed to talk about it, even within the village, because of security concerns. Does my hon. Friend agree that after this length of time, the rights of surviving family members and friends to know exactly how and why their loved ones died have to take precedence over anything else? There is no longer any justification for withholding information about why the Dasher exploded in the case she is speaking to, or, indeed, whether it was a German or a British mine that killed five men in West Wemyss in 1941.
Patricia Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, it is important that we understand that security considerations are at play during wartime, but ultimately families need to have the answers they seek when any casualties are sustained in any circumstances where people are serving their country and putting themselves in danger to protect the freedoms that we all enjoy.
Some of the Dasher remains recovered are buried in Ardrossan cemetery, recorded by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, while others are unaccounted for. I pay tribute to the work of the late John Steele of Ardrossan, who sadly died in December 2021, and his widow Noreen, who have extensively researched this tragedy and published their findings in a publication called “The Secrets of HMS Dasher”. They found that the official number of recovered bodies listed by the inquiry into the tragedy was far greater than officially indicated and sought tirelessly to find out the location of any unaccounted for men.
Sadly, despite the huge loss of life on HMS Dasher, or more likely because of the huge loss of life, this incident was undisclosed until 1945, when it was given a brief mention in The London Times. Bereaved families at the time of the loss of HMS Dasher were told only that their loved ones were missing, presumed lost. It was not until 1972, when official documents were released, that details of HMS Dasher and those who went down with her were revealed, yet the bereaved received no further official communication, other than the telegram they had received in 1943, indicating that their loved one was missing, presumed lost.
After this tragedy, an official board of inquiry was hastily convened, and within just two days, it was concluded that the Dasher had sunk due to an internal petrol explosion. However, some argue that several key witnesses were not called to give evidence. The official cause of her sinking is still doubtful, but it seems the explosion most likely occurred in the main petrol compartment and was ignited either by someone smoking in the shaft tunnel or a dropped cigarette.
The late John Steele and his widow Noreen spent long years interviewing numerous survivors of the disaster and browsed previously classified documents to better understand the ship’s fate. This painstaking work led them to conclude that the ship was never suitable for combat operations and that it was a disaster waiting to happen. Shortly before its sinking, it was found to contravene more than 20 Royal Navy regulations. Significantly, there was fuel splashing around the vessel. It is worth noting that the other converted Rio class ships had alterations soon after the loss of HMS Dasher and the amount of fuel permitted on board these ships was significantly reduced.
Mr Steele observed:
“What eventually spelled the end for HMS Dasher ship was its leaking petrol tanks. Sometimes the sailors could not return to their cabins due to the fumes. Just one small spark could have triggered the explosion, after which the ship took only eight minutes to sink.”
Steele and his wife Noreen were determined to discover what happened to those dead who remain unaccounted for, and he continued to investigate the rumoured mass grave in which many of the dead were said to be buried. Sadly, Mr Steele ended his days without finding out where those unaccounted for were, despite his tireless efforts to do so over many years, but I know that many of the bereaved families are grateful for his efforts to find their lost loved ones and raise awareness of this terrible event.
The site of HMS Dasher in the Clyde is an official protected war grave, designated as a controlled site under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Several memorials have been erected in the surrounding area, commemorating the event and the loss of life. On 28 June 2000, a memorial plaque was laid on the flight deck by a team from the European Technical Dive Centre. Every year, the staff of CalMac ferries stop over the very spot between Ardrossan and Arran where the Dasher went down, allowing bereaved relatives and local veterans to lay flowers and pay tribute to those who were lost. I want to pay tribute to those staff for the efforts they make to facilitate this.
Shortly after I was first elected in 2015, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, requesting a copy of the survey that was carried out on the site of the wreck of the Dasher. In his response, he explained that it was believed that significant, though unquantified, amounts of oil and ammunition may remain in the wreck, which lies in close proximity to a number of environmentally sensitive areas. No report was available as the purpose of the survey was to establish the location of the wreck site. In 2014, another non-intrusive survey was undertaken involving a remotely operated vehicle to obtain video and sonar footage of the wreckage.
The wreck of HMS Dasher lies about 500 feet down in the firth of Clyde between Ardrossan and Arran. It is recognised as an official war grave because the crew were unable to leave the vessel as it sank. However, the mystery of HMS Dasher continues with the story of John—“Jack”—Melville, aged 37, who drowned, and it is now believed that he may have been the real “man who never was”. Mr Melville’s body, many argue, was used in Operation Mincemeat, which was an elaborate hoax to fool the Germans into believing allied forces would invade southern Europe through Greece and Sardinia rather than through Sicily.
In 2004, 61 years after Melville died, his daughter, Mrs Mackay from Galashiels, was able to give her father the memorial service he deserved, with the help of the Royal Navy in Cyprus. The memorial service took place on board the current HMS Dasher, a patrol boat, in waters around a British sovereign RAF base in Cyprus. This was undoubtedly the first tribute by the Royal Navy to John Melville, the alleged “man who never was”, and it is thought to be the first time Britain’s armed services recognised Melville’s role.
The success of Operation Mincemeat was dependent on the provision of a believable genuine corpse. It is believed that, after Mr Melville’s body was recovered from the firth of Clyde following the loss of HMS Dasher, it was packed in ice and placed on board the submarine HMS Seraph for transport to the Mediterranean. There, his body was carefully dressed in the uniform of a Royal Marines courier, the fictitious Major William Martin, ensuring details such as labels were all correct. He was provided with false documentation to support the legend, including personal letters and photographs provided by female staff involved in the operation. Finally, the courier’s all-important leather briefcase containing the false plans was prepared, ready for transport.
On 29 April 1943, HMS Seraph made ready and departed for a location on the coast of Spain, chosen in the knowledge that an active German agent was stationed there. The prepared body was preserved in dry ice, packed in a special canister and identified only as secret meteorological equipment to all but those directly involved. At 4.30 on the morning of 30 April 1943, the canister was brought up on deck under the pretence of deploying the equipment it contained. The Seraph’s crew were ordered below deck, and the submarine’s officers were finally briefed on the real operation and sworn to secrecy. The canister was opened, Major Martin’s body was fitted with a Mae West lifejacket and the briefcase was attached. The 39th Psalm was read, and then the body was gently pushed into the sea, leaving the tide to carry it ashore, together with a rubber dinghy to complete the illusion of an aircraft accident.
And the hoax worked. Days after the body appeared on the Spanish coast, Winston Churchill received a telegram saying, “Mincemeat swallowed whole.” In addition to saving thousands of allied soldiers’ lives, Operation Mincemeat helped to further Italian leader Benito Mussolini’s downfall and to turn the tide of the war towards an allied victory in Europe. Although many still speculate and disagree as to the real identity of the man who never was, many absolutely believe that it was indeed Mr John Melville.
Tonight, I hope that commemorating the tragedy of the loss of HMS Dasher on the Floor of the House offers some tribute to the strength of North Ayrshire and Arran’s people, bringing the horror and devastation of the sinking of HMS Dasher to life while also remembering and honouring those who died and those who survived, sometimes with physical or psychological injuries. The crew were part of a war against tyranny, and they made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms and democracy. We must retell their story and pay tribute to them to ensure their memory lives on. Conflict continues in many parts of the world. This anniversary must remind us of those men and women who devote their lives to upholding democratic principles—principles that Ukraine is battling to defend as we speak.
In North Ayrshire and Arran, we have a proud history of supporting our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. I thank all servicemen and women, their families and Royal British Legion volunteers who support our veterans and have ensured that HMS Dasher’s sinking is properly commemorated, woven as it is into the fabric of Ardrossan’s history. I wish I had time tonight to give a roll call of all those lost on HMS Dasher, but instead I will simply ask the Minister to join me in paying tribute to all those who were so tragically lost that night, so suddenly. The impact on the survivors is beyond anything we can imagine, and the grief of the bereaved families would have been profound and life-changing.
As I prepared for the debate, and in response to my early-day motion 969 on the 80th anniversary of HMS Dasher’s sinking, I was contacted by David Mackintosh, who was involved with the HMS Dasher Association for many years, and whose great uncle Cecil John Davis, Ordinary Telegraphist, was lost at the age of 21 when the vessel went down. He is now buried in Ardrossan cemetery. This tragedy is truly part of Ardrossan, and the memorial to the lives lost has a prominent place in the town. I pass it regularly, as it is sited metres from my constituency office. The graves of those young men are well tended in Ardrossan cemetery, and they are treated with the reverence and respect they are due. This is a special day of commemoration for the people of Ardrossan, many of whom I know will have reflected quietly on this anniversary, with a great sense of loss and grief across the town. I hope the Minister will join me in paying tribute to all those who were on board HMS Dasher that night, those who survived, and those who did not. We will always remember their great bravery and their ultimate sacrifice.
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this debate to mark such an important anniversary, and for paying a moving tribute to those whose lives ended so tragically 80 years ago today. As she has set out, the explosion and subsequent sinking of HMS Dasher in the Firth of Clyde in 1943 was the second highest loss of life on a British warship in UK waters in the second world war. I cannot begin to imagine the depth of sorrow experienced by the families of the 379 men who lost their lives that day, unaware, as they were, of exactly how and where their loved ones had died. Back then, the situation was complicated by operational considerations and, as the hon. Lady has said, the Admiralty did not want the enemy to know the detail of the sinking of HMS Dasher. I therefore join her in remembering the crew of HMS Dasher. In doing so, we will preserve the memories of that terrible day, and their loss.
Let me take this opportunity to reflect on HMS Dasher’s remarkable, albeit short, history. A former cargo vessel, it was acquired from US operator Moore-McCormack Lines by the American navy on our behalf in 1941. Under the lend-lease scheme, it was converted into an aircraft carrier at a shipyard in New Jersey, before joining up with the Royal Navy to support the war effort a year later. Although her service was brief, Dasher played a central role in Operation Torch, the allied invasion of north Africa that was designed to remove the Axis presence from the continent. Alongside two other aircraft carriers, HMS Biter and HMS Furious, Dasher provided vital cover for the landing at Oran, Algeria, in November 1942. The operation marked the first time that the UK and the US had worked together on an invasion plan, and it resulted in a remarkable success, enabling the allies eventually to defeat German Field Marshal Rommel’s forces, and seize control of north Africa.
In February 1943, Dasher was assigned to escort Arctic Convoy JW53, but suffered severe weather damage and proceeded to Dundee for repairs. On 24 March 1943, she arrived on the Clyde with five Sea Hurricanes and six Swordfish aircraft to commence an operational work-up. That operational work-up took her out into the Firth of Clyde, where, three days later, as the hon. Lady set out, she was sunk in the extraordinarily sad circumstances that have been described. The closest nearby vessels were immediately diverted to assist in the rescue efforts, including the minesweeping trawler HMS Sir Galahad and the radar training ship Isle of Sark. Other ships were despatched from ports and harbours along the Clyde, including two merchant vessels, SS Cragsman and SS Lithium, which rescued 74 survivors between them. But Dasher was engulfed in flames and sinking rapidly. Within eight minutes, the entire ship was gone, leaving only 149 survivors out of a crew of 528, many of whom were covered in oil and fighting for their lives in freezing water.
We do not know exactly what caused the blasts that day, but the Court of Enquiry held in the aftermath concluded, as the hon. Lady said, that it was most likely the accidental ignition of a build-up of petrol vapour. Subsequently, inadequate safety provisions were identified which led to modifications to all the Navy’s US-built escort carriers, as well as significant changes in standard operating procedures, including reducing the volume of fuel carried on ships. As is sadly so common in conflict, all but 23 of those who died that day went down with the ship and their bodies have never been recovered. Instead, they are rightly commemorated on war memorials around the country, including the naval memorials at Chatham, Lee-on-the-Solent, Liverpool, Portsmouth and Plymouth, as well as at the RAF memorial at Runnymede and at memorials in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I am very loth to introduce any note of disharmony tonight, but is he aware that there are very, very strong reports from a number of witnesses at the time that teams of body recoverers along the coast were convinced that they recovered far more bodies than the official number disclosed by the admiralty? Has he looked into that, or is he simply reading the statement given at the time that said everybody who was not buried in Ardrossan went down with the ship? A lot of people who were there that day do not believe that that is what happened.
James Heappey
As we read through the pack for today’s debate, we see that questions have been asked in this place and the other place a number of times in the 80 years since. There are a number of theories about what may or may not have happened that night, but all the records of the incident are now fully declassified and available through the National Archives. The survey undertaken is also freely available from the UK Hydrographic Office in Taunton. I am aware of the stories that there are of that night. I do not want, 80 years on, to cause any unnecessary disagreement or debate. I think all the questions around those sorts of suggestions have been well answered. I think that we might confidently conclude, now that all the papers of the time have been declassified, that the situation is as described by the Ministry of Defence and the official record.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this is not the debate to cause disagreement, but the hon. Lady referred to Operation Mincemeat and it is a truly extraordinary story. Given the remarkable story of HMS Dasher, it would almost be nice to think that it was indeed John Melville who was used in that case, but the National Archives records have been declassified and are available to the public and they clearly show that it was Glyndwr Michael who was used for that incredible operation. But let us not differ in opinion on a moment of memorial
I thank everyone who has supported the 80th anniversary commemorations this past weekend, including the hon. Lady who secured the debate. In particular, a contingent of naval personnel supported memorial events in Ardrossan, including a wreath-laying and a service over the wreck. The hon. Lady has brought the plight of HMS Dasher to the House this evening, 80 years to the day since she was lost. The record of her debate will act as a further memorial to the 379 men who died that day. We will all remember them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
And they have been rightly remembered in Parliament today thanks to Patricia.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023 (S.I. 2023, No. 319).
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone.
As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd was sold on Monday 13 March to HSBC. Customers of SVB UK are now able to access their deposits and banking services as normal. The transaction was facilitated by the Bank of England, in consultation with the Treasury, using powers granted to it by Parliament through the Banking Act 2009. In doing so, we limited risk to our tech and life sciences sector and safeguarded some of the UK’s most promising companies, protecting customers, financial stability and the taxpayer. The solution was a win for taxpayers, customers and the banking system.
SVB UK has become a subsidiary of HSBC’s ringfenced bank. Ringfencing requires banking groups that hold over £25 billion of retail deposits to separate their retail banking from their investment banking activities. The regime provides for a four-year transition period for an entity acquired as part of the resolution process before it becomes subject to ringfencing requirements. As a result of that existing legislation, SVB UK is not currently subject to ringfencing requirements. However, HSBC UK, the parent company of SVB UK, remains subject to the ringfencing regime.
To facilitate the transaction, we laid in both Houses of Parliament on Monday 13 March a statutory instrument, using powers under the Banking Act 2009, to broaden an existing exemption in ringfencing legislation with regard to HSBC’s purchase of SVB UK. The exemption allows HSBC’s ringfenced bank to provide below market rate intra-group funding to SVB UK. That was crucial for the success of HSBC’s takeover of SVB UK, because it ensured that HSBC was able to provide the necessary funds to its newly acquired subsidiary.
HSBC has since stated publicly that it has provided approximately £2 billion of liquidity to SVB UK—money that it required to continue to meet the needs of its customers, and which this instrument facilitated. The Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority are fully supportive of this modification to the ringfencing regime as a necessary step to facilitate the sale.
In view of the urgency, and given that this statutory instrument was crucial in enabling the sale, the Treasury determined that it was necessary to lay the instrument using the made affirmative procedure, under its powers in the Banking Act 2009. Parliament provided the Treasury with those powers for exactly such situations, recognising that exceptional circumstances can arise when the Government must take emergency action in the interests of financial stability, depositors and taxpayers.
The statutory instrument also makes a number of modifications to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in relation to the rule-making powers of the PRA and the Financial Conduct Authority. Specifically, the rule-making powers are modified to ensure that regulators can exercise them effectively when they relate to the Bank of England’s transfer of SVB UK to HSBC, and the write-down of SVB’s UK shareholders and certain bondholders. The statutory instrument also waives the requirement for the regulators to consult on certain rule changes related to the sale.
In addition to today’s measure, the Government will in due course lay another statutory instrument to make further changes to the ringfencing regime with regard to HSBC’s purchase of SVB UK.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Treasury for the way in which they moved swiftly to facilitate the acquisition of SVB UK by HSBC.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the questionable confidence in some banks around the world. Has he made an assessment of whether he will need to come before Parliament again to propose similar adjustments to regulations for other banks that might find themselves in the same situation as SVB UK, or should we be confident that the UK banking sector in the UK is sufficiently robust?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Primacy for financial stability sits within the Bank of England and the Financial Policy Committee. All I can say is that the Governor of the Bank of England has confirmed that, in his view, the UK banking system remains
“safe, sound and well capitalised”.
I hope that my right hon. Friend understands that it would not be right for me to step outside those words.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Minister said a moment ago that HSBC has to date provided some £2 billion to SVB to enable it to service its customers. Are such sums reported regularly to the Bank of England and regulators? Does he anticipate that HSBC will need to transfer further sums to continue to support depositors?
Andrew Griffith
Colleagues should know that I have nearly concluded my initial comments, if they want to intervene.
The truth is that I do not know whether such sums are reported regularly. Within the financial regulation system, the PRA has strong oversight, often with quite intrusive reporting requirements. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about the ongoing nature of reporting. It is public knowledge that the bank had suffered withdrawals in the days immediately running up to the action we took, so clearly the money’s purpose was, in effect, to replenish it so that the money was in funds for all the bank’s clients.
The second statutory instrument that we will lay in due course will allow SVB UK to remain exempt from the ringfencing rules beyond the four-year transition period, subject to certain conditions—in effect, to make that permanent. That second exemption is not required immediately, and it will not be subject to the made affirmative procedure, but the House will have an opportunity to debate it after it has been introduced. The exemption was deemed critical to the success of the sale as it ensured that SVB UK could remain a commercially viable, stand-alone business, serving its clients within the HSBC group.
There was a clear determination that the measures were crucial to facilitating the purchase of SVB UK by HSBC—not just by the Government, but by the Bank of England. The UK has a world-leading tech sector, with a dynamic start-up and scale-up ecosystem, and the Government were pleased that a private sector purchaser was found. I therefore hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in supporting the legislation.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone.
The Labour party welcomes the quick work done by the Treasury, the Bank of England and regulators to secure the HSBC rescue deal for the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank. SVB UK serves a high concentration of life science and tech companies in this country. As the Minister said, those firms play an indispensable role in driving growth and innovation across the economy. That is why we will give our full support to the statutory instrument.
I have a number of questions about the detail of the measure, including on where it sits in the Government’s wider strategy for financial stability. In the US, we saw that SVB made financial decisions based on an assumption that interest rates would remain low for some time. That contributed to its failure. We have also seen difficulties in other banks, such as Credit Suisse. How is the Minister working with the Bank of England, regulators and national partners to review the impact of interest rate rises and wider uncertainty on our financial system? What steps is he taking to mitigate risks?
As the Minister set out, under the SI, HSBC has been given an exemption from certain ringfencing requirements so that it can provide preferential intra-group lending or funding to SVB UK. Will he set out in further detail the background to and justification for that decision, as well as the Government’s announced intention to permit SVB UK to remain exempt from the ringfencing rules beyond the four-year transition period? Of course, we recognise the circumstances that SVB UK is in but, as he knows, ringfencing reforms were introduced for good reason: to protect savers and taxpayers from a banking crisis. I need reassurance from him that, contrary to what has been suggested, the Government do not propose any further tinkering with the ringfencing regime beyond this measure for SVB UK.
I wanted to bring up the risks to start-ups. The risk that the collapse of SVB poses to the tech sector underlines the importance of ensuring that UK start-ups have access to a deep and diverse pool of capital. What reassurance can the Minister provide that under HSBC’s ownership, SVB UK will continue to be able to support early-stage tech and life-science businesses in the UK? Beyond that, what will the Government do to ensure that start-ups have access to a wide pool of patient capital?
As I set out, we support the SI, which helps to protect the health of SVB UK and the tech sector that it supports, but I would like reassurance from the Minister on my concerns.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The Minister certainly explained why the exemption is necessary, and what it was for: it allows HSBC to make £2 billion of liquidity funding available at below market rates. So far, so good. I will put on record that all involved did an extraordinary job over a weekend to resolve this difficulty, and that was absolutely the right thing to do.
The explanatory memorandum and the Minister have both mentioned a subsequent SI that will extend the exemption from ringfencing beyond four years. I have a similar question to that asked by the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. The ringfence was introduced—I am sure that many remember the circumstances—to stop investment banks using retail deposits as a piggy bank, and then losing all those deposits at the casino. While it may be necessary to extend the exemption beyond four years, will it be possible to shrink that period? Could there be a return to ringfencing within four years? What supervision or action is there by the PRA, the Treasury and others to ensure that SVB UK maintains its capital, and its ongoing work in the area of retail deposits and commercial and investment lending, and to ensure that it does not seek to extend its risky investment lending, and to use retail deposits for that, beyond these four years?
Andrew Griffith
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and the right hon. Member for Dundee East as I master my brief.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn talked about the wider issue of interest rates in the current environment. The Bank of England has processes in place to monitor their impact. Each year it carries out a stress test that involves plausible economic scenarios. The 2022 stress test included a rapid rise in interest rates—the UK bank rate was assumed to rise to 6% in early 2023—and higher global interest rates. The hon. Lady will be as keen as I am to see the results of that test, which will be published in the summer. This year, the Bank will also run, for the first time, an exploratory scenario exercise based on non-bank financial institution risks, which I imagine are also of concern to the hon. Lady.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and the right hon. Member for Dundee East talked about the background to and justification for the exemption. To put it simply, it was a prerequisite for the deal in order for SVB to continue to service its existing range of clients. In the circumstances, the view of the Treasury and the Bank of England was that it was expedient. While I do not think that hon. Members have misunderstood the situation, I was clear that the exemption is absolutely not one for HSBC itself. Its ringfenced activities and balance sheet remain within the ringfence, with all the protections that involves. Whether or not I agree with the characterisation of the right hon. Member for Dundee East, all of those protections remain as is. The simple fact is that SVB UK, a much smaller bank, accounts for roughly fewer than 1% of clients. I can be bolder: I think fewer than 10% of 1% of the company’s clients will sit within SVB UK, and there will, of course, be provisions to prevent the migration of one to the other. Effectively, the objective of what we are doing will maintain the status quo.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked whether there would be any further “tinkering” with the ringfencing regime. I assure her there will not be any tinkering, but there might well be appropriate reforms. They will draw on the work of Sir Keith Skeoch, with whom she is probably familiar, and also the expressions of interest that are out in the field. She might wish to engage with that process and make sure her views are well represented. The purpose of doing so is always to mobilise productive capital in the right way. While there are many positive aspects to the ringfence, if it is implemented wrongly, it can suppress the availability of capital for start-ups, scale-ups and SMEs, which none of us would intend.
After the hon. Lady suggested that we might tinker with the ringfence, she spoke about what we are doing to help the sector in question, which is a core focus for the Government. The Chancellor said in the Budget that we will come forward with a full package of measures by the autumn statement. Work is going on right now to ensure that our most cutting-edge companies can access capital at every part of the curve—from scale-up from the first round, all the way through to the listed environment. That includes the £250 million LIFTS—long-term investment for technology and science—scheme, which we launched in the Budget. We are also progressing the Department for Work and Pensions consultation on the value-for-money framework relating to capital trapped in pensions, as well as the potential for pension scheme consolidation and lifting the charge cap on pensions. We also extended the British patient capital programme by a further 10 years until 2033-34, with an increased focus on the most R&D-intensive industries. That will put another £3 billion behind opportunities for the most productive capital.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked for reassurance that, under HSBC’s ownership, the sector would continue to be supported. I have had that assurance from the bank’s executives. It is not for the Government to commit to how the bank will run that business, but it is putting capital behind it and has talked about a growth strategy. As I understand it, it has retained the existing management, who were well regarded in the sector. Although no one should be naive, and we will keep a close eye on the situation, everything that I have seen to date gives me the reassurance that the hon. Lady wants.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building (Public Bodies and Higher-Risk Building Work) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building (Public Bodies and Higher-Risk Building Work) (England) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to see you, Sir Robert, and to serve under your chairmanship. Under the Building Safety Act 2022, the Government are introducing a more stringent regulatory regime during design and construction, with the Building Safety Regulator becoming the sole building control authority for building works defined as higher risk. Under the current regime, there is an historical exemption available to public bodies where, if approved by the Government, they can obtain a partial or full exemption to the building control procedural requirements. The draft regulations will ensure that in future, public bodies will not be able to obtain an exemption to carry out building control on their own higher-risk building work. The Building Safety Regulator will instead carry that out for all higher-risk buildings, including those owned by public bodies.
The regulations are a small but important part of our ongoing reforms to improve the safety and standards of all buildings. First, the regulations remove the Minister’s ability to grant building control procedural exemptions to public bodies for higher-risk building work. In future, all higher-risk building work will be overseen by the Building Safety Regulator. The ability to grant exemptions for non-higher-risk building work is unaffected.
Secondly, the regulations require any public bodies with a partial exemption under section 54 of the Building Act 1984 to cancel their public body notice with the local authority if the building work becomes higher risk. Local authorities will also be required to cancel public body notices in the same circumstances. Currently, no public body is approved under this partial exemption system; therefore, the measures are being introduced for future use only, and they will not change existing arrangements. Only one public body has any type of exemption—the Metropolitan police—and separate regulations to be introduced later this year will change that exemption to apply only to non-higher-risk building work.
Thirdly, the regulations will allow the Building Safety Regulator to impose a fine of £7,500 on public bodies that have not cancelled their public body notice when building work becomes higher-risk building work. For the reasons outlined, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I thank the Minister for that concise explanation. The regulations, as he said, simply ensure that building control on higher-risk buildings can no longer be undertaken by local authorities and other public bodies with a building control procedural exemption, but must instead be supervised by the new Building Safety Regulator. The regulations are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the new building safety regime. The Opposition will support them.
As the statutory instrument before us is narrow, technical and uncontroversial, I do not intend to detain the Committee for any length of time in debating its specific provisions. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister—I had to work hard to get the questions on this one. First, I note that a full impact assessment has not been produced for the instrument, given that it is judged to have no significant impact, but have the Government made any estimate of how many fewer public body notices are likely to be required under the new regime?
Secondly, and more importantly, the Government sought views on the matter of restricting the activities and functions for building control bodies as part of their consultation on changes to the building control profession and the building control process for approved inspectors. The consultation closed only on 14 March and, according to gov.uk, the feedback submitted is still being analysed. While it is laudable that the Department should seek to move at pace to make amendments to the Building Act 1984 in connection with higher-risk building work carried out by local authorities and any other public bodies, the fact that we are passing the regulations before the consultation responses have even been analysed prompts the question of why the Government asked for feedback in the first place. Will the Minister therefore clarify whether the responses to the consultation have informed the drafting of the statutory instrument in any way, given that none of us would presumably wish to see consultees waste time making submissions that are effectively ignored?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I wrote down his first question, but I have lost it among my documents. Will he remind me of it?
Lee Rowley
The position is that, because the public body notices are not being utilised and the use of them is therefore minimal, the impact of their usage or the future need for them will also be minimal. On the second point, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, in order not to detain the Committee any longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. The draft statutory instrument relates to the fire safety of all passenger ships on international voyages, a limited class of passenger ships on non-international voyages and all cargo ships of 500 gross tons or over. It makes provision for different generations of ship, with the fire protection requirements differing slightly between the generations.
The draft instrument will be made under safety powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. It is subject to the enhanced scrutiny procedures under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, because it revokes an instrument that was amended by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. However, the draft instrument does not implement any EU obligations.
The draft regulations implement the most up-to-date requirements of chapter II-2 of the international convention for the safety of life at sea 1974, known as SOLAS. They bring UK domestic law up to date and in line with internationally agreed requirements. They contain direct references to the vast majority of the SOLAS requirements. Those references are ambulatory, so future updates to the provisions will be given direct effect in UK law when they enter into force internationally. That assists us in keeping the UK up to date with our international requirements.
The draft regulations will revoke and replace the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2003 and the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection: Large Ships) Regulations 1998. The 1998 regulations were amended through section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations will further improve fire safety standards for ships. They will enable the UK to enforce the requirements against UK ships wherever they may be in the world, and against non-UK ships when they are in UK waters.
SOLAS chapter II-2 contains provision for structural fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction on ships. That includes, for example, prevention of fires and explosions, suppression of fire, escape from fire, operational requirements, alternative design and arrangements, and other requirements that are specific to particular situations. SOLAS is supplemented by the fire safety systems code and the fire test procedures code. All are amended from time to time at the International Maritime Organisation. A number of amendments have been agreed at the IMO and have come into force internationally.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister is making an interesting speech. I am looking at regulation 5(2)(d), which refers to fishing vessels. Does that include every size of fishing vessel? Obviously, the other regulations refer to ships. Does that include small fishing vessels as well as the larger ones?
Mr Holden
My understanding is that the regulations are for all cargo ships, but I will write to the right hon. Lady on the specifics if that is not the case for all fishing vessels.
Amendments in 20 resolutions have been agreed at the IMO since 2003 to further improve the safety standards of fire protection, but they have not yet been implemented into UK law. The UK supported those amendments during the IMO discussions, and as a party to SOLAS, the UK now has an obligation to implement those further updates.
The Department held an eight-week public consultation on the draft regulations. None of the five responses received were contentious, and no changes to the regulations were made as a result. Responses were issued, as well as a post-consultation report, which was published on gov.uk. We have 440 ships on the UK flag, 324 of which are partially owned in the UK. They are expected to be already compliant with the requirements of the draft regulations. Making the regulations will enable the UK to enforce the same fire protection requirements as other states.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, there is reference in the draft regulations to smaller ships, which make up about 3% of the fleet and have fewer than 50 people employed on them. How does that relate to what my right hon. Friend was asking about small fishing vessels and whether the regulations apply to them?
Mr Holden
My understanding is that some fishing vessels over 500 gross tons, especially those with mixed functions on board—for example, canning at sea—are treated like cargo ships. Other smaller vessels are in different categories, but the measures apply to those larger vessels.
Making the regulations will enable the UK to enforce the same requirements as other states—requirements to which UK ships are currently subject when entering foreign ports. That will provide greater equality between UK shipping companies and foreign operators. Members have highlighted the importance of the regulations: they improve safety standards, meet the UK’s international obligations and ensure a level playing field for UK shipping companies. I trust that we have cross-party support for this statutory instrument, which implements important updates to SOLAS regarding fire safety in UK domestic legislation. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Harris.
Twenty resolutions relating to fire protection at sea have been implemented by the International Maritime Organisation since the UK integrated the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2003 into UK law. Those resolutions have, for example, updated the requirements for firefighting systems on ships by adding water mist nozzles to onboard sprinkler systems back in 2010. Another resolution, in January 2020, updated the requirements for ease of access to escape routes for ship passengers. A further resolution, in July 2004, updated the requirements for how dangerous and/or flammable goods should be stowed on board. All that will be implemented in UK law by this SI.
The draft regulations will apply to passenger ships engaged on international voyages. They will apply to a small class of passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages and to cargo ships of 500 gross tons and above, as the Minister said, engaged on both international and non-international voyages. They will also apply to sailing ships of 500 gross tons and above and to United Kingdom pleasure vessels of 500 gross tons and above.
We know how dangerous a workplace ships can be. Many carry dangerous or hazardous cargo and large amounts of fuel. They are cramped working environments, despite their size, and the ocean is very unstable. It is vital that we take steps to make those workplaces as safe as we can for all our seafarers, because when things go wrong at sea, escape routes and rescue missions can be as perilous as the fires our seafarers seek to escape.
Just a month ago, a Dutch-flagged vessel caught fire in the gulf of Riga when travelling between Lithuania and Latvia. The fire is thought to have broken out in the engine room, and staff tried valiantly to extinguish the fire. Because of the sheer size of the vessel—named the Escape, as it happens—and the very nature of its load, containers, it was thought that some of the cargo was hazardous. Thankfully, all 15 crew were picked up by a nearby vessel and did indeed escape.
Another recent example, in the last month, was the Felicity Ace, which was a specialist cargo ship carrying more than 4,000 cars that caught alight near the Azores. Again, thankfully, the vessel’s 22 crew members were evacuated, but the fire continued to burn for several days, fuelled by lithium batteries in electric vehicles on board. The rescue of this abandoned ship sadly ended in it sinking to the bottom of the Atlantic. The rescue was going well, but during towing it began to ingress water, lost its stability and sank. Thankfully, its fuel tanks remain intact, although there is no guarantee that that will remain the case, and it could lead to yet another environmental disaster. Thankfully, no souls perished on this occasion. However, there will be environmental damage caused by the incident, and damage to international supply chains will be colossal.
I have met multiple Ministers multiple times to debate such statutory instruments and to discuss elements of these regulations covering a number of safety areas, such as life-saving appliances, bilge pumping and warnings, damage stability, as well as these regulations covering fire protection. I asked some time ago what stage we were at with the delayed maritime legislation. I know the Minister several incarnations ago said he would write to me to update me, but I do not recall receiving that letter. I ask this Minister if he can help with this matter. Our priority must be ensuring that those working at sea or travelling on vessels as covered by the instrument are kept safe from harm. We will therefore not oppose this statutory instrument today.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for his comments. The statutory instrument looks to implement fire safety requirements into UK domestic law, bringing our domestic law in line with international requirements and fulfilling our international obligations, and I will refer to a couple of the specific points raised.
On fishing vessels, only those over 500 gross tons that have an extra manufacturing facility on board, such as canning, are covered by this instrument. Fishing vessels themselves are covered by other regulations in this area, so I hope the right hon. Member for Walsall South will rest assured that that matter has been cleared up.
Regarding the broader issues around the maritime backlog, I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East to let him know where we are on that matter. One of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), made a commitment to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in October 2021 about clearing the backlog, and I will happily write to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East with an update.
I hope that I have answered the questions raised today, as well as giving that extra commitment to the hon. Gentleman, and that the Committee will agree that this SI, which will improve fire safety requirements, is necessary. Given the safety requirements of the instrument, it is right that it is brought into law as soon as is practicable.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Coronation Licensing Hours) Order 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Coronation Licensing Hours) Order 2023.
It is an honour to appear before you, Mr Stringer, even if a little untimely, and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The draft order will have the effect of extending licensing hours to mark the coronation of His Majesty the King. It is a great privilege to stand in Committee today in my capacity as a Home Office Minister to discuss a piece of legislation that is designed to facilitate a period of joy and celebration for our country. The coronation is an occasion of profound significance. A great many people will, I am sure, want to gather together and to raise a glass to His Majesty the King.
Under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Secretary of State can make an order relaxing licensing hours to mark occasions of exceptional national significance. I am sure that Members across the Committee will agree that the coronation is just such an occasion.
The Home Office conducted a public consultation to seek the views of the public. The majority of responses were in favour of the licensing extension. The responses also agreed with the proposed duration and location, and that the extension should apply only to sales of alcohol for consumption on the premises. The draft order is therefore to extend licensing hours in England and Wales on Friday 5 May, Saturday 6 May and Sunday 7 May until 1 am the following morning.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I have no desire to slow down proceedings and, as I am sure the Committees appreciates, I wholeheartedly support this piece of delegated legislation—in fact, like most Members present, I am sure I will be out celebrating as well—but I have a specific question to ask the Minister. Where a licence has been revoked or suspended, will that suspension remain in place?
Miss Dines
That is a technical point to which I shall revert a little later.
The extension will apply to premises, licences and club premises certificates in England and Wales that license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises only, as mentioned. Such premises will be allowed to remain open without having to notify the licensing authority via a temporary event notice. The draft order covers only sales for consumption on the premises after 11 pm; it does not cover premises that sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets.
Premises that are licensed to provide regulated entertainment will be able to do so until 1 am on the nights covered by the draft order, even where those premises are not licensed to sell alcohol. That includes, for example, venues holding music events or dances, as well as theatres and cinemas.
Premises that supply late-night refreshment—the supply of hot food or drinks to the public between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am—but which do not sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, will not be covered by the draft order. Such premises will only be able to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am if their existing licence already permits it.
To revert to the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, yes, revocations will remain in place and are unaffected by the draft order. I hope that that gives her some comfort for her constituent.
His Majesty the King’s coronation promises to be a joyous and uplifting occasion. A mood of celebration will descend across the country, and it is in that spirit that we seek this extension of licensing hours. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
Members will be happy to hear that I do not intend to speak for long on this matter, and I am happy to agree with the Minister about everything she has said. The draft order amends the Licensing Act to allow licensed premises and clubs to sell alcohol for more than two hours, if they so desire, on three evenings around the coronation of King Charles III on 6 May 2023. I will not be alone in looking forward to the coronation of His Majesty, and I will welcome the opportunity to spend a little more time in the pub to raise a glass to the King.
I am reassured that the extension applies only to sales and supply for on-site consumption, as I believe that this will mitigate any hijinks that might cause some unwanted antisocial behaviour or loud drunkenness. I am also reassured that police forces are supportive of the extension for the coronation, as it is they who will have to deal with any alcohol-related crime and disorder, but I hope that the Minister will be alive to anxieties that local authorities and forces may have around the celebrations.
The economic note notes that the main benefit of the draft order is meeting the public expectation to celebrate the King’s coronation, which is “an unquantifiable social benefit”. I know that many of my constituents will agree, and I also know that many of the fantastic licensed premises in my constituency and others will be glad not to have to secure a temporary event notice. I am happy to support the proposals and wish all Members a very enjoyable coronation weekend.
Miss Dines
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. The Policing Minister is present, and I am sure he can confirm to us that it is the case that all local police forces are working very hard to make sure that the festivities are carried out in an orderly yet joyous way.
As I set out in opening the debate, the King’s coronation promises to be a joyous occasion in which tradition and celebration will be brought together. Therefore, it is only right that we give the people a chance to mark this historic occasion to greet our new King. As I am sure colleagues will agree, the coronation weekend in May will be a great opportunity for families, friends and communities to raise a glass to His Majesty. We must be hopeful that the coronation will also provide a timely boost for the hospitality industry. God save the King!
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I declare an interest in having a leasehold property—although I have no problems with it—and I also have minor shares in some building companies so that I can get at their boards when necessary.
I thank the Secretary of State for his continuing work. May I reinforce a question asked from the Labour Front Bench: how many buildings beyond the 1,100 still need a way forward? Can we agree that leaseholders and others want to know that their own homes are safe and saleable? We know that the task is to find the problems, fix them and pay for them.
I put it to the Secretary of State that the one group that seems to be left out of this is that of the insurance companies who covered the developers, the architects, the builders, the component suppliers and, for that matter, those who did building control. I believe that leaseholders’ potential claims need to be put together, and that we need to get the insurance companies round the table and say that the surplus money will come from them, or else they can have expensive litigation backed by a Government agency, which they will lose.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Father of the House, who has been indefatigable in his efforts on behalf of those affected by this crisis and of leaseholders more broadly. I should say, for his benefit and that of the House and the Opposition, that developers will be updating leaseholders on progress towards remediation quarterly on 31 January, 31 April, 31 July and 31 October each year—that will be public accountability.
I should also say for the benefit of my hon. Friend and the House that 96% of the most dangerous buildings—those with aluminium composite material cladding—have either completed or started remediation work.
[Official Report, 14 March 2023, Vol. 729, c. 731.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove):
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).
The correct information should have been:
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Father of the House, who has been indefatigable in his efforts on behalf of those affected by this crisis and of leaseholders more broadly. I should say, for his benefit and that of the House and the Opposition, that developers will be updating leaseholders on progress towards remediation quarterly on 31 January, 31 April, 31 July and 31 October each year—that will be public accountability.
I should also say for the benefit of my hon. Friend and the House that 95% of the most dangerous buildings—those with aluminium composite material cladding—have either completed or started remediation work.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the progress he is making on this issue, but action is still needed to address what has become a two-tier system of building safety support for leaseholders. As has already been mentioned, leaseholders in Battersea who reside in buildings under 11 metres or in a development that has become an enfranchised building do not qualify for the support for which other leaseholders rightly qualify. They feel abandoned by this Government. If the Government are looking at this issue on a case-by-case basis, I would love to understand a bit more how it will work, because I want to ensure that those leaseholders are getting the support they need.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. In the legislation, there is a category of non-qualifying leaseholders: people who have more than one property.
[Official Report, 14 March 2023, Vol. 729, c. 736.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova).
The correct information should have been:
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. In the legislation, there is a category of non-qualifying leaseholders: people who have more than three properties.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady mentioned the anniversary of the death of respected Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. It seems extraordinary that we are already a year on. The UK is committed to working with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to advance that peaceful two-state solution. We voted no on the resolution pertaining to referral to the ICC because we consider that is not helpful to bringing the parties back to dialogue. As I set out in my answer to the urgent question, we continue to work with all parties to help find a way forward. We hope that the continuing role of talks will help to move that forward.
[Official Report, 23 March 2023, Vol. 730, c. 439.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar).
The correct information should have been:
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We voted no on the resolution pertaining to referral to the International Court of Justice because we consider that is not helpful to bringing the parties back to dialogue.
Work and Pensions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
Members will be pleased to know that at the Budget, we announced an extension of the existing redundancy protection offered during maternity leave so that it will also apply to pregnant women and to new parents on their return from maternity or parental leave. It will provide security to an estimated half a million more people at any one time.
[Official Report, 23 March 2023, Vol. 730, c. 204WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Mims Davies
Members will be pleased to know that at the Budget, we announced an extension of the existing redundancy protection offered during maternity leave so that it will also apply to pregnant women and to new parents on their return from maternity or parental leave. It will provide security to an estimated half a million people at any one time.
Planned closure of Wood Green Post Office
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Home Education
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 594065 and 617340, relating to home education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the petitioners, Kilby Austin and Laura Moss, for their campaign. Laura is here today and I welcome her to Westminster Hall. The petitions received more than 35,000 signatures between them, so it is right that the House discusses them. The petitions state: “Do not impose any new requirements on parents who are home educating” and “Do not require parents to register home educated children with local authorities”.
First, I will speak about the current position on where responsibility lies. We have a system in which it is the parent’s duty to educate their child but not to school them. There is also a duty on local authorities to ensure that all children have a decent education. As a way to discharge that overall duty, many local authorities use an informal register, but some do not.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that local councils still have a duty of care to children who are home schooled? Local authorities cannot be left in the dark; there must be a register to assist them to ensure that all children are receiving a good education and being looked after.
Nick Fletcher
That is what we are here to discuss. I will look at both sides of the argument, as I do when I lead petitions debates.
As a member of the Education Committee, I spoke to the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, when she kindly attended an evidence session on this subject. Only last week, we met again through the Petitions Committee. In her role as Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel wrote to all local authorities on this subject. The feedback was patchy in many areas. Dame Rachel was concerned that no one really knows how many children are not in school.
The Centre for Social Justice recently published a report entitled “Lost and Not Found”, written by Alice Wilcock. The foreword was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and spells out the problem: 140,000 children were severely absent from school in summer 2022. That is a staggering number considering the fact that “severely absent” means they are missing more than 50% of the time. My fear is that many of those children will be off-rolled from school by parents simply to stop the letters and fines. The Centre for Social Justice made seven recommendations to tackle the problem; although the Government have put additional protections in place, I hope they will read the report and take note.
We can see that there is obviously a problem with school attendance, but would a register help? The children who are severely absent are already on a register. The biggest problem comes when they off-roll from school: when a parent informs the school that they are going to home educate their child, that is it. When the child falls off the register, the letters and fines stop and the school no longer has any obligations to the child. There is no more register. As Dame Rachel de Souza has stated, there is an ongoing duty of care on local authorities, but the data is patchy. Herein lies the problem: a child can be taken out of school for many reasons that are not necessarily in their best interests.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
In recent months I have heard from parents across my constituency who feel they have no choice but to home educate their children due to age-inappropriate sex education that exposes infant children to information about adult sexual acts. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as legislators and as parents, we have a duty to protect the innocence of our children, and that this debate should reflect the reasons why parents are choosing to home school their children?
Nick Fletcher
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and will address that issue later in my speech.
I am sure that many of us believe that the situation is simply not acceptable. There will be some children who have never attended school at all. A child’s last engagement with anyone in authority could quite possibly be the midwife when the child is two, but many fail to attend that appointment. Are these the real lost children? I am told that 1.1% of children are home schooled, but in the Traveller community it is 6%; for children of young offenders it is 6%; and for children with a social worker it is 3%. We can agree that complex backgrounds have a bearing on the numbers, and that is what many professionals would like to tackle.
There is another cohort of home-schooled children. They have dedicated parents who make huge sacrifices to educate their child at home and do an excellent job. I spoke to the petitioners Kilby and Laura last week, and both appear to be very dedicated. I have also spoken to other parents who home school, and they speak of the joy it brings to them and their children. These days, there are huge resources available on the internet, and many home-schooling communities have joined together for some lessons, such as sport, music and art, so the children have opportunity to mix but also have the benefit of one-to-one tuition at home.
Done properly, home schooling has many benefits, and it saves the taxpayer money, too. It gives parent the opportunity to educate their child as they wish. It also enables a parent to teach the subjects that they feel are most beneficial to their child. More importantly to many, it enables them not to teach the subjects that they do not think are beneficial. We have all heard recently of some of the totally unacceptable topics being taught to our children. Although the Minister is meeting me to discuss the issue and the Prime Minister has ordered a review, unacceptable material and politically contentious issues are being taught as we speak. I would seriously consider home schooling my children if they were of that age.
Why are Kilby and Laura so against a register? Kilby feels it would fundamentally change the opt-in process for schooling. The law puts responsibility to educate children on the parents, and they can choose to opt into schooling if they wish. She believes that a register would be more like an opt-out system and could end up making school attendance mandatory. Laura believes that the implementation of a register would be the first step to more oversight of parents who home educate. I can see their point: it would be a fundamental change in the relationship between the state, parents and children.
One reason why many home schoolers do not want to register is the overreach of some local authorities with the powers that they already have. Some are far too overbearing when, quite simply, an experienced officer could see that a home-schooled child is happy in a good home and is being educated well. Some home-educating parents have children with special educational needs and disabilities, and they have removed their children from state education because their needs were not being met. Some of the parents have had particular difficulty with local authority officers not being equipped to assess the complex situation. That begs the question: is a register necessary? Or should local authorities just do a better job with the resources and powers that they have?
Section 437 of the Education Act 1996 states that “if it appears” to the authority that a child is not receiving a suitable education, it can apply for a school attendance order to send the child to school. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 states that local authorities
“have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm”,
they can make inquiries and, if need be, make an emergency protection order for the safety of the child. Therefore, if a child who is persistently or severely absent is off-rolled, the local authority already has the power to deal with the situation.
When we investigate further than a headline, we see yet again that good people who are doing a good job are threatened with more state overreach because of the poor behaviour of the few.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In Staffordshire, we saw a large pre-pandemic increase in the number of children being home schooled, and the trend is continuing post pandemic. Of course, many brilliant parents are doing great work in home schooling, but the underlying issue is that we should be concerned about a number of children who are being labelled as home schooled but not actually getting any schooling at all. Is a register not just a proportionate measure that could help to make sure that all children get the type of education we really want, while still protecting the rights of parents to home school their children?
Nick Fletcher
I completely understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from. As I continue, Members will hear some thoughts on that. I thank him for his contribution.
What is the answer? As I have just said, we will discuss that today. I want to protect our children as much as anyone else does. I see the damage done by kids not being in school. I see the antisocial behaviour. I see the organised crime gangs stepping in where parents, schools and the state have let children down. This is happening in my city of Doncaster and we need to do something, but I also understand the desire and the right of responsible parents to educate their children at home.
With the Government seemingly wanting to push forward with a register and the Education Committee, the Children’s Commissioner, Members of Parliament and my local authority, at least, agreeing that it is a good idea, I can see that the petitioners will not be pleased. The Government need to be careful with any legislation. There have been issues in Scotland and the Isle of Man when registers have been introduced, let alone any issues with the general data protection regulation. I therefore suggest that if we go ahead with a register, we need to put in place new safeguards and protections for parents and families who are doing a good job and, as is their right, home educating their children.
As I have mentioned, I have spoken to home-educating parents who have concerns about the state being handed more power over how they educate their children. Let us be clear: it is a parent’s right to home educate their child. However, there is no doubt that there exists in our society a presumption that children will be in school, and there is therefore suspicion around home education. Parents have told me about their rough treatment at the hands of local authority inspectors who have assumed rights of inspection over the nature of families’ home-education decisions that they do not have. A new registration requirement could, then, be accompanied by a much clearer statement of the limits of the local authority’s role when a child is home educated, and a clear complaints process for home-educating parents. After all, I suspect the sector is likely to continue to grow. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other Members on this complex issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Members who wish to be called in the debate should bob. I call Naz Shah.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing the debate.
Every parent has a right to choose whether they send their child to school or home educate them, and that right should be respected. Although I recognise the need for change and reform, it is also important that local authorities have clear guidance on how to work with home-schooling families in a manner that supports the needs of children as well as the rights of parents to home school their children. Many constituents have come to see me about how local authorities have overreached and gone into people’s homes in a manner that is, as my constituents put it, akin to a police-style investigation. I have been told of one occasion on which inspectors came into a home, went around recording with a video recorder, and livestreamed it to somebody else back in the office. This is clearly invasive and conflicts with people’s rights to a private and family life.
It is because of such actions that so many people who are home educating their families are worried about the introduction of legislation and the infringement of their rights. Sometimes legislation can be well intended, but without the correct guidance, checks and balances, it can have unintended outcomes and consequences. That is why we need further developed guidance, training and support to be provided alongside statutory safeguards for children. It is easy to have opinions on home educating —there are some that I share when it comes to child safety and safeguarding—but the guidance for such legislative changes has to be formed with and informed by the support of those who have real experience: home-educating parents themselves.
My request to the Government is for them to work with stakeholders and the families of home-educated children to ensure that the safety of children is considered, and that they have their rights protected and can carry out their choices. What are the Government doing to ensure that, as outlined by the hon. Member for Don Valley, there is a one-size approach, as well as a legislative framework and guidance, so that when people do checks of the register, they have statutory guidance to follow to ensure they do not overstep the mark? If I was educating my child, I would not like somebody to walk into my home with a video recorder or livestream me—that would not be okay. What are the Government putting in place to police that kind of behaviour by local authorities that are not behaving in the right way? Who has that responsibility? Will there be separate units or people in each local authority who are designated to carry out those specific roles? Are we looking at parents through a security lens or a social-worker lens? What approach are we taking to ensure that children are safeguarded?
Some of my constituents who came to me have two older children who are now at university, and they have others who are going through the education system. I was shocked, surprised and had a huge learning experience when those parents told me about the benefits that their children had: they could stagger their GCSEs and work to the strengths of their children. I get all that; it makes reasonable sense. What safeguards are the Government putting in place to ensure that parents have a right to privacy and to raise and educate their children as they see fit?
We have talked about the issue of relationships and sex education, and many of my constituents share those concerns. Many communities across the UK share concerns about their children being exposed to things that are not necessarily in line with their freedom of religion, or who want to safeguard their children from being exposed to images that they feel their children are too young to see. Where do we draw the line on all of this and how do we support the children? Those are the questions I would like the Minister to look at.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on the level-headed way in which he introduced the debate.
All of us have enormous sympathy for any parent whose child has been bullied at school, or has ended up with poor mental health as a result of experiences they have had at school. As a parent, I can completely understand the natural instinct to want to withdraw one’s child into the safe bosom and cocoon of family, and get them away from bullying if the school is not able to protect the child or help to stabilise their mental health. That is a real issue that we must take seriously.
I am acutely conscious that when we talk about home education, we are talking about a huge spectrum. There are some parents who are incredibly dedicated and do it exceptionally well. I give enormous thanks for their dedication, time and sacrifice. It needs the lightest of state supervision and overview if the parents are doing a good job and the child is happy, well adjusted and learning well. That is fantastic, and I thank those families and those parents. But we have to be honest that there is a spectrum, and at the other end there are parents who cannot read or write who are “home educating” their children. I believe passionately that every single child has the right to fulfil their God-given potential, and I worry about children who are not being equipped with the widest possible education and who are unable to fulfil their full potential.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
My hon. Friend touches on a point that is important in my constituency of Great Grimsby, where more and more children are severely absent from school and disappearing from school rolls. When we find them wandering the streets in the middle of the afternoon, we are told they are being home schooled. They are now prey to county lines and other forms of illegal activity, and their parents or carers are often unable to provide teaching and home education. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look seriously at that?
Andrew Selous
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a very important point. I have seen exactly that in my constituency: school-age children in and out of shops in the middle of the day. My area is also subject to the terrible scourge of county lines. There are huge safeguarding and criminal concerns about what is happening to some of these children, and we need to take them seriously.
My concerns are shared by the Education Committee, which recently stated:
“the status quo does not allow the Government to say with confidence that a suitable education is being provided to every child in the country.”
Those concerns are shared by Ofsted. The Department for Education has stated that there is “considerable evidence” that many children who are home educated
“are not receiving a suitable education.”
It is instructive to compare England with other countries. I am indebted to the Centre for Social Justice, which points out that oversight and assessment of educational progress is commonplace across Europe but that there is no such quality assurance in England. In Germany, I am told, it is actually illegal to home educate a child. I think that that is a step too far—as I said earlier, I thank those parents who do a great job and whose children progress well, and I would leave them well alone—but what other countries in Europe are doing is instructive. They ensure regular checks on attainment and progress in home language, maths and so on.
For about 20 years, I was a school governor of my village school. At one point, I was the safeguarding governor, and as such, I was required to read a lot of guidance from the Minister’s Department. At the time, the guidance was “Keeping children safe in education: statutory guidance for schools and colleges”, from September 2016—there may be updated advice. That statutory guidance was very prescriptive and the matter was taken very seriously. Let me quote briefly from it:
“Local authorities have a duty to establish, as far as it is possible to do so, the identity of children of compulsory school age who are missing education in their area.”
There are various other pretty severe injunctions. It is curious that there is a significant body of safeguarding guidance for children who are in school but, as far as I can see, none to speak of that can be properly enforced for children who are home educated.
Before the debate, I had a look at article 28 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which states:
“States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively”,
there is a requirement to make
“primary education compulsory and available free to all”,
and to offer
“different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education”—
that is important. The article goes on to say that measures should be taken
“to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates”,
and that state parties should take that seriously in order to contribute
“to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world”.
We are a signatory to that. Article 28, to which the UK has signed up, as far as I am aware, is really important. I ask the Minister: how do we enforce that right for children who are being home educated by parents who cannot read or write, or are not making any effort to teach them English, for example? I think we are in very serious breach, actually. I am afraid to say that we have averted our gaze from a contentious issue because it is inconvenient. The children do not vote, and the parents, who have a different view, do, so we are not doing what we should.
Responsibilities for home schooling are set out, as they are for every child, in section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which states:
“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him”—
as the father of three daughters, I think it should say “or her”—
“to receive efficient full-time education”.
Rather bizarrely, it goes on to say later that they are not required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, and do not have to follow the national curriculum. Central Bedfordshire Council, which gave me a briefing before the debate, stated:
“The local authority has a legal duty under Section 437 of the Education Act 1996 to act ‘if it appears’ that a child of compulsory school age is not receiving suitable education, although the Education Act does not give powers to the authority to insist on seeing the child, visit the family home or see the work that the child is completing.”
It is pretty challenging for the local authority to assess how well the child is doing if it cannot see the child, visit the family home or see the work the child is completing. Some local authorities manage to do that, which is tremendous, but I worry about the fact that we have not given them the powers to make sure every child is receiving an “efficient full-time education” that is suitable for them. That should concern us.
If a child is in a mainstream school or an academy, the school is expected to enter them for national curriculum assessments. There is also a statutory duty on all children to be in education or employment with training up to the age of 18. I agree with both those requirements, but the reality is that that is not happening for a number of home-schooled children.
I am also aware that when some parents claim their children are being home schooled, they are actually in unregistered schools, of which there are a number. I read an article in The Economist last year about a young man of 18 who had been in an unregistered school—I think his parents claimed that he was home educated—and sometimes had schooling for 14 hours a day, but when he left at 18 he could not read or speak English. Are we really saying that that is acceptable? That was an unregistered school, and Ofsted has a duty to do something about that, but it is quite hard for Ofsted to get on top of the issue because a lot of parents say that the child is being home educated. What about the right of that young person to read and speak the mother tongue of their home country? Do we care about these things or not?
In my constituency, like that of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), whose presence graces us today, the numbers of children being home schooled have gone up very significantly. On 15 June 2015, in the 2015-16 year, 283 children were in elective home education in my area. By 2020-21, that had gone up to 493. That is the most recent figure that I could get. No doubt the figure is higher; I suspect the majority are probably in my constituency, as well. How high are we happy for that number to get without knowing what is happening—1,000, 2,000, or 3,000? Is that acceptable? Personally, I do not think it is.
I would say that across the Chamber, whatever political party we are from, we are all concerned about the life chances of children. We are all concerned about ladders of opportunity. We are all concerned about social mobility and the elimination of poverty. However, how will we achieve any of those things when a significant number of our children are not having the education it is their right to have? We talk about the rights of parents and I believe, as a parent myself, in those rights, but I think that children have the right to a proper, broad-based education to enable them to achieve everything that they are capable of achieving.
That is why I encourage the Minister to progress down the route that the Secretary of State has said she wants to go down. Of course we need to do it sensitively. I do not want heavy-handed officials going into people’s homes in an inappropriate manner. It needs to be a decent, civilised conversation on how the child is progressing and we cannot afford to just look the other way, as I believe we have done on this issue for far too long.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front-Bench contributions.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing the debate. We have had a number of contributions and interventions from Members on both sides of the House after the views of parents, school leaders and local authorities were shared with right hon. Members and hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Don Valley gave a balanced speech in response to the petitions, covering the problems of school attendance and the helpful research by the Centre for Social Justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about the importance of guidance for local authorities, training and support for safeguarding, and the need to engage with parents. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a number of characteristically helpful remarks about the value of proportionate interventions by Government to address the concerns, as well as sharing the views of the Education Committee.
Let me begin by saying that Labour recognises and supports parents’ right to choose their child’s education. For parents who opt for home education, Labour respects that choice and will support them in enabling their children to thrive. It is important that parents who choose to home educate their children are supported to provide an excellent education.
As we know, excellent education has the power to transform lives. It can raise aspirations, broaden horizons, create knowledge, start lifelong friendships, build confidence, inspire greatness and break down barriers to opportunity. So often, an excellent education is what home-educating parents provide. There are so many reasons why parents believe that home education is right for their child, whether because of personal circumstances and learning needs, personal beliefs or wider factors. For some, home learning is chosen to meet the needs of children with mental health conditions or special educational needs or as a result of bullying.
As we have heard already, and as highlighted in a recent report by the Centre for Social Justice, what is more concerning is that an increasing number of children are being home educated after having been subject to safeguarding concerns, including about abuse, neglect, criminal exploitation and child employment. As Members highlighted, many children being educated at home are educated by incredibly dedicated parents who provide learning that is right for them, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. However, we should not hide from the fact that there are some cases in which children are not provided with a suitable education.
Studies by Ofsted have demonstrated that some home-educated children have been left without access to appropriate quality of education. As we have already heard, in its recent report “Strengthening Home Education”, the Education Committee concluded:
“the status quo does not allow the Government to say with confidence that a suitable education is being provided to every child in the country.”
The DFE itself has stated that there is considerable evidence that many home-educated children are not receiving a suitable education, yet Ministers have not acted. This is a problem that has been created by the inaction of successive Conservative-led Governments at the expense of children and our nation’s schools.
Some home-educated children have also been subject to safeguarding concerns. In 2020, the child safeguarding practice review panel uncovered 15 incidents of harm involving children reported to be in home education, including severe harm such as serious neglect and emotional abuse. In three of the cases, the children had tragically died. The panel concluded:
“these children were often invisible; they were not in school and did not receive home visits.”
Once again, Ministers condemned those actions but have failed to tackle them.
When the Schools Bill finally came forward, Labour supported measures to have a register and visibility of home schooling. We welcomed and backed plans to create a duty on councils to keep a register of children not in school. There would also be a duty on parents to provide information to councils for the register, out-of-school education providers would have been required to provide information to local authorities on request, and councils would have to provide support to registered home-educating families where required.
At the time, the DFE said:
“While we know many parents who choose to home educate are very committed and do so in the best interests of their child, in some cases the reasons for home educating are not for the best education of the child and the education being provided is unsuitable.”
However, as we know, the Schools Bill and the register were shelved by the Government last year. At the time, the DFE said it would introduce the long-delayed register of children outside school “in the new year”, but up to now it has provided “no update”.
There is no time to waste. While it is not known how many children and young people are home educated in England, there is evidence of an increase in recent years that has accelerated during the pandemic, as we have heard. The latest Association of Directors of Children’s Services annual survey on elective home education estimates that in 2020-21, more than 115,000 children were educated at home—a 34% increase on the previous year. It is thought that that is very likely to be an underestimate, and it is therefore of concern. Many families may also have slipped through the net during the pandemic, meaning that they are no longer on local authority radars. There is a risk that some of these parents are not able to educate their children effectively at home, or that the children are simply not being educated at all. There have also been increasing concerns surrounding children who have been off-rolled or forced out of school. These children—often among the most vulnerable—are potentially being left without support and protection.
In conclusion, the highest priority for the Department for Education must be to protect children’s safety and wellbeing. All children have a right to learn in an environment that is safe and regulated and that supports them to thrive, wherever they are in the country. Parents’ right to educate their children at home must be recognised and respected, but we do not have the means to ensure that all home-educated children are learning in a suitable and safe environment. England is an international outlier in not having a register; oversight and assessment of educational progress are commonplace across Europe, but England has no such quality assurance. While a register in itself will not keep children safe, it will assist in our understanding of how many are being home educated and help us to identify those who are vulnerable to harm. The Department has repeatedly said it remains committed to implementing a home-schooling register, which would progress
“when the legislative timetable allows”.
I hope the Minister will outline when he foresees that taking place.
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on his effective and balanced opening speech in this important debate on elective home education. The Government support this parental right and want to ensure that parents who choose to educate their children at home have access to local support to enable them to do this well. The Government’s priority is to continue to raise educational standards so that children and young people in every part of the country are prepared with the knowledge, skills and qualifications they need to reach their potential. Education should be provided in a safe environment, whether that is at school or at home.
Home education works best when it is a positive and informed choice, with the child’s education at the centre of the parent’s decision. For many parents and children, that will be the case but local authorities report an increasing number of children being home educated, exacerbated not only by the covid-19 pandemic, but by other factors, as was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). In its annual elective home-education survey, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services estimated that 37,500 children were home educated in 2016. That increased to over 81,000 children by 2021, including a significant jump of 38% between 2019 and 2020—the height of the covid-19 pandemic. The increase in the number of children being home educated is not a problem in itself, but local authorities report growing concerns that the increase is being driven by reasons that are not in the best educational interests of the child, and that some of these children are not receiving a suitable education.
My hon. Friend raises an important issue about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. We know from local authorities that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children are over-represented in their cohorts of children not in school. The measures proposed in the Schools Bill would provide a duty on local authorities to provide support for families, which would, of course, apply to those children and their families. The data from the proposed register would also help provide a proper understanding of the scale of the issue raised by my hon. Friend.
Andrew Selous
For parents, whatever group they are from, who are unfortunately unable to read or write, what are the Minister’s thoughts on whether they are properly able to home educate their children?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is also about attendance at school. There is a range of measures that the Department is engaged in on improving attendance of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, as well as other children who, because of the covid pandemic, are not returning to school. We need to ensure that children attend school.
Andrew Selous
Sorry, I was actually talking about illiterate parents who are home educating their children. These are children who are not in school—they are being home educated—when their mother and father cannot read or write. To me, that is simply unacceptable. I would like to help the adults as well with adult literacy, but it is completely wrong as far as the children are concerned.
Nick Gibb
As my hon. Friend and others have pointed out, under the Act, there is a requitement for children to have a suitable education. Clearly, if there is no one at home who is able to read or write, those children cannot possibly receive a suitable education. The local authority therefore has a duty in those circumstances to intervene, to act and ultimately to provide an order requiring those children to attend school.
The two petitions that led to the debate are focused on the Department’s proposals to introduce a duty on local authorities to maintain statutory registers of children not in school. The proposal was included in the Schools Bill 2022. Although the Government confirmed in December last year that the Bill will no longer be continuing, the Government remain committed to legislating on the children not in school measures at the next suitable opportunity.
The Petitions Committee helpfully conducted a survey of those who contributed to the petitions we are debating today. The thousands of responses received have given us additional valuable insight into the views and experiences of home educators. I was particularly struck by the number of respondents who cited special educational needs and disability as the reason for their decision to home educate and the range of experiences people have had with local authorities. I noted in the survey the number of families who cited the positive effects that home education has had on their child’s development and health. Those positive experiences demonstrate how vital it is to support the parental right to choose how best to educate children, and this Government will continue to support and uphold that right.
The current legal framework for elective home education is not a system for regulating home education per se or for ensuring that parents educate their children in a particular way. Instead, under the duty in section 436A of the Education Act 1996, local authorities must make arrangements to identify children who are not receiving a suitable full-time education. Local authorities have the same wellbeing and safeguarding responsibilities for children educated at home as for other children and must take action where required, using safeguarding powers appropriately.
Every local authority has a statutory duty to satisfy itself that every child of compulsory school age is receiving a suitable education, but there is currently no statutory requirement for local authorities to maintain registers, nor is there a general requirement on parents to inform anyone of their decision to home educate, although the Department recommends doing so. That means that local authorities have low confidence that their existing voluntary registers, if they have them, include all children educated otherwise than in school. This can create challenges in establishing whether a child is in receipt of suitable home education or is missing education. In addition, there are inconsistencies between local authorities in the level and quality of information collected about eligible children. Those are some of the issues that the children not in school measures seek to address.
The Department’s commitment to establishing a local authority-administered registration system was first set out in our children not in school consultation response, which was published in February 2022. The consultation received almost 5,000 responses, which were all carefully considered. The Department previously ran a call for evidence on elective home education in 2018, which provided useful information and data.
The children not in school measures, as contained in the Schools Bill, proposed the creation of duties on local authorities to maintain registers of eligible children. The information contained in the registers would help authorities to undertake their existing responsibilities. Parents would be required to provide only the specified information necessary for local authorities to maintain their registers. Failure to do so would require local authorities to begin formal inquiries as to the suitability of the child’s education, because it would create a legitimate presumption for a local authority that an investigation would be required. Only if education was deemed unsuitable following those inquiries would a local authority need to start school attendance order proceedings, as is the case now. Certain providers of out-of-school education would also be required to provide information to the local authority on request, to ensure that as many children as possible who should be on the register are and, in particular, to help with the identification of children who are missing education or attending illegal schools.
The measures contained a duty on local authorities to provide or secure support, where requested, to registered home-educating families to promote the education of the child. The support element of the measures is an important component in encouraging positive engagement between local authorities and home educators, and helps some home educators to provide good-quality education. The support would include, for example, advice about education; information about sources of assistance; provision of facilities, services or assistance; or access to non-educational services or benefits. The Petition Committee’s survey results show that a high number of home educators would appreciate additional support from their local authority. It remains our intention to work closely with home educators and local authorities on the implementation a new statutory system prior to its introduction.
The Department’s proposals do not feature any additional local authority powers to explicitly monitor education or to enforce entry into the home. The Government’s view continues to be that local authorities’ existing powers, if used in the way set out in the Government’s guidance, are sufficient to enable them to determine whether the provision is suitable. In April 2019, we published revised guidance for local authorities and parents on arrangements for the oversight of home education.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) gave examples of local authority interventions that may well exceed the wording in the guidance on elective home education, which is designed for local authorities. Paragraph 5.2 of that guidance says:
“It is important that the authority’s arrangements are proportionate and do not seek to exert more oversight than is actually needed where parents are successfully taking on this task”
of home educating their children. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire will want to know, a local authority may specify its requirements about how effective a child’s literacy and numeracy must be when deciding whether an education being provided to a child at home is suitable.
Andrew Selous
I am very grateful to the Minister for making that point, but it is still not clear how a local authority would know if a child could not read or write. It is very welcome to hear that the local authority should expect the child to be able to read and write, but if the local authority is not allowed to see the child, enter the home or see the child’s work, how would the local authority know whether that child could read, write or add up?
Nick Gibb
What the guidance says at paragraph 5.4 is that each local authority
“should provide parents with a named contact who is familiar with home education policy”
and who
“ordinarily makes contact with home educated parents on at least on annual basis so the authority may reasonably inform itself of the current suitability of the education provided.”
In other words, if the local authority can gain access—not forced access or a legal right to access, but by having a proper dialogue with the parents—it can reassure itself of the quality of the education. If it was unable to do that, the presumption that the local authority would make would be that the child was not receiving a suitable education in the home environment.
Ms Rimmer
Last year, the Education Secretary said that legislation would come in the new year—this year. Now, the Department is saying that it will come at the next suitable opportunity. Could the Minister be more specific on the timescale that we can expect for the legislation, which will provide a concise and complete list of children who should be getting an education? At the moment, there is no secure way for a local authority to ensure that it has a full register of children within its borough.
Nick Gibb
I say to the hon. Member that we are serious about wanting to introduce legislation, and she will know the pressures in this building around legislative programmes. We are determined, and it is our intention to do so at the earliest opportunity, but the guidance that was issued in April 2019 was designed to address many of the issues that have been raised on both sides of the debate. That is why we published very cohesive guidance to help local authorities deal with the very issues she talks about.
Ms Rimmer
I have always respected the Minister and the work he does, but it is absolutely necessary that we have a register and that we have it soon. We have children who are vulnerable. They are being exploited, and their families do not have the capacity or the will to do what is necessary. We have young children being exploited by criminals. When are the Government going to get it into their heads that we need to tackle this problem? We are failing in our duty as parliamentarians by not ensuring that children are safe. Will the Minister please treat this issue more seriously? There is nothing more important than children being cared for so that they can live a decent life, contribute to society, enjoy life and not be abused.
Nick Gibb
I think everyone in this debate would agree with the hon. Member. I certainly agree with what she said and the passion with which she said it.
We are determined to press ahead with the provisions in the Schools Bill relating to the introduction of a compulsory register. In the meantime, the guidance to local authorities is clear: under current legislation, they have a duty to ensure that all children living in their local authority area are receiving a suitable full-time education. The guidance provides a lot of detail about how local authorities can go about determining whether children are receiving suitable home education.
The Government are taking a number of other measures to identify children who are missing education. This is a serious issue in our system and we will have more to say in due course. The proposals set out the responsibility of parents and the steps a local authority can take if it is not satisfied that the education provided by parents is suitable. That is set out in the 2019 guidance, as I said.
The Department’s guidance also details eight components that should be considered when determining whether a child is receiving a suitable education, including includes enabling the child to participate fully in life in the UK, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire raised; that education should not conflict with fundamental British values; and isolation from a child’s peers.
Home education does not need to follow a broad and balanced national curriculum or involve the undertaking of public examinations, although the Department believes, and I certainly believe, that doing so would constitute strong evidence that the education received by a child is suitable. We remain of the view that a centralised definition of “suitable education” would not be in the interests of children, families or local authorities. Each individual assessment of whether education provision is suitable must rest on the balance of relevant factors depending on the circumstances of each child. The Department will review our guidance for local authorities and parents later this year.
Following an inquiry into home education, the Education Committee published in July 2021 a report on strengthening home education, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. In the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations, they agreed that there is value in having a form of registration for children who are not in school. We also agreed that there is a need for better data to help Government and local authorities to improve their understanding of these cohorts of children and to improve local authorities’ ability to undertake their education and safeguarding responsibilities. The Government did not agree with the Committee that greater assessment of home educators is required; existing powers are sufficient for reasons I have set out. We provide guidance and outline good practice on what we expect when assessing suitable education.
Andrew Selous
When the Minister gets back to the Department, would he be kind enough to ask his officials to speak to those in our embassies across Europe to get the best possible feedback on how other European nations monitor the progress of children who are home educated? Sometimes we are a little insular in the way we do public policy; we do not always look to learn from best practice in Europe and elsewhere. We may be able to learn something useful. I ask the Minister, if we are an outlier, to have that international perspective on how we could learn from other countries that are perhaps doing something rather well in this policy area.
Nick Gibb
I am keen to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion; in fact, it is a suggestion I make in respect of almost every new policy area. We need to look around the world. We are not always the leader on these issues, and there may well be counties that have been through these issues long before we have, so I am happy to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
Finally, I reiterate the Government’s support for home-educating parents. The Department has received lots of correspondence in recent years from proud home-educating parents, and I have met home educators in my own constituency and heard about the positive work they do. Indeed, I have been to visit their homes and seen that home education happening. I remember one particular constituent being home educated, and she is now a mother herself—that shows how old I am.
Our commitment to registers of children not in school will not affect parents’ right to educate in a way they deem appropriate, provided that it is suitable. Notifying a local authority that one is home educating or wishes to home educate one’s child should not be burdensome and will help local authorities to undertake existing duties and help to identify issues with the school system, to identify children missing education and to offer support to home-educating families. I hope that will reassure those home educators who expressed concern in the Petitions Committee’s survey that registers are a step on the road to monitoring education provision, which they are absolutely not.
When we find a suitable legislative opportunity to take forward the children not in school measures, we will do so, and we will continue to work closely with home educators, local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the new registration system works for everyone.
Nick Fletcher
The conversation will continue, but I have a few queries. We really need to be asking why parents are not sending their child to school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) said, there are concerns among parents about the relationship, health and sex education curriculum. There are also concerns among parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities. We need to work with those parents to ensure that we can get as many children into school as possible.
If we are to bring in a register, it needs to be extremely light touch for the ones who are doing well, and we need experienced people to go in and see that and just say, “Yes, this is a child who is doing well.” That is really important. If we are to bring in a register, we need to ensure that it captures the children we are really concerned about.
If we bring forward legislation, it should work and we should enforce it. Local authorities have an awful lot of powers but really do not use them. If we are to create more legislation and it captures good people—such as the petitioners and those who have signed the petitions, who are doing a really good job—yet those who are doing a poor job are still left and the powers are not used, it will have been a complete waste of time. That is something I am extremely concerned about.
I want to wrap up by thanking everybody who has attended today’s debate. I have listened to all that has been said, and there have been really positive contributions. I thank the petitioners and all who signed the petitions. I thank the Petitions Committee, which does fantastic work. I want to put on the record that it was not me who secured this debate but the Petitions Committee. I seem to be winning lots of debates, but that is down not to me but to the Committee.
I thank all who gave evidence: the CSJ, which has spoken to me; the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel; the parents; and lots of other people who are deeply concerned about the issue. I came into this thinking, “Yes, let’s have a register. Forget about it—just let’s do a register.” But when we delve into this subject, we find out what the issues really are and why people are concerned about it, so it has definitely been an education for me.
Finally, I thank you, Sir Mark, and the Minister. As I said, I do hope that if we move forward with a register, the concerns of the petitioners will be taken into account.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 594065 and 617340, relating to home education.
Written Statements
Energy Bill Discount Scheme
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
The Government provided an unprecedented package of support for non-domestic users through the winter in the shape of the energy bill relief scheme (EBRS), with a total amount of support of £7.3 billion, shielding businesses and saving some around half of their wholesale energy cost. The Government have taken difficult but right and considered decisions when necessary, following an unprecedented rise in energy prices, to support our essential British businesses and public sector services.
The Government have been clear that such levels of support were time-limited and intended as a bridge to allow business to adapt. The latest data shows wholesale gas prices have fallen to levels before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and have significantly decreased since the EBRS was announced. The energy bill discount scheme (EBDS), announced on 9 January and which comes into force on 26 April, with support backdated to the start of April, strikes a balance between supporting businesses between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 and limiting taxpayers’ exposure to volatile energy markets. The scheme provides long-term certainty for businesses and reflects how the scale of the challenge has changed since September last year.
The EBDS will provide all eligible businesses and other non-domestic energy customers with a discount on high gas and electricity bills until 31 March 2024, following the end of the EBRS. It will also provide businesses in sectors with particularly high levels of energy use and trade intensity with a higher level of support as they are less able to pass these higher costs on to customers due to international competition. The price reduction will be linked to the wholesale element of a non-domestic customer’s gas and electricity bill and Government will reimburse suppliers in accordance with the scheme.
Further support will be available to domestic end users on heat networks, who fall under the EBDS due to the heat network operators having commercial energy contracts, to ensure they do not face disproportionately higher energy bills than consumers under the EPG from April 2023.
The EBDS will be established under powers conferred by the Energy Prices Act 2022 and Government intend to pass enabling legislation. Subject to the will of Parliament, it is intended to run for one year and cover energy consumed from 1 April 2023 until 31 March 2024.
Funding for the EBDS will be sought through the estimates process. Any future costs for the delivery of the EBDS can only be projections and will depend upon energy usage levels and changes to the wholesale price of energy. As a result, the EBDS will give rise to a contingent liability.
I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing contingent liabilities arising from the energy bill discount scheme (EBDS). It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
I regret that due to the urgency of this scheme, I have not been able to follow the usual timelines for issuing notice at least 14 parliamentary sitting days before the liability begins to be incurred.
The Treasury has approved this proposal. If, during the period of 10 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS672]
Post-implementation Review of Environmental Law
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Today the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) is publishing a report, the post-implementation review of environmental law. This report highlights that over 40 post-implementation reviews of regulations required by statute have either not been undertaken or have not been published.
We are committed to delivering high standards for environmental protection and meeting the legal duties in this area. After prioritising resources to deliver a successful EU exit and supporting the country’s response during the pandemic, we recognise that we have not yet met all our obligations to deliver post-implementation reviews to time. My Department acknowledges this is unacceptable and is working to continually improve our mechanisms for capturing and delivering these requirements.
Steps are under way to address the post-implementation review backlog by the end of next year and prevent any further significant backlog occurring, including undertaking a Department-wide review, devising action plans with clear timescales for completion, accompanied by regular monitoring and reporting to the permanent secretary.
We will respond formally to the OEP report and will share our response with the lead Select Committees in each House.
[HCWS674]
Economic Crime Levy Allocations Update
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Today I am confirming the allocation of £300 million between 2023-24 and 2025-26 generated from the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy. Announced at Budget 2020, the levy was legislated for in the Finance Act 2022. The levy supplements approximately £200 million of additional Government investment to tackle economic crime over the 2021 spending review period.
The levy funding has been allocated to deliver benefits to the entire anti-money laundering system across both the public and private sector and will underpin the priorities set out in the next three-year, public-private Economic Crime Plan.
Over the next three years, the levy has been allocated to:
Invest over £100 million in state of the art technology which will analyse and share data on threats in real time, to give law enforcement the tools it needs to stay ahead of criminals.
Provide funding for more skilled financial crime investigators. This includes funding to hire 475 new investigators and economic crime training for more than 6,500 existing investigators in the National Crime Agency and across national and regional intelligence, investigation and prosecution agencies. New and better trained officers will lead to more cases investigated, more criminals prosecuted, and more assets recovered.
A further £60 million will fund new specialist intelligence teams in the National Crime Agency and expand the combating kleptocracy cell in order to tackle the most complex global money laundering networks.
Funding for c.75 officers to sustain the increased staffing of the UK financial intelligence unit and provide funding for 22 new financial investigators to analyse suspicious activity reports embedded in regional organised crime units. The suspicious activity reporting regime is a key pillar of the UK’s anti-money laundering (AML) system and is a critical tool for law enforcement to identify and disrupt money launderers.
Invest £20 million in Companies House and the Insolvency Service to fund the creation of two new intelligence teams. These new teams will improve our understanding of how UK companies are misused to launder the proceeds of crime and help put a stop to it. A further £600,000 of funding has been allocated for the deployment of UK experts overseas to raise the global standards on beneficial ownership, multiplying the impact of our domestic reforms to Companies House.
£1.2 million for a dedicated surge team to accelerate the fundamental reform of the AML supervisory regime, leading to more effective risk-based supervision, more dissuasive enforcement, and greater sharing of high-value information and intelligence.
Recognising the importance of accountability and in line with the principle of transparency, this announcement made on 27 March will be followed in 2024 by the publication of an annual report on the operation of the levy. A more wide-ranging review of the levy will be undertaken by the end of 2027. These reports will be laid before Parliament.
[HCWS675]
NHS Dental Patient Charges
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
The National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (“the Amendment Regulations”) will be laid before Parliament to increase national health service dental patient charges in England from 24 April 2023. Band Description From April 2023 (proposed) 1 This band includes examination, diagnosis—including radiographs, advice on how to prevent future problems, scale and polish if clinically needed, and preventive care, e.g. applications of fluoride varnish or fissure sealant. £25.80 2 This band covers everything listed in band 1, plus any further treatment such as fillings, root canal work or extractions. £70.70 3 This band covers everything in band 1 and 2, plus course of treatment including crowns, dentures, bridges and other laboratory work. £306.80 Urgent This band covers urgent assessment and specified urgent treatment such as pain relief or a temporary filling or dental appliance repair. £25.80
NHS dental patient charges provide an important revenue source for NHS dentistry and are typically uplifted on 1 April each financial year. The most recent uplift was in December 2020, delayed from April 2020 due to the impacts of the pandemic. While there has been no uplift for two years, the cost of delivering NHS dental care has increased.
From 24 April 2023, dental patient charges in England will increase by 8.5%. This means that a dental charge payable for a band 1 course of treatment will rise by £2.00, from £23.80 to £25.80. For a band 2 course of treatment, there will be an increase of £5.50 from £65.20 to £70.70. A band 3 course of treatment will increase by £24 from £282.80 to £306.80.
Details of the revised charges for 2023-24 can be found in the table below:
We will continue to provide financial support to those who need it most by offering exemptions to the dental patient charges for a range of circumstances. Patients will continue to be entitled to free NHS dental care if they are under 18, or under 19 and in full-time education; pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months; are being treated in an NHS hospital and have their treatment carried out by the hospital dentist—patients may have to pay for dentures or bridges; receiving low-income benefits; or are under 20 and a dependant of someone receiving low-income benefits. Support is also available through the NHS Low Income Scheme for those patients who are not eligible for exemption or full remission.
While we recognise the 8.5% uplift value is higher than uplifts to rates of some other Government charges, we consider that this is proportionate, as NHS dental patient charges have been frozen since December 2020 while other similar charges, such as those for NHS prescriptions, have increased. Dental patients will benefit from the continued provision that this important revenue supports. In recognition of access challenges following the covid-19 pandemic, the Department of Health and Social Care has delivered improvements to the NHS dental contract, announced in July 2022, which will improve access for NHS dental patients and which are supported by this uplift. These changes include a new requirement for practices to update the NHS website at least every 90 days so that patients can more easily see which practices are accepting new patients. We will set out plans to improve NHS dentistry shortly. It is important that current and future work to improve NHS dentistry is not undermined by the risk of reduced funding as a result of lower NHS dental patient charge revenue.
[HCWS676]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 December 2022 to 28 February 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force—as of 28 February 2023 2 Number of new TPIM notices served—during this period 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens—as of 28 February 2023 2 TPIM notices extended—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices revoked—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices expired—during reporting period 0 TPIM notices revived—during the reporting period 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices—during the reporting period 3 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused—during the reporting period 1 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation—during this the reporting period 1
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were held on 25 and 31 January 2023.
On 21 December 2022 Mr Justice Chamberlain published his judgment in the review of the TPIM notice against TPIM subject TL. Mr Justice Chamberlain found that the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to impose a TPIM notice on TL was both necessary and proportionate. This judgment can be found here: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/3322.html.
[HCWS673]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is usual on these occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-I(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (27 Mar 2023)
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
Objective 2 currently focuses on the accuracy and completeness of documents delivered to the registrar. The amendment would expand it to refer to the accuracy and completeness of the register more generally. This would, for example, be relevant not only to the acceptance of documents for registration but also to their removal.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as set out in the register, including as a director and person with significant control of AMP Ventures Ltd and as a person with significant control and shareholder of several other companies. I do not believe that any of these is prejudicial to my role in today’s debate. If anything, they increase my passion for the important objectives of this Bill: strengthening the UK’s business environment for the law-abiding majority while closing the doors to rogue actors.
This Bill will deliver significant reforms to the role of Companies House, making the biggest change to our system of registering companies in over 170 years. It makes significant amendments to the Companies Act 2006, the largest single Act on the statute book. It will affect the more than 500,000 companies established every year in the UK and the 5 million companies currently on the register, which have grown from 3.5 million since the last major company transparency reforms in 2015. That is quite a significant amount and no doubt bears the attention deserved in this debate.
It is therefore vital that these reforms are designed and implemented properly, both so that law enforcement can undertake its responsibilities effectively and to ensure that they benefit business and that any burdens are proportionate. I am confident that the Bill will achieve this balance and set a sensible framework that works for the benefit of businesses while bearing down on those who seek to abuse our open economy.
If noble Lords will allow, I will express my gratitude to Members in the other place, who greatly contributed to the scrutiny and improvement of this Bill as it passed through their House, not least the honourable Members for Feltham and Heston, for Aberavon and for Glasgow Central, the right honourable Member for Barking and my honourable friends the Members for Barrow and Furness and for Weston-super-Mare.
I am also grateful to Members of this House for their invaluable contributions at Second Reading and for the further views that many of them have provided since to me and my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I see that several of them will speak to amendments today. I am also grateful for the constructive engagement of Members on the Opposition Front Bench throughout and look forward to continuing to work with them. It strikes me that all the amendments proposed today and all the work we have done across this House have the same intentions. That is important. We are working together to create a better company system in this country. My thanks also go to my noble friend Lord Callanan for all his past work on these reforms as the previous Minister for this Bill, to Minister Hollinrake, my colleague at the Department for Business and Trade, and to the Security Minister for bringing this Bill through the other place so effectively.
I very much look forward to the constructive debate that we will have over the coming weeks. I am sure that all noble Lords are as keen as I am to get this important legislation on to the statute book, including delivering the long-awaited reforms to Companies House that we will discuss today. As I set out at Second Reading, I hope that all noble Lords are fully aware of the opportunity before us to make a hugely meaningful difference to businesses, law enforcement and our citizens. I trust that we can count on the continued support of the House to deliver this.
I am delighted to be starting Committee by talking to government Amendments 1, 3 and 56, which amend Clauses 1 and 81. I will start with Amendments 1 and 3. The new registrar objectives introduced by Clause 1 are a key aspect of this Bill. They are designed to empower the registrar and the activities of Companies House, acting as a clear and purposeful signal of the manner in which new and existing powers under the Companies Act will be exercised. They will embolden Companies House to be the proactive gatekeeper that many have long wished it to become.
Government amendments 1 and 3 are designed to expand the scope and reach of one of the objectives. Amendment 1 should be warmly welcomed by those who have criticised Companies House as merely the repository of an accumulation of inaccurate, misleading and potentially fraudulent information. While powers in the Bill allow the registrar to revisit and, where appropriate, remove information that ought never to have found its way on to the register that she holds, this amendment will make it absolutely clear that she must endeavour to address that historical legacy.
Amendment 3 recognises and addresses the fact that the registrar is the custodian of registers other than the register of companies. Objective 2 already puts a duty on the registrar to seek to promote the accuracy of information that is already on, or delivered with a view to being put on, the register and to seek to ensure that the register contains everything that it ought to contain. This amendment makes it explicitly clear that this applies to all the registers that she keeps, such as the register of persons of significant control and the register of overseas entities.
Government amendment 56 expands on the registrar’s new ability, introduced by Clause 81, to require information to be provided to her in order for her to determine certain matters. Importantly, it will allow the registrar to require information to determine not only whether the documents delivered to her meet the “proper delivery” requirements in respect of such things as content, form, authentication and manner of delivery but whether the underlying trigger event for the filing has really happened. For example, this amendment will ensure that the registrar can compel the production of information to determine whether a form sent in to report the appointment of a director was genuinely triggered by a real appointment and was not simply a fraudulent attempt to dupe the registrar into recording an appointment that never happened. I beg to move Amendment 1 and hope that noble Lords will support Amendments 3 and 56.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, before opening this debate, I advise the Grand Committee that, if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 2, due to pre-emption.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I again welcome this Bill, as I set out at Second Reading. My noble friend is right: it has all-party support and is sorely needed. Likewise, it is reassuring to see the large number of amendments tabled by the Government, reflecting, no doubt, the views that your Lordships expressed at Second Reading and possibly some of those from the other House earlier.
My noble friend says that the aim is to improve the system through the legislation and I believe that my Amendment 2, supported by Amendments 55, 57 and 58, goes some way to help that. Likewise, I declare a conflict of interest, in that I am a shareholder and a director of a number of small private companies. One large company might be in the book, but they are mostly SMEs. Therefore, my relationship with Companies House is, like that of every director of every company, important. In my day-to-day activity as an investment banker, I frequently look to accounts in Companies House for information. It is an invaluable tool; compared to arrangements in other countries, particularly the United States, it is a real asset for information flow about businesses.
My amendment seeks to ensure accuracy, specifically in respect of tagging. As I explained at Second Reading, this is key. Company accounts used to be provided on paper or on a PDF, which is essentially paper form, and they are now filed using digital formats that tag each item with a label so that it can be recognised by downstream processing systems. Unfortunately, as I read it, there is no requirement in the Bill for internal consistencies, so tagging errors will not be picked up. That is needed to ensure that none of the data is self-contradictory and that it matches other data in the previous year’s accounts or tags internally to the document. I note that my noble friend’s amendment is a sweep-all amendment, covering wider matters, but the amendment that I am proposing is specific.
Perhaps it will help if I give an example. Imagine that an oligarch is a director of a company and his name, quite correctly, appears on the accounts, but the name has not been tagged or has been tagged as something other than his correct name. When a smart fraud detection mechanism is used by way of a search, that name will not emerge. Accountants will argue that the accounts are complete as the name is there, but if that name has not been tagged correctly, the filing will be of no use electronically, and therefore it is essential that the accounts are consistent internally. At the moment, the registrar can refuse to accept accounts only where they are inconsistent with outside information, so my amendment seeks to close what I see as that loophole.
I welcome the amendment to this clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but I do not believe it covers my point. Likewise, I particularly welcome my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment, which sets the tone but, again, does not cover this point.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 63 to Clause 90. I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I am a director of several companies and a person with significant control of an LLP, so I have had a lot of interaction with Companies House over the years.
My amendment might sound rather anodyne, but the amendments I have tabled to the Bill are the first building blocks of the transformational change that will be needed in Companies House once this Bill has been passed. We are taking an organisation that ever since its creation has simply been a passive receiver of data and has never had any cultural inclination to challenge it. This Bill changes that, which we welcome, and I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for all his positive engagement so far. What I am asking for here is a direct and specific requirement for the registrar to construct a process that will enable her essentially to triage the cases that are coming through the system. As my noble friend the Minister said, there are 5 million companies on the register and some 300,000 to 400,000 new companies are created annually.
When the Bill is passed we will have a problem with what I call stock and flow—in other words, a huge cleaning-up operation of the 5 million companies that are already there will be needed, and that will take some time. We also need to ensure, as quickly as possible after the Bill has passed, that the new registrations coming through are of the highest standard possible. Essentially, I am asking for the registrar to be required to make a risk assessment of new companies being created. One example that is well known in the financial word is that of Danske Bank in Denmark, which was the largest ever anti-money laundering fraud case in Europe, worth some €200 billion. Much of that started here through our LLP and LP structures. It would not have been difficult to have seen that there were trends among a lot of the LLPs that were being created. Many of them were coming from the same registration agent and with similar, often the same, addresses. That would have been a serious red flag that could have been investigated.
I am trying not to the rewrite the past but to set the tone for the future. It will not be realistic for the registrar to go into enormous detail on every registration, but if she builds a triaging system at the beginning, with a series of red flags, in aggregate the ones with the most red flags will be the ones that need priority. When I was the Minister for Grants, I discovered that we were doling out £30 billion a year in grants, but we had no system to assess the validity of the people receiving the grants. We put in place one very simple piece of software called Quantexa which shows immediately all the connections of the person making the grant to other people who are not necessarily good actors in the system. It cost £1 or £2 a go, or maybe £5 a go, but it had a dramatic impact very quickly. It is those sorts of tools that Companies House in its new format will need to use. I am not specifying an app, but I am most anxious that the Minister considers my amendment and includes it as one of his own.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for his introduction today, and I acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the previous Bill and in the run-up to today. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Fox is unable to be here to help kick off proceedings. I am merely his understudy today—but he will, I am assured, be back with a vengeance after Easter.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister and his colleagues for their approach to the Bill and for his remarks at the beginning, which were very welcome. We all have an interest in trying to ensure that the Bill works, so I thank the Minister for his comments about that—and I can reciprocate with regard to how the Government have approached this in trying to enhance and improve the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister said about the amendments in this group, and all the various amendments that have been introduced, as we have heard, in a positive way, in seeking to improve the Bill.
I do not intend to speak at great length about the various amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for his support of my Amendment 4 and by saying that I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said on his Amendment 63. Essentially, what we are saying here is that the Bill has a lot within it that we appreciate, accept and think are important steps forward—but alongside that, most of us want to see the Bill having some teeth and the Government explaining to us how the various details are laid out, how the measures will be enforced and how we will see the change of culture that we have just heard about.
I will speak specifically to my Amendment 4. Noble Lords will see that, in essence, we are probing what the Government’s intentions are. Clause 1 has four objectives for the registrar. The amendment in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lady Blake seeks to understand whether anything could be gained by inserting a new objective 5. No doubt the Minister will say that objective 4 means the same, which may be why the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not needed. We are suggesting that there needs to be a more proactive statement in the Bill about what the Government are seeking in terms of the information that the registrar collects and how it is then assessed to see whether it should be shared more widely, particularly with the various enforcement bodies.
The objective I am proposing—I will not read it all out—includes in paragraph (b)
“sharing information about any issues of concern regarding companies with relevant public bodies and law enforcement agencies.”
Why would the Government not put that in the Bill? I suspect they will say that objective 4 deals with that, but I think there is a difference between acting proactively and what the Government have in objective 4, which is
“to minimise the extent to which companies and others … carry out unlawful activities”.
I suggest that is not quite strong enough. It is not about minimising the extent; it is about wherever information comes to light with the registrar that something untoward is happening. Surely there should be an obligation on the registrar to share that with the relevant law enforcement bodies. Minimising the extent is not sufficient; we do not do that with any other law—we do not minimise the extent to which violence takes place, for example. That may be the aim, but overall the intention of the law is to stop it. So I suggest that objective 4 could be strengthened.
On Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, the noble Lord can and did speak for himself, but in his proposed new subsection (1B)(b) he is getting at that very point in stating that the registrar must
“share any evidence of unlawful activity it identifies with the relevant law enforcement agency”.
That is exactly the same point I am trying to address in my amendment. It is not about minimising the extent to which it takes place; it is saying that the information should always be shared. Can the Minister outline the Government’s thinking? Is their objective with the registrar that all information that may be of concern should be shared with the relevant law enforcement agencies?
Without wishing to be pedantic about this, can I ask: what is the relevant law enforcement agency with which the registrar should share the information? There is the Serious Fraud Office; there is the City of London Police; there are local police forces; there is HMRC and all sorts of other enforcement bodies. The Government will have given thought to this, but can the Minister explain to the Committee where that information should go and who is responsible for enforcing it? Is there any report back to the registrar? Once the information has been shared, is it then just a matter for the law enforcement body, or does the registrar have an obligation to see where that has got to and what has happened to it? We all know that an issue that frustrates people is not knowing what happens when things are reported and where they have got to. Alongside that, given the significant numbers that the Minister quoted of those that have to register, what are the resource implications for those other bodies in taking that up?
My final point may seem a bit obscure. I am not a great expert on this, but I know from one limited case that I had some experience of that one of the problems was a lack of forensic accountants and the ability to understand what was going on within various company accounts. I was told it was a skill area that is never really talked about. I wonder whether the Government, given their intentions, have given any thought to how they ensure that the necessary skill base is there within police forces and the Serious Fraud Office for crimes that are referred to them to be properly understood and investigated. I am sure that some people are experts in company law and all this, but the problem is that when people say “Follow the money”, sometimes it is pretty difficult to do that. I wonder whether the Minister might say something about how he sees that.
In general, we welcome the Bill and the government amendments before us. I think the amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Agnew, have tabled make some very important points. I hope that my Amendment 4 also helps the Government explain to the Committee what their intentions are. If the Bill is to mean anything, it has to be properly enforced.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I had not intended to speak on this group, but my noble friend Lord Coaker has drawn my attention to the active verbs in the subsections of Clause 1. I am at a loss to understand why they are used. Why is objective 3
“to minimise the risk of records kept by the registrar creating a false or misleading impression to members of the public”
and not “to prevent companies and others carrying out unlawful activities or facilitating the carrying out of unlawful activities”? It seems odd that the objective is not the complete protection of people who may be duped or defrauded or have their money stolen from them by the devices created here. I appreciate that one cannot guarantee perfection, but it seems to me that by legislating in this fashion we recognise that there will be an element of that, since the objective we set the registrar is only to minimise, not to prevent it altogether.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I declare my interest as chairman of C Hoare and Co. I apologise for not being here at Second Reading. I had a good excuse: a very bad dose of flu.
I have two brief points. First, legislation on its own does not change an institution—I worked in the Treasury for 30 years and saw many institutions come and go—but it can be really helpful in supporting the leadership of that institution to change its character and the way in which it works. I believe the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, would support the leadership in bringing that about.
My second point draws on my experience of seeing through a lot of reform to financial services regulation. I think it is fair to say that the lesson of the 2000s was that tick-box regulation really does not take you very far; a proportionate, risk-based approach is the answer. I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, very much goes with the flow of better regulation.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I really thank noble Lords for their contributions. Not for the first time in this House I am surrounded by people who know far more than I do about the subject, with business gurus such as my noble friend Lord Leigh, who gave us the benefit of his many decades of wisdom. It is extremely helpful. As I say, everything that has been said today is mirrored in the emphasis of the Government’s broad objectives, so we are working collaboratively here. I hope your Lordships do not mind me going through each different point—I hope I can answer them all.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I just interrupt the Minister before he goes much further. I have been listening very carefully to what he has to say, but he seemed to imply that a risk-based approach could lead to box-ticking. Surely, a risk-based approach is the very antithesis of box-ticking.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that intervention. Our view is that if we legislate specifically for a risk-based approach, on top of what we believe is already a risk-based approach, we are not achieving our goals. The concern from the Government’s point of view—and mine, as someone who has registered companies with Companies House—is that you end up box-checking. The Bill is designed to ensure that the registrar is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the register and minimising criminal activity. In my view, those are the core functions of the registrar and the activity of Companies House, so we already have what one would describe as a risk-based approach built in. We feel very comfortable that this ambition, which is what this is all about, is well built into the legislation and will be the core function of the registrar—this is the essence of it—and we believe this to be well represented. Clearly, the ambition of the registrar will be to take a risk-based approach to her activities. We may be arguing over the same point, but I take it very seriously and am happy to consider it with more thought. As I said, this has been drafted effectively to encompass the concepts and points raised by noble Lords.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised. My last point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: we are trying to create the registrar as a proactive gatekeeper. That is at the core of the Bill’s ambition. We welcome input on how we can ensure this is done more specifically.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend wants my amendment not to be moved, would it be possible for the registrar to write to us to explain her philosophy and how she is going to make this huge change to delivering a risk-based approach? I am very reassured by his comments, but having been in the trenches of government for 12 years, I just know that the reality is a long way from wise words in a process such as this. A simple letter to us saying, “This is my philosophy, what I am doing and how I am training people to cope with this enormous change”, would be very reassuring.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment, and I entirely agree that it would be extremely useful to have such a letter from the registrar. I take very seriously the comments about a cultural change at Companies House. We should be aware of where we are coming from. Not to repeat or labour the point, but Companies House is today simply a repository for information; it could practically be a static website. Having said that, in the conversations that I have had with Companies House, I have been very impressed by the tone of the officials I have spoken to there in terms of their determination to crack down on criminal activity around companies and Companies House. They currently make referrals to law enforcement agencies; they are not blind to the issues that present themselves, but they do not have the powers to do what we want them to do.
This Bill gives the registrar and her agents the concomitant powers to execute exactly on this mission that we wish. They talk boldly of a cultural change in Companies House, which we expect, as well as a technological change and a significant resource improvement—and under other amendments we will discuss the resourcing of Companies House. I feel confident that we are going to see a magnitudinous alteration in the relationship between the number of companies and number of directors performing their functions appropriately and providing relevant information to boost the economy, as soon as, or soon after, this Act is enabled—if I have got my terminology right.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I would be grateful for a clarification. Can the Minister say something about the language being used? My noble friend Lord Browne also picked up on this point. It is not that it is wrong, but why in Clause 1 do objectives 3 and 4, for example, talk about minimising risks or the extent? What I suggest in my amendment is acting proactively to prevent. It is about that sense of purpose and that cultural change, whereby the registrar actively seeks out unlawful activity and actively seeks to inform law enforcement to do something about it. It is not a clash of view but, in talking about cultural change, would not a language change help the Government in delivering what they want?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I do not want noble Lords at any point to think that I am being defensive in any way, as we are having a collaborative debate around the objectives of trying to improve company law and registration of companies and the integrity of the information stored at Companies House.
Objective 1 is pretty clear in referring to
“any person who is required to deliver a document to the registrar does so”,
and objective 2 is very clear and specific in saying
“to ensure that documents delivered to the registrar are complete and contain accurate information”.
They are unambiguous points—that is very clear. There is no question about there being some grey area around that. But with regard to objective 3 and
“creating a false or misleading impression to members of the public”,
clearly that is relatively subjective statement. It is clear that we have made efforts in this Bill to ensure that company names, for example, cannot be used to be misleading, and additional powers have been placed with the Secretary of State to ensure that companies have to change their names—but there is an element of subjectivity around a company name. To some extent, it is not totally prescriptive. Objective 4 then says,
“to minimise the extent to which companies and others … carry out unlawful activities, or … facilitate the carrying out by others of unlawful activities”.
These are complicated areas, in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, issues around forensic accounting, and so on, have been raised. Nothing is necessarily as straightforward as it seems. The principle here is to try to reduce the crime clearly to zero—so if the registrar reduced levels of criminal activity to a certain percentage, which they felt were somehow in a target range and then stopped their work, we would consider that to be entirely inappropriate. At the same time, they have a very clear objective, which is to minimise financial misconduct and criminality. That flexibility enables the registrar to perform her functions appropriately.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I do not want to prolong this debate because, although it is fascinating, it is something that can be dealt with in the period between now and Report. Perhaps my noble friend could, with his officials, run through the dictionary to find a slightly punchier verb. We all know what “minimise” means—to reduce to a minimum. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is making. A slightly more aggressive approach to criminal activity or people’s misconduct in using the Companies House system is probably required. It is just a tweak in the language; we are not going to World War III over this—it is just a question of going back, having a look at a dictionary and seeing if they can find a slightly more aggressive word.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
So that the Minister does not have to answer questions seriatim, as it were, I endorse that. I am not sure that I have heard persuasive objections to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I understand what he says about risk-based, but sharing information with relevant public bodies and law enforcement agencies surely does not tie the registrar’s hand in any way. It must be remembered that while we can all applaud what has happened in Companies House and the change in culture that will follow, this is really a second attempt to tie things up. We should not forget that there was the first economic crime Bill, before the Minister came to his post, where much was promised, so this is the final word on it and the time to crystallise where we are on those things. Objective 5 is another step. If the Minister is saying that Companies House is coming a long way and it is further step to ask it to do this, that is an answer, but I do not think it is an answer that satisfies the Committee.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. I do not believe that I suggested at any point that this was not baked into the cake of what Companies House is expected to deliver. I would be delighted to have further dialogue with Members around this but, in my humble opinion, the entire Bill is designed to ensure that the registrar takes a risk-based approach to ensuring the integrity of the information at Companies House. I am very comfortable on that, and the Government are very clear on it. We are wary of having duplicative statements in the Bill because that causes more complications when we are trying to create the enforcement regime and the integrity regime that we want to bring to bear.
On the key clauses and the language therein, I am certainly happy to consult my dictionary as noble Lords suggest. I am sorry that I was unable to bring one with me. It would be unusual for us to be quite so prescriptive in part 3 of the four objectives. I am delighted to have further conversations if noble Lords feel that that would be more helpful in setting the right cultural change at Companies House, but I am wary of being too prescriptive. I hope this is not misunderstood by Members of this Committee, but we want to avoid a box-ticking exercise because that is exactly what criminals like, as they can then navigate the system. We want to allow the registrar and her officers to use their judgment because that will lead to far better outcomes when it comes to achieving the mission that all of us are embarking on together.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
On a plain reading of this clause, the registrar is being required to promote these objectives, but in objective 4 she is being required not to prevent but
“to minimise the extent to which”
crimes can be committed. What is the problem about setting an objective that she is to prevent, and Parliament is telling her that is the objective we want her to have but recognising of course that perfection is very seldom found in these situations? Why do we set an objective that is less than what we really want? There is no question that Parliament wants these crimes prevented, not minimised.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comment. We have discussed this at some length. I am personally very comfortable defining further the usage of “minimise”, but the intention is very clear. This is not about “minimising” criminal activity to a so-called acceptable percentage; it is ultimately to eradicate it entirely. I am sure there are good reasons why this language has been used, in order to enable an element of flexibility and facilitation for this Bill to operate effectively. I am sure noble Lords will sympathise with me when it comes to legal drafting of text, but the assurances around this Bill are that it should do exactly what we want it to do. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and I commend Amendment 1.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(2) In Objective 2 the reference to “the register” includes any records kept by the registrar under any enactment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Objective 2 as amended applies not only in relation to the register of companies but also in relation to any other registers and documents kept by the registrar under legislation.
“(2A) After subsection 1, insert—“(1A) The memorandum must also state—(a) the nationality of the each subscriber, and(b) the country in which each subscriber is ordinarily resident.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would require a memorandum of association on the formation of a company to include the nationality and country of ordinary residence of each initial shareholder alongside their name.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments which focuses mostly on the amount of information given about subscribers, founding shareholders and limited companies when registering a company and ongoing shareholders. The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Agnew, are aimed at making it transparent whether subscribers and shareholders are holding shares on their own behalf or on behalf of others.
Currently, information about subscribers is very limited. The amendment in my noble friend’s name, and other Back-Bench amendments, are aimed at helping provide more information. The amendment would require the nationality and country of residence of subscribers. There has been a huge increase in the number of shell companies with directors based abroad. This is one step we can take to increase transparency and fight against the UK’s reputation for tolerating dirty money. The theme of this group as a whole is increasing transparency; there are various specific amendments with that aim in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for accommodating this intervention. I thought it would aid noble Lords in having a productive debate if I set out up front the intention of the government amendments in this group, given that it contains a significant number and, as I understand it, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, seek to build on them.
The government amendments seek to further strengthen transparency of shareholder data on the company register. I hope they will reassure noble Lords that the Government take this topic very seriously. A core purpose of the register of companies is to provide details of company ownership. However, users of the register have reported some problems with the way in which company ownership data is recorded. That is why the Bill contains measures to increase the usefulness of the information held on the shareholders, subscribers and guarantors—also known as members—of companies.
The Government appreciate the concerns expressed during the passage of the Bill by expert witnesses and parliamentarians about member information. However, I stress that we are also mindful of stakeholder concerns about imposing disproportionate burdens on businesses. The 2019 corporate transparency and register reform consultation proposed that non-traded companies, such as companies that are not listed on any regulated market, be required to collect the usual residential address and date of birth of their members. Consultation responses were mixed, and the Government concluded that the case had not adequately been made for the collection of the information, given the potential burden on businesses.
The Government consider that the approach taken with these amendments balances competing stakeholder concerns proportionately. The amendments will help to ensure that the policy intent of provisions in the Bill and the Companies Act 2006 are met without imposing undue burdens on business before further consultation is carried out.
Amendment 31 inserts a new clause into the Bill, which will amend the Companies Act 2006 to create an express requirement that old information must be retained where it changes. So, if a member’s name, address or shareholding changes, that old information must be retained for as long as the Companies Act 2006 allows. That is currently implied by other sections of the Companies Act 2006, but the law is unclear. For example, Section 121 states that an “entry” relating to a former member of a company may be removed from the register after the expiration of 10 years from the date on which he ceased to be a member. The retention of old information should already be current practice as it is in a company’s own interests to retain such information for audit purposes. Retrospective disputes relating to votes, dividends, and tax could all hinge on who owned shares at a point in time.
The new clause inserted into the Bill by Amendment 31 will also amend the Companies Act 2006 to provide powers to companies to ensure that member information is provided and kept up to date. The amendments also provide duties for members to provide their information and keep it up to date. There are offences for companies and members failing to comply with the new requirements without a reasonable excuse. That will ensure that the requirements are taken seriously by both companies and members and will enable more effective enforcement activity.
Amendments 6, 31, 34, 59 and 66 restructure existing provisions in the Bill that in turn amend the Companies Act 2006. They also provide powers to strengthen the regime by regulations. The powers allow regulations to require more information to be provided and to ensure that any new personal information is protected as appropriate. That would allow the Government to act swiftly to require more information to be provided if it is deemed proportionate to do so—again, following further consultation. Equally, law enforcement agencies may identify additional types of information that the registrar could require the collection of, which would help them in the prevention and detection of crime.
If new information is later required, it may not be appropriate for it to be made available for public inspection or disclosed except in specified circumstances—for example, if regulations later require a person’s personal email address to be provided, as that could have unintended consequences with spam mail and so on. These amendments ensure that personal information can be protected where appropriate, applying the principles from similar provisions in the Companies Act 2006 and this Bill to these measures.
I want to highlight that the power in new Section 113C could be used to limit any additional information requirements to companies that are not traded on any listed market, as those companies are already subject to similar disclosure requirements. That would reduce the burden on business, in line with the proposals in the 2019 consultation.
These amendments set up the framework for the policy intent to be met and leave the heavy lifting to regulations, once consultation has been carried out. The Government consider that to be an appropriate balance, as all regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure such that Parliament will have its say when those regulations are made.
The Government intends to remove Clauses 2, 4, 46 and 47 from the Bill because the provisions of those clauses are amended and/ or incorporated into the new clauses that I have described. Amendments 35 to 38, 60 to 62 and 67 allow the provisions to be sequenced more coherently and make consequential drafting tweaks.
I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments, and I look forward to the rest of this debate.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7, 8, 32 and 33 in my name. Before I start, I hope the Committee will not mind if I point out that my name is pronounced “Vawks”. It is astonishing how many different pronunciations of a four-letter word it is possible to come up with. I should also remind the Committee of my interest in the register as a non-practising chartered accountant.
I thank the Minister for arranging to meet me to discuss the various amendments that I have tabled and for his engagement so far. Like, I think, everyone in the Room, I support everything that the Government are trying to achieve with this Bill. My amendments to the Companies House section try to make it more effective in achieving the Government’s stated aim, which the Minister explained at Second Reading is to
“bear down even further on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, and it will strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive, while ensuring that dirty money has no place to hide”.
He went on to say that:
“The use of anonymous or fraudulent shell companies and partnerships provides criminals with a veneer of legitimacy and undermines the UK’s reputation as a sound place to do business.”
I think we all agree with that, but the Bill remains weak in improving transparency.
At Second Reading the noble Lord also said that the Bill would be
“helping to ensure that we know the real people acting for, and benefiting from, companies.”
The Bill makes some improvements in that respect, but it is pretty thin gruel and is not likely to make any real practical difference unless it is strengthened. That is what I am trying to do with these amendments, which I have tabled as amendments to the government amendments.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
As a fellow chartered accountant, can I ask the noble Lord how his amendment would work in respect of trust? Does it mean that trustees are disclosed or that beneficiaries are disclosed? Clearly, one would want to have beneficiaries disclosed, and I am not sure that this achieves that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord is quite right. What we are really trying to get to here is the ultimate beneficial owner, which is a problem that sits throughout this and the overseas property register. Neither of them really gets to that point. The wording requires refinement, but that is what I was trying to get to—that the ultimate beneficial owner, the directing mind behind the shareholding, is disclosed.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Does the noble Lord think this goes far enough? I chaired the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, and one of our recommendations was that there should be improved verification procedures for Companies House. We also thought it was well worth considering ensuring that regulated professionals acting should also provide statements, which would concentrate the minds of those advising who are responsible for providing this information.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I made exactly the same argument during the passage of what we used to call ECB 1—the first economic crime Bill. I entirely agree, and noble Lords will see that I have a number of later amendments dealing with those issues of the verification statements and the authorised corporate service providers being named publicly as opposed to—as is proposed at the moment—not being named on the register. That is really important. I agree that this probably does not go far enough. I am mindful of the Minister’s comments about not making this overly burdensome—if we do, it will not work—but we need to find a way to make sure that we understand who owns the shares.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am here as an international policy wonk, and I am very conscious that, in economic crime, a great deal goes on cross-border and outside the jurisdiction of the UK. I have therefore tabled two later amendments: one concerns the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories and the other concerns the levels of international co-operation that will be desirable and necessary if we are to crack some of these problems.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said about the requirements for those agents—or enablers, if you like—in setting up what are very often cascades of companies that disappear outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to our various overseas territories or beyond. The question, therefore, is how we ensure the maximum amount of transparency and make the risk of crime as minimal as possible by putting heavily on those who are engaged in setting up these trust companies and further arrangements the responsibility of declaring clearly that these are legitimate and sound.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to be present at Second Reading. In support of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Vaux, I simply say that I really could not count the number of criminal cases in which I have been involved where it is precisely the concealment of beneficial ownership that is the driving force of the strategy behind the crime. This happens repeatedly. Anything that can be done to strengthen the Bill in this area—I am particularly attracted by the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—should be entertained seriously by the Government.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, if we achieve nothing else today, it will be getting the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, right in future—you take what victories you can. One amends government amendments at one’s peril, as I am sure the noble Lord recognises, but this Bill is about transparency, so I speak in support of his Amendments 7 and 32. Amendment 7 is about who a person is really subscribing for and Amendment 32 is about who they are really holding for. Those surely play directly into the objectives that we were discussing a few minutes ago regarding complete and accurate records and not giving a misleading impression. They could be tied to objective 4 as well. These are not onerous requirements. I note the challenges put down by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, but they are not onerous; they are a basic feature of transparency. I therefore hope that the Minister will get behind these two amendments.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has done a lot of the heavy lifting, so I will not repeat all his arguments. I take some comfort that he makes me look moderate in my requests for further transparency—that is not how I am normally referred to by noble friends and Ministers. The title of the Bill specifies “Corporate Transparency” and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has just said, it is not an onerous requirement to state whether the shares are owned by the individual or somebody else. The suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, of a simple affirmation statement is even more powerful, so that the enabler who is setting up the entity simply has to answer “yes” or “no” to whether the shares are for the beneficial ownership of the name on the share register. My noble friend now has a choice of routes down which he could go if he is minded to take on board either of our amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think I need to say very little given the barrage we have heard. These Benches firmly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and congratulate him on putting up with the mispronunciation of his name on such a consistent basis. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has exactly the same problem, so there is a commonality across the Benches here. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, talked about “heavy lifting” and others have talked about “very light requirements”. Those who have argued for the amendments have made a very strong case, not least my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire on the implications for overseas territories and revealing beneficiaries there. Transparency is the essence of what we are trying to achieve here.
I think we all agree that one of the core competencies of Companies House needs to be expertise in verifying the identity of applicants, whether subscribers or members, and so on. Identity verification, which we will discuss throughout Part 1, will be a vital tool in the policing of the sector if it is to be successful and should be a core competence of what we might call the new model of Companies House. There is some doubt about how far this is being, in a sense, outsourced to others. These amendments make it absolutely clear, particularly as regards nominees, that it should be the applicant and Companies House which make sure that we know who we are dealing with here. It has several distinct advantages and, as everyone has emphasised in this debate, is not an onerous requirement.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. The Government appreciate their intent but consider that we already have the powers we need in the Bill to address the substance of these concerns. Following on from comments from my noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we are not discussing the verification of corporate providers. I think there is a significant amount of discussion to be had on that a bit later.
I totally agree about the importance of the transparency of the records and understanding who the beneficial owners of companies are—that is the whole point of much of the work we are undertaking today. On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about the ownership level of 25%, in a private company you have to have your identity verified if you are a director, own 25% or more of the company or are a person with significant control. To clarify, the 25% level does not denote a person with significant control. Somebody who has one share can be a person with significant control, and it is the company’s duty to report who they are. It is extremely important to make that clear in this discussion.
I was not in this great House for the previous piece of legislation, the debate on which has resulted in this new piece of legislation, but I am very aware of the importance of understanding who stands behind the companies—as has rightly been said, to quote myself, the people acting for and benefiting from companies. The 25% level does not denote a person with significant control, and companies suffer significant penalties—the penalty regime, which I am happy to share with noble Lords, is substantial and at the very core of this process.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord is quite right: there is the question of being able to influence or control the company other than through shareholdings, but he referred to penalties and so on. How many times has anyone been penalised for failing to provide information about being a person with significant control when they did not hold 25%?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
That is exactly the sort of question that should be asked; I look forward to returning to this Committee with the answer, as I unfortunately do not have it at my fingertips. However, I know that Companies House continues to do a great deal of investigation into these matters, even before this Act has come into place.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also raised an important point in saying that it is too easy and cheap to create a company and that the 1855 principles around the corporate veil are a privilege. At the time, they were considered a great risk to the economy, abrogating people of their personal responsibilities and liabilities to the debts of their businesses. It caused great debate, as noble Lords may remember—looking around the Room, not all noble Lords will, but some may. It is important to understand that it comes with privileges and obligations.
Having done a great deal of investigation into this Act, of the 4.8 million companies on the register, I would have thought that many should not be limited companies; it is not necessary for a sole trader or a small partnership to have a company, so I have a degree of sympathy for upgrading the entire concept of what a limited company is and what sort of information should be provided. It may be important, philosophically, to look at it in that way, rather than simply saying, “Here are a very large number of companies; if we impose undue obligations on them, that will be unfair or overly burdensome to businesses.” It is not unreasonable to look at the picture in the round.
Having said that, we undertook a variety of consultations and feel that the way this Bill has been drafted gives us the security to understand who the beneficiaries of companies are and the requirements of companies to record that information and link those individuals across the information processes and systems in Companies House to ensure that we have integrity of data. To require all shareholders to verify their identity would be unnecessarily burdensome for many thousands of companies and, potentially, millions of small shareholders who are simply passive holders of a business.
I would not like my comments to be taken in the wrong way—perhaps in the way that “minimise” has been taken—but we are making a significant change to the way that companies are established in this country and to the sorts of information levels that we require from businesses to ensure the integrity of data at Companies House, in what both individual directors, persons with significant control or corporate service providers and companies have to provide. It is very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this country is one of the easiest places to do business in the world. Our wealth comes from our entrepreneurial nature and the importance of having a company structure, system and process that does not place unnecessary burdens where they will not necessarily add value.
I am, however, very open to further conversations to ensure that the philosophy presented here matches our ambition, which is to ensure that we understand who benefits from companies and who is behind them.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord has explained the onerous nature of verifying the identity of every shareholder, which I accepted in part when I spoke. We will come back to that issue on Amendments 39 and 43. However, he has not talked about whether and why a shareholder making a simple statement as to whether they are holding the shares on their own behalf—and if they are not, on whose behalf they are—is particularly onerous. I am afraid that I do not see why it should be.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The company is obliged to register if there is a person with significant control or someone with more than 25%. If it is not truthful in that registration, it will be committing an offence.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
But that is different from any shareholder having to make the positive statement: “I am”—or “I am not”—“holding the shares on my own behalf”. It is very different from, “I’ve got 25% and therefore I have to make some disclosures”. Why is it a problem for an individual shareholder to say, “I’m holding these shares on my own behalf”, or “I’m holding them on behalf of somebody else”? I am sorry, but I really do not see why that is difficult or onerous. It is a very different thing from the 25% threshold that the Minister just mentioned.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s intervention. I expect some of this comes down to nominee companies and the roles that they perform on shareholder registers, but I am happy to look in more detail at this point. We had the good fortune to have a conversation about this some days ago and came to the conclusion that it was certainly worth further investigation to ensure that anyone who puts information on to the Companies House website has to ascertain whether they are acting on behalf of other people. However, I believe, and very much hope, that the answer will lie in the depths of the legislation.
My noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment is very similar. I hope I have covered this point, particularly in relation to the PSC framework already in place.
I turn to Amendment 5, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his helpful replacement of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in speaking to it. The amendment would require a memorandum of association to include the nationality and country of ordinary residence of each subscriber. A memorandum of association is a memorandum stating that the subscribers wish to form a company, and they agree to become members of that company. Their names are then entered into the company’s register of members.
This amendment, if I may be so bold, would not require the same information to be provided by persons who later become members. Frankly, it is considered that that would create inconsistency between the information requirements of members who were subscribers and other members. The Government consider that any new information requirements should be consistent between the two.
The Government appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but we consider that this would be better addressed by consulting stakeholders about what additional information, if any, it would be proportionate to require every company to provide about all its members, rather than just subscribers who are individuals. To reinforce that point, we would look to consult stakeholders about what additional information it would be proportionate to require.
This Bill, and government amendments to it, provide the powers to require additional information to be provided via regulations. This discussion can happen on an ongoing basis, and we welcome that. The government amendments that I outlined earlier signal our willingness to review the position on this issue, albeit having first consulted stakeholders, given the potential burdens involved. I know we all agree about the importance of keeping the legislation sensible so that it does not impinge on our entrepreneurial spirit and the creation of companies in this country. That is absolutely right, and noble Lords would expect the Government to consult in ensuring that we get the right information registered in the right way. I hope this reassures the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this relatively short but important debate. I make it clear to the Minister that I do not think anyone contributing to this discussion was questioning the underlying philosophy of the Bill. Indeed, we were trying to enhance its underlying philosophy, which is to provide greater transparency about who the ultimate beneficial owners of all these companies are.
The Minister’s response to the various amendments was about disproportionality. He said that they would put disproportional burdens on smaller companies, that personal information may be made available, and that people should be protected from spam, promoters and so on. I do not think anyone is questioning that. Various amendments put forward by various noble Lords try to increase transparency and to stop people being able to hide behind layers and layers of nominee companies.
I was drawn to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said: “Having to lie in public is very different from just keeping quiet”. That is a very sound principle to operate on. He also made the point that identifying shareholders should be the same as identifying directors or people with significant control. That is a second principle behind his amendments.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Information about subscribers
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 9 (registration documents)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The application must contain—(a) a statement of the required information about each of the subscribers to the memorandum of association (see section 9A),(b) a statement that none of the subscribers to the memorandum of association is disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation (see section 159A(2)),(c) if any of them would be so disqualified but for the permission of a court to act, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the subscriber’s name,(ii) the court by which permission was given, and(iii) the date on which permission was given, and(d) if any of them would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the subscriber’s name, and(ii) the date on which it was issued and by whom it was issued.”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(7) In subsection (3A)(c) “permission of a court to act” means permission of a court under a provision mentioned in column 2 of the table in section 159A(2).”.(3) After section 9 insert—“9A Required information about the subscribers(1) The required information about a subscriber who is an individual is—(a) name;(b) a service address.(2) The required information about a subscriber that is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, is—(a) corporate or firm name;(b) a service address.(3) In subsection (1) “name” means the individual’s forename and surname.(4) Where a subscriber is a peer or an individual usually known by a title, that title may be stated in the application for the registration of the company instead of the subscriber’s forename and surname.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) amend this section so as to change the required information about a subscriber; (b) repeal subsection (4).(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”.(4) In subsection 10 (statement of capital and initial shareholdings), omit subsection (3).(5) In subsection 11 (statement of guarantee), omit subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the information that an application for the formation of a company must include about the subscribers and confers a power to amend that information (similar powers currently exist in sections 10(3) and 11(2) of the Companies Act 2006). The clause also incorporates material from Clauses 2 and 4.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 40 that appear in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I begin by apologising for my lack of fluidity in the procedures of Committee stage—I have not taken such a complex and important Bill through before, so I am grateful for noble Lords’ indulgence and apologise for any confusion caused.
I speak now to the set of government amendments in this group: Amendments 9 to 12, 25 to 30, 40 and 41. These will replace existing Clauses 36 and 38. They create a completely new type of sanctions measure in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 called “director disqualification sanctions”. It will be unlawful for a designated person subject to this new measure to act as a director of a company. These amendments improve and extend the existing clauses, which prohibit individuals who are subject to the asset freeze sanctions measure from acting as directors of companies. Instead of automatically applying director disqualification status to individuals who are subject to an asset freeze only, this amendment allows Ministers to apply the new measure on a case-by-case basis using the existing designation procedure within the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. That will ensure that the measure can be better targeted at those designated persons who are acting, or could act, as directors. It provides the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with flexibility as to when to apply it and does not limit it in applying it only to people subject to an asset freeze. That is standard practice for our other designation-based sanctions measures, such as asset freezes and travel bans.
It will be for the Foreign Secretary to decide when and how to deploy the measure, alongside the full suite of other sanctions measures. For instance, this measure could be applied on its own or alongside an asset freeze, travel ban or other measures. While other countries may be able to prevent designated persons from acting as company directors through the effect of other prohibitions, we will be the first country to introduce this as a specific type of sanctions measure.
The amendment will utilise the procedures set out in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to disqualify the designated person from directorship of UK companies. An individual subject to this new measure will commit an offence if they act as a director of a company or take part in the management, formation or promotion of a company.
As with existing sanctions measures, the relevant authority will be able to issue a licence to an individual to allow them to undertake activity that is otherwise prohibited. This may be necessary, for instance, where the individual needs to continue to act as a director for a short period of time in order to wind down the company. Additionally, the Secretary of State can by regulations create exceptions to provide more general carve-outs from the sanction.
Information about individuals who are subject to this new sanction, and any relevant licences, will be published on the director disqualification register maintained by Companies House, as well as on the UK sanctions list. This will ensure that the use of the sanction is transparent. It will also make the information more easily accessible. Members of the public will be able to find all the relevant information on the existing register, and will not have to search unfamiliar sources to access information on disqualified directors.
Introducing this new director disqualification sanctions measure will be an important addition to the UK’s sanctions armoury. I beg to move Amendment 9 and very much hope that noble Lords will support the other government amendments in this group.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment on designated persons. The Minister is already dealing with this issue in some of his own amendments, but I stress that mine would be a slight tweak to the system that would have enormous power over the very few people who would be impacted. Last year only 1,200 people were designated for the Russian activities—across the whole world, not just by us—so we are talking about low numbers of thousands of people relative to the 5 million on the register. We also know that some of these bad actors got wind of their designation before it happened and were able to reorganise their financial affairs, so the horse had well and truly bolted by the time we rumbled into action. This slight amendment would give much more transparency into what these people were doing and allow the enforcement agencies to act accordingly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note that these various amendments cover England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the UK financial system very much includes Jersey and Guernsey for a great many company formations and associated company forms. I wonder whether at this stage the Minister could explain whether or not the disqualification of persons from being directors within the UK will in time apply to the Crown dependencies, or whether one will still be able to act as a director for companies formed in the Crowd dependencies while disqualified within the UK.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comment about the Crown dependencies. I am happy to confirm that this debate develops the specific answer to his question. My assumption would be that they fall under the register of overseas entities and the requirements placed around them, but I will confirm that. The noble Lord makes a very valid point. It would be peculiar if we did not include the Crown dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey in our legislation. My assumption is that they are well covered, and I hope that is the case.
I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton for his Amendment 24. I assure him that I do not think it is necessary to achieve his intentions. Provisions in the Bill already allow Companies House proactively to share data more widely for purposes connected with its functions. Data sharing will also be permitted to assist public authorities with exercising their own functions. This will include government bodies such as OFSI, which is part of His Majesty’s Treasury, the National Crime Agency and so on. Examples of data sharing could be for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of data provided to the registrar to ensure the register is kept up to date or for passing on intelligence to law enforcement agencies to minimise criminal activity.
Companies House will operate a risk-based approach targeting its efforts primarily in those areas where information and intelligence gleaned through new data-sharing powers and through Companies House’s own systems and processes suggest that particular scrutiny is warranted. The Government believe that this amendment, while well intentioned, is overly prescriptive and would lead to Companies House having to share potentially irrelevant and unnecessary information with OFSI and NCA. This would be an inefficient use of government resources and could lead to more serious intelligence that needs to be shared being missed. Although Companies House already works very closely with government departments, including HM Treasury’s OFSI and law enforcement agencies, this Bill will strengthen these existing relationships through enhanced data-sharing provisions.
This amendment seeks to impose a duty on the registrar only with regard to material information, which it leaves undefined. The imposition of such a vague duty could lead to confused and ineffective results and underlines the importance of the registrar being able to share data using a risk-based approach. Furthermore, information about individuals who are subject to this new sanction and any relevant licences will be published on the director disqualification register maintained by Companies House as well as on the UK sanctions list to ensure that the use of the sanctions measure is transparent. Discussions about implementing the new sanctions measure, including data sharing between Companies House, the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are already under way to ensure that the new measure is effective. For the reasons set out above, I ask my noble friend not to move his amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(7) Where any of the persons named as directors would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, the statement must also include a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(a) the person’s name, and(b) the date on which the licence was issued and by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
(c) if any of them would be so disqualified by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the person’s name, and(ii) the date on which the licence was issued and by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 40 that appear in the Minister’s name.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments, would require that, when a when a company is ordered to change its name under the provisions of this Bill (including in cases where the name is considered misleading or it may facilitate criminal activity), the company must comply with the order with between 28 and 90 days.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 13 is tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby. I thank the Minister and his team for all the briefings we have had and for their openness and support in getting us this far, and all noble Lords in the Room for all the information we are gleaning on almost every group that comes before us.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for speaking in this debate and for tabling Amendment 13, to which I will now respond. All these amendments are concerned with directions issued to a company by the Secretary of State requiring it to change its name under provisions already in the Companies Act 2006 and added to that Act by virtue of the Bill.
I am very sympathetic to some of the background comments relating to this amendment, but we feel that it is better to allow an element of flexibility around the time it takes a company to change its name. There is already a 28-day target point, and it is right that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to extend that.
Noble Lords in the Committee who have been involved in company management will know that sometimes, in order to have a formal resolution, there are certain requirements of notice periods for boards, which can be 30 days. For the businesses I have been involved in, that tended to be common practice; you can have a special resolution, but it is more important that the change happens and that we do not necessarily set arbitrary timelines, which could cause other issues at a later date.
I am very comfortable with having a further discussion with the noble Baroness and her colleagues about this in case something has been missed in the debate. Ultimately, I believe that we have set the right level of activity requirements and that allowing the Secretary of State to have the flexibility would be more appropriate given the ambitions we are trying to achieve.
The second element of the amendments—I am not sure whether they were spoken to, but they were certainly proposed so it is worth covering them briefly because they are part of the debate—is the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish details of any directions. Directions are issued to companies by the Secretary of State rather than the registrar so they do not form part of the company register, which is a record of information provided to the registrar by companies and material issued to companies by the registrar. We do not believe it would be appropriate to depart from that principle. However, to repeat commitments made at earlier stages of the Bill, we would be happy to examine on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness of annotating the register where name change directions have been issued. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister. I was indeed referring to all the amendments in the group. I note his offer of further conversations to make sure that we have absolutely nailed down the clarification that we are seeking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“(2A) An address is not an “appropriate address” if—(a) it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out,(b) the registrar, following appropriate investigation, has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use the address, or(c) it is a PO Box address.(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—(a) for exceptions to subsection (2A), and(b) for the registrar to exercise discretion to disapply subsection (2A) in exceptional cases.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an “appropriate address” for a company’s registration.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 23 is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I have signed in support. The amendment does not form part of a group. It seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an appropriate address for company registration. It is aimed in particular at trying to stop the terrible practice—which is widespread, as we heard at Second Reading—of companies using false addresses. Although Clause 28 defines an appropriate address, our amendment goes further in defining what is not an appropriate address, including a Post Office box.
In terms of public awareness of the debate that we are having as the Bill goes through, the use of false addresses is one of the most publicly well-known issues with Companies House, and we really should be putting all our efforts in to try to prevent it. People trying to prove that companies are registering falsely at their address often have to go to far greater lengths to prove that they are the proper residents of the said address than the person setting up the company. I hope that this amendment provides an opportunity to talk about the use of false addresses and, therefore, the impact that it has on the public. It is one of the most visible parts of the current failure of Companies House. As things stand, Companies House does not do any detailed check on an address where a company is registered, particularly if it uses the basic criteria laid down by Companies House.
I am sure that I am not alone in having listened to many of the different programmes in the media, particularly on the radio but on other outlets as well, which have had this vexed issue as their subject. You hear about the absolute distress caused to people, who are completely innocent in the process, who come home and find letters sent to their address and many other factors which lead them to understand that someone has falsely set up a company using their name or address—and on this occasion we are talking about their address. The most important issue to recognise here is that this can take years to disentangle, and it can cause distress and untold misery, and we have a collective responsibility, with the passage of this Bill, to make sure that Companies House does all the work that it can to help.
The important issue to bear in mind is that the onus should be on the businesses to prove that they are legitimate rather than it being on individuals to prove it is a scam and their innocence. I hope that other noble Lords will comment on this amendment, and I hope that collectively we can work together to make sure that innocent members of the public are given the full protection possible by the new legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I take up the noble Baroness’s invitation to comment on this amendment, although I have just received a text from my mother who says that, having been called a business guru by the Minister, I should keep quiet and not say any more. However, this is a very important issue on which I spoke at some length at Second Reading, and quoted an article in the Times highlighting the problem. The noble Baroness is quite right that it blights people’s houses when they find it to be a registered office, which they had not intended it to be and, of course, the information does not go to the right person.
Nevertheless, I am very concerned by this amendment as worded, because it says:
“An address is not an “appropriate address” if … it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out”.
I assume that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the amendment would be separated by an “or”, because many companies choose as their registered office their solicitor or accountant, with good reason, particularly in these days of working from home, start-ups and virtual companies, where they do not have a single office space but move around the place. The main place of business may be an apartment where they happen to live, so it is convenient and sensible to choose a solicitor’s or accountant’s office as their base. Indeed, when I worked as a chartered account in a large accountancy firm some 35 years ago, that was very common.
Sadly, I do not think the amendment as worded achieves what the noble Baroness seeks, but neither does the Bill: with the greatest respect to the Minister,
“would be expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company”
is a bit convoluted for what we know we want to achieve. Although I cannot support this amendment at this time, I very much hope that before the next stage, we might come up with some wording that achieves where we all want to go.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have two very short points on this. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. I do not think paragraph (a) in the amendment works: the registered address does not have to be the place of business, it often is not and there are often perfectly good reasons for that; but paragraph (b) is incredibly important, concerning this use of people’s addresses for, effectively, fraudulent purposes. Often, the first thing the person whose address it is knows about it is a letter from HMRC with a massive VAT demand: this is particularly used for VAT fraud. It is really important that Companies House works closely—a point discussed on a previous group—with other agencies, particularly HMRC, to make sure that this sort of thing is knocked on the head.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Companies Act says at Section 9(5) that an application
“must contain a statement of the intended address of the company’s registered office”.
That is all on registration. That opens up the sort of abuses that we have heard from the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords who have already spoken. I tend to agree with the two noble Lords, having been a solicitor myself, that it is perfectly responsible for a solicitor’s or accountant’s office to be used as a registered office, but nevertheless, the way in which the Government have attacked it does not cover the whole ground. It is very sensible, in addition to the way the Government have put it, to define an appropriate office in the negative sense. That would not include the solicitor’s or accountant’s office, for the reasons given.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have very little to add to what my noble friend said. This is clearly a bit of a curate’s egg and Amendment 23 is a good start, but there are objections to it, which were very well set out by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Vaux. As my noble friend said, it is quite usual to use professional offices as a registered office. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that new subsection (2) in Clause 29(3) is not as good as it should be and that he will take on board some of the points made about Amendment 23. Then, we would be in a much better place.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Leigh, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Clement-Jones, for their contribution to the debate on this issue.
The Government’s view is that Clause 29 already introduces a revised Section 86 to the Companies Act 2006 in an effort to introduce a definition of what constitutes an acceptable and effective address for a company’s registered office. The amendment seeks to define the opposite: what would not represent an appropriate address. I hope your Lordships will agree with the following argument for why that is unnecessary.
I begin with the suggestion that PO box addresses be explicitly forbidden. We do not believe there is a need for this. A PO box address cannot be an address at which deliveries can be acknowledged, nor an address to which a sender can be assured that what is sent will find its way to the hands of a company representative. It is therefore clearly not an appropriate address—we very much agree with the noble Baroness on that.
I turn to the “reasonable suspicion” element of the amendment. Where the registrar has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use an address, she will almost inevitably conclude that the conditions that I have just mentioned will not be capable of being met and, again, she will be within her rights to reject or force the company to change it as appropriate.
The other element of the amendment would prevent companies having their registered office address anywhere other than their main place of business. There are, frankly, many reasons why a company may choose to separate the two, so this could be problematic for many companies. That includes, for example, particularly small enterprises that carry out businesses from home but choose to register the company at the premises of their accountant in order to protect their residential address details, which I think we would agree is perfectly reasonable. We have been at pains elsewhere in the Bill to introduce measures to extend, where appropriate, the ability to suppress addresses that the public have access to which might jeopardise the safety or security of individuals. There are elements of the amendment that we believe would run contrary to those aims.
I hope the Committee will be reassured that new Section 86 will be an effective means by which to monitor and police the accuracy of company address information and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. As a final point, I personally have great sympathy with the ambitions of the amendment to make sure that the right address is being provided for the company register, but I hope I have laid out the reasons why the processes that the Government have put in the legislation should be sufficient to ensure that real addresses are given and other protections are employed.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Personally, I am convinced by what the Minister has said about the substitute for Section 86. I just have one query. It creates an offence whereby a person is guilty on summary conviction. The offence appears to be committed by a company and
“every officer of the company who is in default.”
Could the Minister help with who the statute envisages will be an officer of the company who is in default?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that comment. I will come back to the noble Lord with more detail, if that is possible.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their comments, and I thank the Minister for his explanation. We will of course take those comments away and consider them, but at the moment I feel that there is still room to explore this issue and perhaps come up with another form of wording to take forward at a future stage. As I said earlier, the emphasis on reflecting the fact that the onus is on a business to prove that it is legitimate will need to run through all this. With those comments, and in anticipation of future discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Power to impose director disqualification sanctions
(1) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (power to make sanctions regulations), in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—“(ab) impose director disqualification sanctions (see section 3A);”.(3) After section 3 insert—“3A Director disqualification sanctions(1) For the purposes of section 1(5)(ab) regulations “impose director disqualification sanctions” if they provide for designated persons (see section 9) to be persons subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of—(a) section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and(b) Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.(2) As to the effect of such provision, see—(a) section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and(b) Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.”(4) In section 9 (“designated persons”)—(a) in subsection (1), for “3 and 4” substitute “3 to 4”;(b) in subsection (3), after “3,” insert “3A,”.(5) In section 15 (exceptions and licences), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where regulations provide for designated persons to be persons subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, the regulations may—(a) create exceptions from subsection (1) of that section or paragraph (1) of that Article;(b) confer power on an appropriate Minister to issue a licence to authorise a designated person to do anything that would otherwise be prohibited by subsection (1) of that section or paragraph (1) of that Article.(3B) Regulations may, as respects any licences provided for under subsection (3A), make any provision mentioned (in relation to licences) in subsection (3).””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause would allow an appropriate Minister to designate a person as subject to “director disqualification sanctions” for the purposes of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
“Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB
(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.(2) After section 11 insert—“11A Designated persons under sanctions legislation(1) It is an offence for a person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions to act as a director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company (but see subsection (2)).(2) Subsection (1) does not apply—(a) to the extent that an exception from subsection (1) has been created by virtue of section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or(b) to anything done under the authority of a licence issued by virtue of section 15(3A) of that Act.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they engaged in that conduct.(4) In this section “person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions” means a person who under regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is a person subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of this section (see section 3A of that Act).”(3) In section 13 (criminal penalties), after “section 11” insert “or 11A ”.(4) In section 14 (offences by body corporate), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) Where—(a) a body corporate is—(i) guilty of an offence of acting in contravention of a disqualification order or disqualification undertaking or in contravention of section 12A or 12B, or(ii) guilty of an offence under section 11A, and(b) it is proved that the offence occurred with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,the person, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”(5) In section 15 (personal liability for company’s debts where person acts while disqualified)—(a) in subsection (1)(a), after “section 11” insert “, 11A”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of subsection (1)(a);(c) after subsection (1)(b) insert “, or(c) as a person who is involved in the management of the company, they act or are willing to act on instructions given in contravention of section 11A or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.”;(d) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions (within the meaning of section 11A) and is involved in the management of a company is not personally responsible under subsection (1)(a) for all of the relevant debts of a company if the person proves that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they were so involved.”;(e) in subsection (3)(b), after “(b)” insert “or (c)”.(6) In section 18 (register of disqualification orders and undertakings), in subsection (2A), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) persons who are subject to director disqualification sanctions within the meaning of section 11A;(e) any licences issued by virtue of section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.” (7) In section 21 (interaction with Insolvency Act), in subsection (4), after “section 11” insert “, 11A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that any person who has been designated as being subject to director disqualification sanctions will be committing an offence if they act as a director etc. in GB, unless they have been issued with a licence or unless an exception applies.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI
(1) The Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 15 insert—“15A Designated persons under sanctions legislation(1) It is an offence for a person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions to act as a director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company (but see paragraph (2)).(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply—(a) to the extent that an exception from paragraph (1) has been created by virtue of section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or(b) to anything done under the authority of a licence issued by virtue of section 15(3A) of that Act.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article to prove that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they engaged in that conduct.(4) In this Article “person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions” means a person who under regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is a person subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of this Article (see section 3A of that Act).”(3) In Article 18 (criminal penalties)—(a) omit “15,”;(b) for “and” substitute “; and any person guilty of an offence under this Article or Article 15 or 15A”.(4) In Article 19 (personal liability for company’s debts where person acts while disqualified)— (a) in paragraph (1)(a), after “Article 15” insert “, 15A”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (1)(a);(c) after paragraph (1)(b) insert “, or(c) as a person who is involved in the management of the company, they act or are willing to act on instructions given in contravention of Article 15A or section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.”;(d) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions (within the meaning of Article 15A) and is involved in the management of a company is not personally responsible under paragraph (1)(a) for all of the relevant debts of a company if the person proves that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they were so involved.”;(e) in paragraph (3)(b), after “(1)(b)” insert “or (c)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that any person who has been designated as being subject to director disqualification sanctions will be committing an offence if they act as a director etc. in NI, unless they have been issued with a licence or unless an exception applies.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
“P is subject to director disqualification sanctions within the meaning of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. | Section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2018 (exceptions and licences).” |
This amendment is consequential on new clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) (which are inserted after Clause 36).
“P is subject to director disqualification sanctions within the meaning of Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. | Section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2018 (exceptions and licences).” |
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI) (which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38)
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 112 (the members of a company), at the end insert—“(4) Where an individual’s name is entered in a company’s register of members but is not in the form required by section 113A, that does not affect the person becoming a member of the company by virtue of subsection (2).”(3) For the italic heading “General” at the beginning of Chapter 2 of Part 8 substitute “Duty to keep register”.(4) In section 113 (register of members)—(a) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) There must be entered in the register, in respect of each person who is a member—(a) the required information (see sections 113A and 113B), and(b) the date on which the person was registered as a member.(2A) Where a person ceases to be a member there must be entered in the register the date at which the person’s membership ceased.”;(b) in subsection (3), omit “, with the names and addresses of the members,”;(c) in subsection (5), after “show a single” insert “service”;(d) in subsection (6), omit “, with the names and addresses of the members,”;(e) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where any of the information required to be entered in a company’s register of members changes—(a) that does not relieve the company from the obligation to include the old information in the register if it has not already done so,(b) the old information must be retained in the register until its removal is authorised by section 121 or by court order under section 125, and(c) a note must be included in the register recording the date on which the information changed and the date on which the change was entered in the register.”;(f) in subsection (7), after “If” insert “, without reasonable excuse,”.(5) After section 113 insert—“113A Required information about members: individuals(1) The required information about a member who is an individual is—(a) name;(b) a service address. (2) In this section “name” means forename and surname.(3) Where a member is a peer or an individual usually known by a title—(a) any requirement imposed by section 113D or 113E, or by a notice under section 113F, to provide their name may be satisfied by providing their title instead;(b) the title may be entered in the register of members instead of their forename and surname (and references in any enactment to the name of a person entered in a company’s register of members are to be construed accordingly).113B Required information about members: corporate members and firmsThe required information about a member that is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, is—(a) corporate or firm name;(b) a service address.113C Power to amend the required information(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) make provision changing the required information about a member for the purposes of this Chapter;(b) repeal section 113A(3).(2) The provision that may be made in regulations under subsection (1)(a) includes provision amending this Chapter.(3) The consequential provision that may be made in regulations under subsection (1)(a) by virtue of section 1292(1) also includes provision amending section 51 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.113D Duty on new members to notify required information(1) A person who becomes a member of a company must provide the company with the required information about the member (see sections 113A and 113B).(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if or to the extent that—(a) the person has already provided the information to the company, or(b) the person becomes a member of the company on its incorporation and the information is contained in the application for the registration of the company.(3) A person must comply with this section within the period of two months beginning with the date on which the person became a member.113E Duty on member to notify changes to required information(1) A person who is a member of a company must give notice to the company of any change in the required information about the member (see sections 113A and 113B).(2) The notice must specify the date on which the change occurred.(3) A person must comply with this section within the period of two months beginning with the date on which the change occurred.113F Power for company to require information from members(1) A company may, for the purposes of ensuring that its register of members includes the information that it is required to include, require a member or former member of the company to provide any of the required information about the member or former member (see sections 113A and 113B). (2) The notice must require the recipient to comply with it within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the notice is given.113G Failure to comply with section 113D , 113E or 113F(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with section 113D or 113E commits an offence.(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a notice under section 113F commits an offence.(3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum;(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum.113H Basic false statement offences in connection with sections 113D to 113F(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with section 113D or 113E and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 113F and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.113I Aggravated false statement offences in connection with sections 113D to 113F(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with section 113D or 113E, the person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 113F, the person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular. (3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum;(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum.Duty to keep index of members”.(6) Section 115 (index of members)—(a) is moved to after the italic heading “Duty to keep index of members” inserted by subsection (5) of this section, and(b) is renumbered section 113J.(7) In that section as renumbered—(a) in subsection (1), for “names of the members of the company” substitute “names or titles of the members of the company (to be known as “the index of members’ names”)”;(b) for subsection (3) substitute—“(3) The index must include the same details of a person’s name or title as are entered in the register of members.”(8) Before section 114 insert—“Inspection etc of register and index of members”.(9) Before section 121 insert—“Removal of entries from register of members”.(10) In section 123 (single member companies)—(a) in subsection (1), omit “, with the name and address of the sole member,”;(b) in subsection (2), omit “, with the name and address of the sole member”;(c) in subsection (3), omit “, with the name and address of the person who was formerly the sole member”.(11) In section 771 (procedure on transfer being lodged), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The company may not register the transfer under subsection (1)(a) unless satisfied that it has the information that it is required to enter in its register of members in relation to the transferee.””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause confers a power to amend the information that must be kept in a company’s register of members. It also creates an express duty for companies to retain old information about members (eg former address information).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) require a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, individual membership information except in circumstances specified in the regulations;(b) confer power on the registrar, on application, to make an order requiring a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, individual membership information except in circumstances specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a company to refrain from using or disclosing membership information, whether or not a member applies for protection.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendment to Clause 49 that appears in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This severs the link between the operation of Clause 51 and the commencement of Clause 46. The appointed day could be later than the commencement of Clause 46, allowing a company more time to obtain the information it has to provide to the registrar.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 51, page 35, line 16, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
““the appointed day” means such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint for the purposes of this section;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 51, page 35, line 16, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
“Disclosure of control of 5% or more of shares in a private or public company
(1) A person who controls 5% or more of the shares in a company must declare that fact to the registrar.(2) The duty in subsection (1) applies whether the person controls the shares directly or indirectly.(3) The registrar may impose a penalty on any person who fails to comply with the duty in subsection (1).(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) a person has made a declaration under subsection (1), and(b) the registrar has identified a matter of concern under subsection 1062A(1A) of the Companies Act 2006 in relation to the person or the declaration.(5) The registrar must—(a) verify the identity of the person, and(b) verify the number of shares the person claims to control.”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates a duty of disclosure on shareholders holding more than 5% of shares in a company. Non-compliance may incur a penalty. The registrar must verify the declarant’s identity, and the number of shares they control by cross referencing against other documents, such as company records. The reference to 1062A(1A) relates to the amendment tabled by Lord Agnew to Clause 90, page 69, line 27.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, this amendment builds on my opening comments in relation to Amendment 44 and goes to the core of the Bill and transparency. It asks that shareholders with more than a 5% shareholding are disclosed on the register. I am conscious of burdens that that might impose on businesses, but the reality is that it is a maximum of 20 entities per company and, in reality, it would be far less than that. Any business in operation maintains its own cap table—the “cap” is the capitalisation of the company—so my proposal is that that is made available on public records. I do not see why we cannot have this. I am sure that my noble friend will ask me to withdraw the amendment, and I simply ask him to explain how we are going to have a comparable level of transparency if this sort of mechanism is not available. So much of the trouble is lurking in the undergrowth in my experience. This is a one-off opportunity to surface this sort of information to help us track bad actors.
Amendment 43 has a similar theme about persons of significant control. It is part of the replumbing of Companies House, which needs to carry out some analysis of the identity of people who are claiming significant control to make sure they are people whose identity, and the connections they have to other entities, is known and on the register. I return to my earlier comment that, if my noble friend does not want to do this, what is the strategy for this kind of understanding of the behaviour of these sorts of organisations? If we are not going to have the amendment that I am proposing, what is the alternative? What are the mechanisms that are going to give us some reassurance that we have control and understanding of the people on the Companies House register? I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
When my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate, I wonder whether he would consider accepting the amendment in due course with a de minimis size qualification. This would be quite onerous for a large number of private companies, such as family businesses, where ownership changes quite regularly, and small businesses that have enough to do without worrying about perfectly innocent share transfers. For larger companies—public companies in particular—this may not be too onerous. I remind the House of my comments at Second Reading that the Quoted Companies Alliance had calculated that the average public company accounts now comprise 95,000 words—no one is keen to add any more words to that. I would certainly not wish to see this apply to private and SME businesses.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has said and will perhaps think about that. I should declare my interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange. At 5% ownership, there are significant things that can be done: if it is a public company, at 5% you can apply to the court to prevent it going private. That is a significant power, and we ought to know that it is applied properly. I guess the court would find out if you were not who you said you were; nevertheless, you might be masquerading as such and could still have influence—you could call general meetings and propose resolutions. These are all events that could have a significant effect on companies of all sizes. I tend to feel, therefore, that other shareholders need to know that things have been properly verified.
I have sympathy for the SME angle and will think about it further. However, just because you are small does not mean that you do not need to know some of these things, including who might have an exercisable right which you know has been verified. I would probably follow suit in the decision on persons with significant control: if you are going to exempt SMEs, they should be exempted for both; if they are going to be included, they should be included in both. I am still veering towards including them, simply because it is a substantial power. There are plenty of private SMEs in which people have significant sums invested, and I do not really see that they should be protected any less from not having full awareness of who really holds these powers to do things or of whether they are sheltering a nominee.
At the moment, my tendency is to support both of these amendments as they stand, with the caveat that I will go away and think a bit about whether this would be too onerous for SMEs. We have to remember, however, that the “M”s of SMEs can be quite big.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am not wholly convinced that what you would be required to do under this amendment is very onerous. I remember looking at this when we were examining the desirability of transparency in relation to ownership of shares. Presuming bad actors—although this is, I hope, infrequently the case—it is very easy for someone to, as it were, redistribute their shares to smaller packages if they wanted to conceal their identity. I am not saying that that is what people do most of the time, but it would be more difficult if there were an obligation to disclose of the sort contained in this amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, very quickly, I will not repeat what we said on an earlier group, but these two amendments cover very much the same sort of areas of transparency. I ask the Minister—probably as a matter of relative urgency, given the discussions we have had—whether he could facilitate a meeting of the various interested parties so that we can try to thrash out where we want to start to coalesce around these issues, as that would be helpful.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I declare that I am a shareholder in an SME. We need to be aware that there are various classes of shares. You could be a 5% shareholder in terms of owning the company, but an 80% shareholder in the voting shares. Whatever the outcome of these discussions, we need to be very clear which type of shares we are talking about.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
I was going to make a similar point. Obviously, there are a number of different classes of shares; as it stands, the amendment is, with respect, a little unclear as to how it would operate in relation to voting shares, non-voting shares, preference shares, class A shares, class B shares and so forth. That would need to be tightened up.
On the amendment creating a dangerously onerous regime, it occurred to me that a further aspect of its onerousness relates to what the registrar is required to do pursuant to this amendment. It currently states that the registrar must
“verify the number of shares the person claims to control.”
If taken literally, that might require the registrar to look quite carefully at what is being said about the slightly tricky concept of control, which is not quite the same as ownership. That might need to be reconsidered in due course, or perhaps watered down or removed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Bowles, have usefully teased out some of the principles that we need to adopt and the fact that we are not quite there in terms of trying to find a relatively simple formula that is not unduly onerous. They also point out that the current provisions are not adequate. Indeed, it is quite interesting that we have two separate groups here, in coming to government Amendment 42. This whole area of persons with significant control and what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, set out in terms of shareholders holding more than 5% of shares demonstrate that we need a greater level of transparency.
I very much hope that the Minister will come back in the spirit in which these proceedings have been conducted and say, “Yes, we think there is more to be done and that it is possible to get over the SME issue that has been raised by a number of noble Lords. However, we think in principle that it is desirable to go down this sort of route that has been suggested.” I hope that we will get a positive reply from the Minister and an undertaking to take this forward in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggested.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. When the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, moved Amendment 39, which places a duty to register on those owning 5% or more of shares, and he spoke to his Amendment 43, which creates an obligation for the registrar to examine the statements attesting to the identity of the person, by his tone he made it crystal clear that that was not the last word on the subject. In fact, he threw down a challenge to the Minister in introducing that group and saying, “If not this, then what? What will be the strategy to combat the bad actors?”
As he said, the problems lie in the undergrowth. There are shareholders with smaller shareholdings, and maybe there are multiple companies owning small shareholdings; there are many ways of hiding things and many who will facilitate those who want to hide their wealth. The whole theme of this group is a challenge to the Minister; it is not about the detail of the amendments themselves. I look forward to what he has to say.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for that summation. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the powerful reason which they bring to bear on these amendments. The Government are delighted to have more discussions around how we ensure that we have full knowledge of people who have control of companies and of companies’ beneficiaries. I believe that the Bill as it stands gives us that level of security. The Government would be reluctant to set arbitrary levels in terms of that above a certain percentage one should have additional registration information, but I am happy to have a discussion around those principles, if that is helpful.
If people do not have confidence in Companies House, we will not have achieved part of our goal, which is to give people a sense of that the data has integrity and is true. The whole point about this exercise is to make sure that people put the right data in so that we know who the people are who are behind businesses and people can trust that information. I am very sympathetic to this discussion, which is extremely important.
To balance this, I say that this is about helping businesses function better in a lawful environment. One can go to the ultimate degree in terms of requirements for information and verification that do not necessitate greater degrees of security but cause significant burdens for businesses. This is not simply about satisfying our desire for excess information simply for the sake it; it must be linked to whether this is going to help us achieve our basic goals, which is to understand who owns these businesses, who is behind them and who is benefiting from them. With that in mind, I am open to having further discussions, as my colleagues would be.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his offer to have an ongoing conversation about this, because that is how you achieve the best results in these things. This very formal and rigid process of trying to look at individual clauses in isolation does not solve the problem. We have had several clauses this afternoon that all mesh together with one objective, which is to improve transparency. I take my noble friend Lord Leigh’s point about creating a bureaucratic system that impacts adversely on thousands of decent people, particularly small businesses. However, the transaction of changing car ownership in this country, where you have an asset worth a few thousand pounds, it is a very simple process. You fill in a change of ownership form, you send it to the DVLA, and the job is done—so to the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks, I do not believe that we have to create a bureaucratic system to get transparency.
I remind noble Lords of the downside of not having this information. A case study was given to me by Members in the other place. The awful ammonium nitrate explosion in Beirut a couple of years ago killed and wounded hundreds of people. It was eventually uncovered that the company that owned the warehouse was a British-registered company, Savaro Ltd, but it was almost impossible to find out who the shareholders of that company were and to get to grips with who were the people who caused that terrible accident.
There is a lot more to this issue. As someone who has created a lot of small businesses in my career, I do not want a heavy hand on this, but light-touch regulation done well is the answer. I urge my noble friend to have an open conversation with Members here as a way of solving the problem in a business sense, not in this very formal way.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s summation. Again, I hope that the Government have demonstrated today that the principles of the Bill conform to the expectations and desires of this Committee. Clearly, there are details that require further discussion, and that debate will help propagate the ambitions and values that we are trying to inject into the Bill. I am grateful for the comments but, in this instance, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, given that we will have further discussions to try to ascertain the right levels and what burdens we should impose on business to achieve our outcomes.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(f) if the person would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect specifying—(i) the date on which the licence was issued, and(ii) by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI) (which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 40 that appear in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“False statements about persons with significant control
(1) Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006 (enforcement of disclosure requirements in relation to persons with significant control) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 13, in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (b) and the “or” before it.(3) In paragraph 14, in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (b) and the “or” before it.(4) After paragraph 14 insert—“False statements: basic offence14A_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D or 790E or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G or 790H, and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, an offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.False statements: aggravated offence14B_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D or 790E or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G or 790H, the person makes a statement that the person knows is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, an offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction— (i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).””Member’s explanatory statement
This is about the provision of false or misleading information about persons with significant control. The current offences require the prosecution to prove knowledge or recklessness in all cases. The amendment replaces that with a strict liability offence (not dependent on knowledge) and an aggravated offence (where there is knowledge).
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I apologise if I have not followed the procedure correctly, but I am grateful to our Deputy Chairman of Committees for her guidance in getting us to the right place.
The purpose of Amendment 42 is to align the drafting of the false statement offences in the Companies Act with the equivalent offences in Section 15 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and the amendments made by Clause 161 of the Bill. This will ensure the same approach to misconduct by a UK company or an overseas entity.
The current offences require the prosecution to prove knowledge or recklessness in all cases. The amendment replaces those offences with a strict liability offence not dependent on knowledge, and an aggravated offence where there is knowledge. The amendment also removes the need for the prosecution to prove recklessness in any case.
The amendment inserts new paragraph 14A into Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006. New paragraph 14A introduces a basic offence, where a person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular without a reasonable excuse.
The amendment also inserts new paragraph 14B into Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006. New paragraph 14B introduces an aggravated offence, where a person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular. The penalties are more severe to reflect the knowledge of misconduct. If any of the three offences is committed by a legal entity, the offences are still also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised that point. I am not sure whether there was confusion about whether it related to this part rather than an earlier part, but I would be delighted to clarify that point later.
The penalty for the basic offence is a fine. The penalty for the aggravated offence is up to two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The level of fines and prison sentences a person will be liable for are the same as for the equivalent offences in Clause 161 of the Bill. This amendment ensures that equivalent offences can be prosecuted in the same way, with the same penalties applied for non-compliance, whether the misconduct relates to an overseas or a UK entity. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I do not really understand this provision. The purpose is to create a basic offence of strict liability—that is what the Minister and the Explanatory Notes say—but the wording that inserts the basic false statement offence says:
“A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice … or in purported compliance with a duty imposed… and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.”
It is the words “without reasonable excuse” that bother me. I do not see how a strict liability offence can have an excuse. Last week it was well-publicised that someone in the other place said, “Yes, I misled, but I had a reasonable excuse because no one told me. Indeed, I was advised that there was nothing wrong.”
What is meant by a reasonable excuse? How can it be, as put forward, a strict liability offence in circumstances like that? This of course goes to officers who are in default, which is another contradiction within that proposed new paragraph. I ask the Minister to take this proposed new clause back to those advising him and ask whether it is correctly drafted. I do not think it is.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, the use of the phrase “false statements” rather than “inaccurate statements” is quite significant. A false statement carries with it the connotation of a deliberate inaccuracy, whereas simply getting something wrong is rather different. I agree with him that without reasonable excuse the prosecution would have to prove the absence of a reasonable excuse, which is contrary to the concept of a strict liability offence.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
I agree with what the noble Lords say. It occurs to me that the intention of calling this a strict liability offence but including the concept of “reasonable excuse” might be to impose a burden on the person who is responsible for filing the misleading statement to demonstrate a reasonable excuse—shifting the presumption, as it were. That might work. It would not quite be a strict liability offence, but it would make it relatively easier to prosecute the matter where a false statement was filed, and it would cater for the rare case—like the person trying to persuade a committee in the other place a few days ago—where the person filing the statement was entirely blameless because they had acted honestly and reasonably in reliance on information supplied by someone else. In that rare case, where the person who had made an error and filed a false statement but was entirely blameless could demonstrate that, it seems right that they should avoid a conviction.
To echo a point made in relation to a different amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I am slightly troubled by the further subsection that talks about an offence being committed by
“every officer of the entity who is in default”.
At the moment I am not certain what that is getting at, and I simply seek clarification.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, to add to the point that has been made, if the burden of proof is going to be changed so the defendant has to prove his innocence, it is essential that the clause be carefully drafted to make that clear. Otherwise a judge who is trying to direct a jury really does not know how to do it.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I am struggling, as are others, with the wording in subsection (2) about
“every officer of the entity who is in default”
because I do not know what “default” means. In most of these circumstances, this may be something that is filled in by the company secretary and they do not necessarily get the approval of everybody who might end up being in default. I would like to know more about that.
In his introduction, the Minister said this was bringing the Bill into line with what was in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. I am afraid I have been rather busy on other Bills so maybe I have not read everything that I should have about this one. I did the last economic crime Bill but I am not sure what is being referenced there, will the Minister elaborate on what this is being brought into line with because I am a bit confused? If what is said here is exactly the same as what has been said in that Act then we also have a mistake there that we need to correct if its wording is as ambiguous as this.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, all this is well above my legal pay grade, but the Minister has no doubt heard all the voices; clearly, there are flaws in this new clause. I suggest that he listen to those voices, take advice and not move this amendment and that we should come back to this at a later stage. As the Minister can see, there is considerable appetite around the Room for a proactive approach to the new Companies Act powers and duties, the registrar and so on. However, there are genuine concerns that have been expressed, so I suggest that the Minister takes this away and considers it pretty carefully, given the opinions that have been vouchsafed this afternoon.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am fully in favour of this matter being taken away and simplified, if it can be. I just take advantage of this opportunity to do something I probably do not do very often, which is to support the existence of the words “reasonable excuse” as a defence in this strict liability clause. It is a long time since I practised law, but I am certain that there are lots of regulatory and other offences out there that have this defence of reasonable excuse. I am absolutely certain that the statutory provision that makes it a strict liability offence to carry an offensive weapon allows, in its drafting, a defence if you are doing it with reasonable excuse. I do not think that these two things are inconsistent, but this is not clear.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate—and a very lawyer-heavy debate —on the juxtaposition of “strict liability” with “reasonable excuse”. I can claim some knowledge here as a sitting magistrate in that I deal with those sorts of things quite regularly, frequently with respect to knife crime and traffic matters. It is a conundrum; it is worth examining further and I hope the Minister will take it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones described this as above his legal pay grade. Talking as a magistrate, I am an unpaid legal practitioner. Nevertheless, the Minister should take up the invitation of members of the Committee to look at this further. I can see that it is open to confusion, and I also take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about putting other officers in default. I hope that the Minister will take these comments in the spirit in which they were made and that there may be further opportunity for discussion on the points raised.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the input from noble Lords. Knowing my record over the last hour, I will probably vote against this in any event.
I shall just explain this in my own words, if noble Lords will tolerate my lack of legal expertise. The point was that, until this amendment, you had to prove—I welcome interventions from noble Lords if they feel that I am straying into their legal territory—either dishonesty or recklessness, rather than simply misfiling, in order for there to be a prosecution, which set a very high bar for prosecution. As I understand it, a number of important prosecutions—which is the whole principle for us being here—failed because they were unable to prove that exceptionally high bar.
This therefore makes it an offence to misfile which, as has been rightly pointed out, is a statutory event. However, it would seem to be unreasonable that, if you accidentally put your address down as “46B” when it should be “46C”, you then receive a two-year prison sentence or indeed a significant fine. It is right in this instance that “reasonable excuse” is brought to bear.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Unfortunately, I do not think that is a “reasonable excuse”; that would not be a “material particular”.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am delighted that the noble Lord pointed that out; that is certainly true. I think noble Lords understand the direction of travel in the intent of this amendment. It is important; it is not simply tidying up. There are some elements of making sure that penalties relating to overseas entities relate to companies registered in the United Kingdom, but, following consultation with department officials, it seems to me that this is a very important part of the Bill. I do not support dropping it at this stage, but I am very comfortable having further conversations about it. I would be grateful if the Committee gave me a few moments to consult my team on the specifics about how to proceed. I want to make sure that we have a sensible and reasoned debate but that I do not get the process wrong regarding amendments to the Bill.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I do not get the impression that the Committee is against the idea; there is simply a lack of clarity as it is currently formulated as to what constitutes “false” and a “reasonable excuse”, and what is inaccurate. I think the Committee is generally in favour of this provision and understands why it is there; we are just not quite sure that this captures it, as currently drafted.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the procedure in Grand Committee is quite clear: there has to be unanimity for an amendment to proceed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
We are not against the Minister’s amendment; we just think it needs clarity. The Labour Party would not object if the Committee agreed the amendment. If appropriate, we will come back to it at a later stage.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The appropriate procedure would be for the Minister to withdraw it, and then move an amendment on Report. We would be very happy if the Minister came back on Report.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
At this stage, I believe it would be appropriate to consider further the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
May I just clarify for the Minister that it would be very unfortunate if he pressed his amendment? If he pressed it and lost it in Committee, I do not think he could bring back exactly the same amendment on Report. That is the rule: he would have to bring back something different on Report, even if all the officials and legal advice said that it was a perfectly sound clause—he may well get advice on that. I suggest that he withdraws it so that we do not have to vote against it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I advise that, if the amendment is voted against, it is negatived.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for their input. I hope they felt, over the last few hours of very productive debate, that the intentions of this Government and the speakers in this debate are entirely aligned: to try to create the right structure for Companies House and the right penalties and compliance regime. Given that, and my gratitude to the Committee for the constructive discussion, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, with the understanding that we may easily return with something identical on Report, having followed a good degree of debate and discussion on that point.
House of Lords
Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the recent transfer of governance powers in parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories from Israeli military authorities to Israeli civilian ministries, and (2) the implications of this transfer for securing a lasting peace in the region.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, as the occupying power in the West Bank, Israel’s presence is governed by the provisions of the Geneva convention, and we call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law. We are still examining the consequences of the recent transfer of some governance powers in the Israeli Ministry of Defense related to the occupation. The UK remains of the belief that there is no better alternative than a two-state solution for peace and for realising the national aspirations of both the Palestinians and Israelis.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. However, in the negotiation of the recent trade deal with Israel, which, according to the Prime Minister, was based on the common values of democracy, what assurances did the UK Government seek from the Netanyahu Government over compliance with international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the avowed intent of the Netanyahu Government to remove democratic safeguards by emasculating the judiciary, in the face of massive opposition from Israeli citizens? What assurances did they receive?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As noble Lords will know, our Prime Minister spoke to Mr Netanyahu just a few days ago as part of the development of the road map. The road map does not in any way change our support for a two-state solution. Our position on the settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law, they present an obstacle to peace and they threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, last week, a Minister in the Netanyahu Government opined that the Palestinians are neither a people nor a nation? Is that the view of His Majesty’s Government? If not, did that view get communicated by the Prime Minister to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he saw him? Also, what line did the Prime Minister take on the intention of the present Israeli Government to expand the scale of illegal settlements?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the remarks that the noble Lord refers to absolutely do not reflect the position of the UK Government and nor, I believe, do they reflect the view of the vast majority of people in Israel. High-level members of the current Government there have found themselves having to speak out on the same issue.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly those relating to friendship with Israel. Does my noble friend agree with the sentiments of Golda Meir, who said that it is very difficult to negotiate with people who are trying to kill you? Looking for a secure and lasting peace in the region, does my noble friend think it would be sensible for the Palestinian Authority to cease the “pay to slay” policy whereby Palestinians are rewarded financially for the murder of an Israeli, whether it is an army officer or a child?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I fully subscribe to the comments my noble friend quotes. It is very hard to negotiate if one side does not believe that you have the right to exist, and it is clear from the security situation today that things are particularly fragile. Last year, a very large number of Palestinians and Israelis were killed by acts of violence, and 2023 started the same way. We are all appalled by the recent terror attacks near Jerusalem that killed two Israelis, and the attack on Sunday 26 February, which killed two Israelis on the West Bank. We condemn these attacks, as we do all such attacks, in the strongest possible terms, and we condemn the glorification of violence that so often happens among those in Gaza.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does the Minister acknowledge that for years, if not decades, Ministers in his position on that Front Bench have reiterated support for a two-state solution and opposition to illegal settlement by the Israelis in the Palestinian territories? Can he confirm that there has been no progress whatsoever on either of those fronts in all the time that Ministers have been expressing those wishes and desires? Does he further agree that there is a diminishing prospect of any kind of two-state solution so long as the illegal Israeli occupation of parts of Palestinian territory continues?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s long-standing position on the Middle East peace process is clear and remains clear. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with equal land swaps to reflect the national security and religious interests of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. That is our position and always has been our position.
Regarding the settlements, there too our position remains unchanged. We want to see a contiguous West Bank, including east Jerusalem, as part of a viable sovereign Palestinian state, based on those same 1967 lines. We recognise that many such settlements are contrary to international law.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
In his Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Minister said that the occupation should be governed by the Geneva convention and that the question of whether the transfer from military to civilian rule contravened or agreed with the convention was still being examined. When that examination has taken place, will the Minister kindly put the result in the Library?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will convey that perfectly reasonable request to my colleague who normally handles this brief.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, previously the Foreign Office indicated that it would not engage at ministerial or official level with Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich—the Minister referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. In a recent debate, the noble Lord the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that we would now engage with them and all Ministers in the Israeli Government, so why has there been this change of approach? Also recently, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the Trade Minister, said that human rights will not now be part of trade agreements. So can the noble Lord answer my noble friend’s Question and confirm that British Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have stated that the long-held protection for the illegally occupied territories in trade relations with the UK will be maintained in a specific chapter in any Israel-UK FTA?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord asked a lot of questions and I doubt whether I will be able to answer them all. In both this House and the other House, the UK has repeatedly and strongly condemned the comments of the Israeli Finance Minister, who, as the noble Lord will know, called for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be “wiped out”. We condemn his recent comments, which deny the very existence of the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination, their history and their culture. The UK has been unequivocal in its condemnation of that language.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I was in the West Bank last week and I talked to Palestinians. They said—and this was supported by surveys—that they no longer believe in the two-state solution. They saw what happened in Gaza, they do not trust their leadership and they want the advantage that Israeli benefits in health and so on can give them. Now is perhaps the time for the FCDO to lead the way and come up with a more imaginative solution, possibly modelled on the United Kingdom, where we have separate Governments for separate countries, because the two-state solution is a very long way away.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend is vastly more knowledgeable about and qualified to speak about this issue than I am, and he makes a fascinating contribution. The reality is that, wherever things end up, a prerequisite has to be the cessation of terrorism and violence on both sides.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in last week’s exchanges on the road map for future relationships with Israel, the Foreign Secretary also met with Eli Cohen, the Israeli Foreign Minister. The Foreign Office said that the recent spike in violence would be discussed, so can the Minister tell us what the outcome of those discussions was and whether any practical steps were agreed to support de-escalation?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give details on the nature of the exchange; I will have to get back to the noble Lord with that information. However, I do know that the concerns that both sides of this House have raised were raised in strong terms by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their respective discussions.
Charitable Sector: Food Provision
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government, given the increased use of food banks, what assessment they have made of ways of reducing dependence on the charitable sector for the provision of food.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, food banks are an example of the generosity of spirt of giving across communities in Britain. This Government are committed to understanding and addressing poverty. Last week, for the first time, we published official estimates of food bank use. This April, we are increasing benefits and benefit cap levels by 10.1% and making further cost of living payments. The Government have provided total support of more than £94 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for this Answer. One of the real concerns about the increase in the use of food banks—which has gone up phenomenally, by a third in the last year—is that they are being used more by the working poor: people in full-time employment who still cannot afford to feed their families and heat their homes. Is it not time for the Government to be even more creative than they have been already and perhaps introduce a wealth tax of 1% on the richest, so there can be pay rises for the poorest workers?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, it is helpful to have some innovative solutions from the noble Baroness, but she will know of the huge amount of support that we have given, of which the House is very aware. There are other measures as well: for example, the Government will provide £100 million of support for charities and community organisations in England. This will be targeted towards those organisations most at risk due to the increased demand from vulnerable groups, and targeted in particular to support critical front-line services.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Trussell Trust recently piloted a study for the APPG on ending the need for food banks on the provision of cash grants instead of food handouts: 94% of the recipients preferred cash to food and said that their finances improved as a result. The survey showed that the cash was used to buy only essential items. What are the Government doing to promote cash responses to local crises?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I fully understand that some people prefer to use cash, and that is certainly possible. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the spread of where cash can be used.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I do congratulate the Government on all the work that they have done in this area to try to help the most disadvantaged. I know that my noble friend cares deeply about these issues. Of course, the working poor have a real need, but can my noble friend tell the House what evidence there is that pensioners are using food banks, and what action the Government are taking to address pensioner poverty?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say that we are committed to action that helps alleviate levels of pensioner poverty. In answer to one of her questions, the HBAI statistics recorded that fewer than 100,000 pensioners were living in households where a food bank had been used. However, despite those figures, there is more to do.
The figures show that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty than in 2009-10. Pension credit provides a vital financial support to pensioners. This is one of the actions that has been and is being taken by the Government, and it is proving to be very successful, with a 73% uptake in the last 12 months.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that we are now asking about food bank use in the annual HBAI survey. That is great. But the results are really pretty shocking. For example, they showed that one in six of all people on universal credit used a food bank in the last financial year. When we think that, in the first half of that year, universal credit was £20 higher, furlough was still in place, inflation was 4% and energy bills were half what they are now, it begins to show the scale of the problem.
On 9 January, I asked the Minister what the Government were going to do about the shocking increase in food banks. He said that they needed to know more. Now that they do, what will they do about it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
First, I welcome the noble Baroness back. It is good to see her in her place. To pick up on what she was saying, our newly published statistics on food bank use, alongside the broad suite of poverty data, will indeed help us to shape future policy considerations. There is much in these statistics—some good, some less good—and I assure the noble Baroness that we will look very carefully at them and use them to help us inform and impact on our policies.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, will the Government commit to the full sharing of full universal credit datasets with local authorities so that they can better co-ordinate their poverty relief programmes with the Government?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, I can certainly follow that up. The noble Baroness will be aware that there is a very strong link with the housing support that I say that “we” but in fact local authorities are giving through the DHPs. There is certainly more that we can do to work even more closely with the local authorities in this respect.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, 80% of our churches currently support food banks. The Food 4 Thought Alliance was set up to respond to the immediate needs of people in Derby at the start of the Covid pandemic. It reports a 30% increase, already mentioned here, in the distribution of food parcels since last year.
The National Farmers’ Union cautioned last year that we were
“sleepwalking into a food supply crisis”.
What is being done to ensure that problems with supply chains do not push yet more people to rely on food banks?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right. We recognise that charities and community organisations have been hit by a triple threat of rising demand, rising costs and declining income over recent months. I applaud the role the Church plays in this respect. I am also very aware of the rising costs of certain food items from places such as Morocco and Spain due to climate change. But the funding we are giving broadly supplements the intervention to support households and businesses. The Government also support some of these vulnerable groups through other funding, such as through DLUHC.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, have the Government considered properly the role of the social supermarket? I speak as the chair of Feeding Britain. We have opened 260 of them, which you join as a club. You can then shop at around 30% to 40% off in the pound. You also get taught to cook and you get community help, which has been so stripped out over the years of austerity. For instance, in the Wirral, where I was on Friday, we have six such social supermarkets. Every Monday they have an adviser on benefits. In the course of 18 months, 1 million quid has been returned to people because they do not understand the complexities of the benefit system. These set-ups work to put back things that used to be in before the age of austerity. Will the Minister agree to come and look at one with me and consider how the Government can take them forward?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I would certainly be very pleased to join the noble Baroness to look at social supermarkets. She will be aware that the main supermarkets do offer some help in this respect. For example, Morrisons offers an average 13% price cut on more than 500 goods, including eggs, beef and rice. Children get a free meal at Morrisons cafés when their parent buys an adult meal worth £4.99.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, how convinced are the Government that the data on food bank use reflects the number of those who would genuinely go hungry without them? About one-third of all food is wasted, with the UK a leading culprit internationally. Increased use of food banks therefore also underlines the need to cut food waste, which we have heard already. How can we better redistribute food that is reaching its sell-by date to those most in need?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The figures that have just come out help us with a regional focus. For example, 4% of households in the north-east and north-west use a food bank, which is 1% higher than the average for households in England. To answer my noble friend’s question on food waste, we support a broad and holistic approach, with £2.7 million per annum grant funding to the Waste and Resources Action Programme. Crucially included in this programme is the food waste reduction road map and the push for food businesses to follow this tool to target, measure and act on waste, including to redistribute more. It is very important to make the connection between where there might be waste, particularly with foods at their sell-by date, and distributing to those most in need.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, why do half the NHS trusts in England have food banks for their staff?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This question has cropped up before in this House. I deeply regret the anecdotal evidence that we have of those in the NHS who are minded to go to, or need to go to, food banks. It is certainly something that the Government are very aware of and are looking to take action on in a number of ways.
Children’s School Meals
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review and revise the children’s school meal regulations to reduce the levels of processed sugar and to provide incentives to encourage the use of alternatives such as stevia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the school food standards regulate for food and drink provided at lunchtime and at other times of the school day. They restrict foods high in fat, salt and sugar. We believe that the current standards provide a robust yet flexible framework to ensure that pupils in England continue to receive high-quality and nutritious food that builds healthy eating habits for life. We are keeping the standards under review, including the use of sugar and sugar alternatives.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government are keeping it under review. Is she aware that we have the unhealthiest children in Europe? If the regulations are working, why is that the case? If she accepts that fact, will she go back and speak to the her department and the Department of Health and see whether we can get some progress along the lines of what happens in the Netherlands, where the producers and the Government come together to look at food reformulation, giving children healthier food and getting away from the inevitable decline, which we are suffering, into more obesity and type 2 diabetes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do recognise the figures to which the noble Lord refers with regard to the level of obesity—particularly shocking, perhaps, in our primary age children. The noble Lord will be aware that in 2019 we brought together a group of stakeholders to look at updating the standards. That was postponed for understandable reasons during Covid but my right honourable friend the Minister for School Standards is now looking at this very actively.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that nearly 1,600 children in England and Wales are suffering from type 2 diabetes—a disease that causes inflammation throughout the body and, if not treated properly, can cause kidney failure, heart attacks and other diseases in later life—and that a high proportion of these children come from the lower demographic groups? Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that the Government are doing everything they can to address the shortcomings of the diets of poorer children in our society?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have made a great deal of progress in this area, which is not to say that there is not more to do. The noble Baroness will be familiar with the so-called sugar tax, which has led to a decrease of almost half in the amount of sugar in soft drinks between 2015 and 2020. Most recently, we introduced regulations restricting the location of products with high fat, salt and sugar in supermarkets, which is critical in making sure that children do not access those foods.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, one-quarter of two to 15 year-olds are obese or overweight. Despite Governments publishing 14 obesity strategies containing 689 policies between 1992 and 2020, the prevalence has not reduced. Does my noble friend accept that, unless radical changes are made to support healthier eating habits, the increasing rates of obesity and related diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, are likely to break the NHS?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government continue to take a number of steps. The point I would make to my noble friend—she understands this better than I do—is that obesity is a fantastically complicated problem caused by a number of different factors, of which calorie intake is, obviously, one part, but activity is another. That is why we were so pleased to confirm recently the £600 million for the PE and sport premium for primary schools over the next two years.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is probably aware of figures released last week, which showed that, in the early 1950s, the UK had one of the longest life expectancies in the world. Recent figures suggest that we are now 29th in the league table. Only the US is performing worse in comparative terms than the UK, largely because of diet problems. Can the Minister assure me that, in taking forward the work that she has just mentioned, the education sector will recognise that it has to work very hard with the health sector to develop huge programmes of health improvement embracing young people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Department for Education has already been working closely with our colleagues in the Department of Health. I absolutely agree with the point that the noble Lord is making.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, just to correct the Minister, all new science shows that it is calorie intake of the wrong kind, such as in ultra-processed food, that causes obesity. While exercise keeps you healthy, it does not take off weight unless you are prepared to run a marathon every day. One thing the Government could do if they are serious about this is to extend the salary limit at which you can get free school meals. Currently, you have to be on universal credit, earning under £7,500—that is fantastically little—before your child gets a healthy, decent meal once a day—made up, ideally, of decent ingredients. Can the Government look at this again?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, we keep the eligibility for free school meals under constant review, but the House is also aware that eligibility for free school meals has never been higher. This Government introduced universal infant free school meals and free school meals in further education. Now, in schools, 1.9 million of the most disadvantaged pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, demonising fat is the wrong attitude. Clearly, we need to avoid saturated fats but other fats are actually good for us and limit obesity, because when fat goes into the duodenum it releases hormones that inhibit the emptying of the stomach, giving us the feeling of being full, so we stop eating. Fat should not be demonised by the Department of Health or anyone else.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware that anyone is demonising fat, but there is a very serious issue about education. The percentage of children who are either overweight or obese rose very sharply during lockdown. We must absolutely do everything we can in our schools and health services. We also need to make sure that parents really understand the implications of what they feed their children.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, last year research from Imperial College found that ultra-processed foods accounted for 62% of the calories in school meals. Given the widespread obesity epidemic in our schools—that the Minister recognises has got worse since lockdown—and an NHS buckling under demand it can no longer meet, can the Minister tell the House when the Government will next update the current school food standards to include guidance on ultra-processed foods and other foods that could be contributing to the obesity epidemic?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to make sure that I have not confused the House, levels of obesity and children who are overweight rose very sharply during lockdown. Levels have come back, depending on the age group, to pretty much where they were pre lockdown—I just say that for clarity. I cannot say when the standards might be reviewed, but they are designed to give those in schools, and those supplying schools with school food, enough flexibility to make choices to give children healthy meals. As we heard in an earlier Question, there is also an opportunity here to make sure that we keep waste to an absolute minimum, so that the investment can go into the quality of food for children.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
But is it not true that in the days of the coalition Government, the regulations on school meals were weakened, particularly in 2014? That weakening of the regulations allowed much more sugar to be added to some of the school meals.
Baroness Barran (Con)
—but I do not accept that they were weakened. As I say, there is sensible flexibility to allow schools to respond to their local community.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee report Hungry for Change found that to pay for government healthy eating recommendations, the poorest 10% of UK households would need to spend 74% of their post-housing disposable income on food. The report also found that the cost of healthy eating did not factor in the calculation of benefit rates. Would the Minister urge her colleagues in government to make sure that realistic benefit rates pay for a healthy diet, even for the poorest people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to share those figures on benefit rates with my noble friend sitting next to me on the Front Bench. More seriously, there are so many variables in this. I remind the House of the scale of support that this Government have given every household over 2022-23 and 2023-24: an average of over £3,300 per UK household.
Shamima Begum
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carey of Clifton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, on the grounds of compassion and morality, to reconsider their decision to refuse citizenship to Shamima Begum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
We are pleased that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has found in favour of the Government in Shamima Begum’s appeal against the decision to deprive her of British citizenship. It would be inappropriate to comment further, given the potential for further legal proceedings. The Government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered response. I think we all know the circumstances: Shamima Begum was a 15 year-old child when, seduced by a perverted ideology, she ran away from home and ended up as the consort of an ISIS terrorist and, eventually, the mother of three dead babies. Now 25 years of age, her situation has changed since she was deprived of her British citizenship in 2019. Her provisional Bangladeshi citizenship lapsed when she reached the age of 21 and she is now stateless. I would like to ask two questions. First, what consideration has been given to her present situation, as of today? Secondly, does the Minister’s response suggest that security fears trump our moral responsibilities?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his questions. The answer is that in relation to Shamima Begum, as I indicated in my earlier Answer, due to the fact that the litigation may continue I am unable to comment specifically on the facts of that case. However, I can answer more generally that the power to deprive an individual of their British citizenship, as happened in this case, has existed in law for over 100 years. The British Nationality Act allows for the deprivation power to be exercised in two circumstances: first, where the Secretary of State considers that it is conducive to the public good to deprive that person of their British citizenship, generally on national security grounds; and, secondly, in relation to Section 40(3), if British nationality has been obtained by fraud. This power is exercised sparingly and obviously, given the national security nature of these decisions, the content of them is the subject of closed proceedings. It is therefore a matter for particularly careful consideration by the Secretary of State and that was certainly done in the instant case.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, may I press my noble friend on the security aspect? If we continue to refuse citizenship and refuse to put on trial alleged UK terrorists here in this country, are we not just passing the buck to other countries? If every country pursues the same policy, are we not just going to build up vast and insecure camps full of potential terrorists—the breeding ground for the terrorists of tomorrow?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Of course it is not the case, as the noble and right reverend Lord put in his Question, that Shamima Begum’s citizenship was refused. In fact, her citizenship was deprived from her by reason of the decision of the Secretary of State, which was reviewed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and upheld. I do not agree with my noble friend that there is a risk of large camps of people being accrued who had been deprived of their nationality. If I might provide the figures, in 2019 some 27 people were deprived of their nationality; in 2020, it was 10; and, in 2021, it was eight.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked a Question last week relating to the British Government’s position over the use of capital punishment. Widespread comments from all sides of the House indicated that we had no truck with it whatever; quite right too. Since the Minister is not able to comment on a current case—and I respect that—could he ask himself, and assure the House, whether statelessness is not a form of capital punishment, in the sense that it deprives somebody of status forever? If it is for the rest of their lives, is that not just the breathing dead, so should we not be opposed to it on moral grounds and let circumstances dictate what might happen to her if she were brought back? Leaving her where she is is surely inhumane.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the Secretary of State for the Home Office has to evaluate the balance of competing interests. Surely the principal interest and the principal duty of government is to keep the people safe. I can reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom takes very seriously its obligations under the UN statelessness convention. Decisions to deprive individuals are taken in circumstances where they would not be left stateless. This applies in all cases where decisions to deprive are made. In all cases, there is further detailed consideration as to the applicability of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to deprivation decisions. The Government are satisfied that all those deprivations have been actions which are compatible with our obligations under that convention.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend reflect that, if a 15 year-old child commits a murder in this country, they remain anonymous? We do not know the name of the person, and he or she is dealt with appropriately. Is that not rather in contradiction to the line that has been taken in this case?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The slight difficulty the noble Lord has is, obviously, the incomplete picture of information, which is, unfortunately, the consequence of the nature of these types of decisions. The evaluation is made at the time of the deprivation decision, which in this case was in 2019. At that stage, the subject of the decision was not a minor, but obviously I cannot venture further into the facts of the case.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, what are the implications of this case for the reform of the Prevent strategy?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The reform of the Prevent strategy is clearly an important priority, as discussed on a previous occasion. I do not believe that this particular case has any direct impact on the reformulation of the policy. If the litigation continues, I will come back and address the House further on that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if noble Lords remember the expression “compassionate conservatism”. Those halcyon days seem long gone, sadly. Shamima Begum has been variously described as a vulnerable, trafficked 15 year-old from Bethnal Green and an ex-IS recruiter. Is the point not, however, that she is our vulnerable, trafficked girl or our ex-IS recruiter? Should she not be brought home to face the music in a British court of law?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Again, I am afraid I cannot comment on the specific facts of Ms Begum’s case. However, I remind the House that the purpose of deprivation proceedings under Section 40(2) of the 1981 Act is to protect the country in relation to issues of national security.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the difficulty the UK had being able to prosecute British people who went to Syria to support ISIS led in part to the counterterrorism Act 2019 and its provisions to prohibit people going to designated terrorist hotspots. Are the Government confident that future circumstances similar to Shamima Begum’s would fall under the provisions of that Act and enable prosecution in the UK?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, it is a very fact-sensitive evaluation on what is an appropriate matter for prosecution. The issue as to whether to deprive someone of British nationality arises in very limited circumstances, as seen in the numbers I cited earlier to the House. I would hope that all the relevant factors are taken into account when making such decisions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Shamima Begum admitted on the BBC podcast that she willingly chose to join a barbaric, nihilistic, Islamic death cult, so I am not sure about compassion. However, the Minister said that the responsibility is to keep citizens safe. Is he suggesting that the Government cannot keep people safe when there is radicalisation happening in the UK? One reason why the public do not want Ms Begum here is that, after the Manchester Arena bombing report, it seems that the Prison Service and the secret services are not able to keep us safe. Would he say that that is our problem and we should bring her home and not wash our hands of her, not because of compassion but because of moral responsibility on our part to keep people safe, even if there are terrorists among us?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The answer is that, obviously, the primary duty of government is to keep the people safe. Parliament has seen fit to afford to the Secretary of State the power of deprivation of nationality on dual nationals, and that power has sensibly been exercised in the cases to which I have referred and on which I have given the numbers to the House. I do not believe that there is any greater moral equivalence in returning people for trial. The question that arises on the exercise of this power is the issue of national security.
Black and Minority-ethnic Children: Police Strip-searches
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Children’s Commissioner showing that 2,847 children, disproportionately from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, have been strip searched by the police since 2018.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I declare my interest as a vice-president of Barnardo’s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Question. The Children’s Commissioner’s report raises a number of concerns that we take extremely seriously. Strip-search is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police. No one should be subject to the use of any police power based on their race or ethnicity. The IOPC is currently investigating several instances of children being strip-searched and it will review whether existing legislation, guidance and policies remain appropriate. It is right that we await its findings.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, it is sickening, shocking and truly disturbing to read the Children’s Commissioner’s report on the thousands of children who have been strip-searched by the police unsupervised. Most of us thought that being strip-searched was a rare occurrence during the Child Q scandal. This has proven not to be so. Worryingly, those from black and ethnic-minority backgrounds appear to be disproportionately targeted. Childhood lasts a lifetime. The mental trauma, mistrust, abuse and humiliation suffered by these children will stay with them, at a huge cost to society. How are the Government going to address this unacceptable and despicable practice? What recourse and disciplinary action will there be when a safeguarding failure is found to have taken place?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Any child subject to strip-search under PACE should be accompanied by an appropriate adult unless there is an urgent risk of serious harm or where the child specifically requests otherwise and the appropriate adult agrees. Such searches must be carried out by an officer of the same sex as the child. The Children Act 2004 encourages agencies to share early concerns about the safety and welfare of children and young persons and to take preventive action. The Act requires local policing bodies and chief officers to co-operate with arrangements to improve the well-being of children in the authorities’ area. It is too early for me to comment on what sort of disciplinary processes and so on might be implemented in cases where there are failures of these things. As I said, we are awaiting the report from the IOPC and will make the appropriate response in due course.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it seems that every week there are more devastating revelations for trust in policing in our country, and yet the Public Order Bill is still moving between the two Houses—it will come back to us tomorrow. The Bill contains, among other things, stop and search powers, including without suspicion. At the very least, those provisions in the Public Order Bill should be paused by the Government until they can assess what police regulation we need, as opposed to just endless extra police power.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, stop and search makes a serious difference to crime prevention. In 2021-22, stop and search removed around 14,900 weapons and firearms from our streets and resulted in almost 67,000 arrests. The noble Baroness made good points about trust in the police, and the Home Secretary has been clear that policing needs to address all of the causes of poor, and in some cases toxic, cultures. That will be a key focus of part 2 of the independent Angiolini inquiry, which will consider issues in policing such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public places.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister clarify the role of the IOPC here? Is it reviewing just individual cases—so there will be a number of reports—or is this a systemic review of the use of this practice? Only if we look at the system can we know whether there is potentially racial bias within it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend is right. At the start of the process, 14 referrals involving strip-searches were received by the IOPC from the Metropolitan Police Service. On 1 August 2022, it confirmed that it is investigating five of these cases. It decided that six of them were suitable for local investigation by the force, and the remaining three are still being assessed to determine whether further action may be required by the IOPC. However, the IOPC has been asked to take a more general look at the framework. We expect its findings soon, and for it to opine a little more widely.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, nearly 3,000 children have been strip-searched. Waiting for the IOPC is a long process, and it seems to me that the Government should intervene to see that the rules are complied with.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely correct that there has been a large number of these cases. Our problem with intervention is that data has only recently started to be collected on this. As I said, there is a great deal of incoming input, and it is appropriate to wait for that to make sure that we are properly informed.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow on from the noble and learned Baroness’s question. Would it not be sensible for the Home Office to require all police forces in England to discontinue any further participation in Safer School Partnerships and to withdraw Safer School officers from schools until the very laudable review is completed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not feel particularly qualified to comment on that.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Children’s Society. I join other noble Lords in expressing horror at the findings of the Children’s Commissioner’s report. It is vital that children are treated as children at all times. Can the Minister reassure the House that children are treated and recognised as children within every aspect of the criminal justice system?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In areas where the Home Office collects data—for example, on custody—I can reassure the House that that is the case. For example, in 99% of cases where searches involved children in custody, an appropriate adult was present. Obviously, this report has identified failings in other parts of the system. We are awaiting the right inputs in order to make a detailed and thoughtful review, and as soon as that is the case I am sure I will be able to give the right reverend Prelate more broad reassurance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is rarely proportionate for the police to strip-search a child, let alone 2,847 times since 2018? Is the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, not right when she says that the whole regime of police stop and search needs a hard reset?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord invites me to comment on operational police matters. I do not know whether it is appropriate, but I assume that they have very good reasons to do this; otherwise, they would not conduct these searches.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Would the Minister care to reanswer his noble friend who asked the question about the role of the IOPC? It sounds as though it is checking a couple of dozen cases, and that is not good enough, given what the commissioner’s report has identified. Surely we need a review of all the cases, because there have been dozens a week over the years. The answer that the Minister gave on the role of the IOPC is not sufficient.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I said at the end of my answer to my noble friend that the IOPC has also been asked to look at the more general legislative framework around this particular subject and to give us more comprehensive findings.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am absolutely gutted to hear the Minister respond to a question by saying that there must have been some reason. I am a child protection officer and have been a long-standing social worker, so I am all too aware of the issues around safeguarding—as the noble Lord should be, as a Home Office Minister. Can he say that he is either waiting for the review or that he has already taken the decision that there must have been a reason? It is either one or the other; it cannot possibly be both. I will make another point. Given what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, surely everything leads to the conclusion from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that racial discrimination is endemic in the Met. Can the Minister answer?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have to correct the record, because I did not say that there “must” be a reason; I said that I assumed that there was a good reason. To be absolutely clear, that is very different. I agree with many of the conclusions that the Children’s Commissioner has come up with—they seem to make a great deal of sense to me—but I would prefer to wait for the context of the various reviews that are being undertaken at the moment before giving a further opinion on this matter.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to Dame Rachel de Souza, who is a superb commissioner and was also an iconic head and founder of the Inspiration Trust in Norfolk? She is saying that, while this type of strip-search should not be banned, it should be looked at very carefully. One of the things she said was that strip-search should never take place in schools but always in police stations.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I am extremely happy to pay tribute to Dame Rachel de Souza for her report, which strikes me as very comprehensive—although I confess to having read only part of it so far. I agree with some of her conclusions, as I have just said, and I think that the one about schools is an entirely appropriate conclusion to have reached. In my opinion, strip-searches should be conducted only in very safe and secure places.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, one of the report’s conclusions was that there were widely differing practices in stop and search and strip-searches across the country. Does the Minister believe that there are good examples of stop and search and strip-search, and what can the Government use from those examples? Is it not right that particular communities—I am talking about young black men—have very little trust in the police service, and that it does not take much for things to kick off and for the police to use further interventions which are wholly undesirable as a result of the original police intervention?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord’s last point; that is a significant issue for the police and for us all. It relates to so many other issues that we deal with on a daily basis regarding the police, including things that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has brought up in previous debates, such as recruitment and so on. Regarding strip-search, I argue that, where the rules are followed, which are pretty clear and rigorous, it could be appropriate under certain circumstances. However, there needs to be an appropriate adult present, and there are complications around that, including making sure that there are enough of them. The other rules and safeguards that are already in place need to be followed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is absolutely right and true that the Government should never interfere with operational policing, but the Government can recommend that the guidelines are actually followed. That is the big problem we have here: there were no appropriate adults in 52% of the cases. In 51% of the cases, children were strip-searched in police vans, schools and even fast-food restaurants. I think that the Government have a role here to say that guidelines are there to be followed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that is right. The Government will have a role when the appropriate time arrives—when the reviews have delivered their various conclusions—to also suggest and recommend upgrading and updating that guidance.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that strip-searching would be humiliating for any of us. It is particularly humiliating for a child. The Minister has indicated that there are rules that govern strip-searching, but the rules have not been followed in many of these cases. Let us not wait for a review. The rules operate now, today, everywhere. It is the responsibility of the Home Office to ensure that these rules are complied with. Will the Minister take this away with a degree of urgency to make sure that these rules are applied now, everywhere?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will of course take that back to the department
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, for the benefit of those of us who have not yet been able to read the report, will the Minister tell the House what proportion of those nearly 3,000 children who were strip-searched during that period were charged with any offence?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have those details. I will have to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I add my voice to those saying that we understand about the review—there will be lessons to be learned from the reviews and rules to be updated. But can my noble friend the Minister say why the Home Secretary could not write to all chief constables now to ensure that PACE rules are being enforced and adhered to very closely?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that there is no reason why the Home Secretary could not write now, but the report was delivered in its final conclusion only on Friday and we are still assessing its recommendations.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, less than a third of the cases referred to in the ombudsman’s report—31%—led to an arrest. Does the Minister agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, when she said that strip-searching as done by the Met was an example of
“over-policing and disproportionate use of powers against certain communities”
and may be due to
“‘adultification’, where Black children are treated as adults and as a threat, therefore justifying greater use of force or intrusive interventions.”
Those were her words. Does the Minister agree with them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not going to agree or disagree with those words. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, delivered them in good faith, and I take her word in good faith. I think a lot more thought needs to go into all the various recommendations that have been made in the various reviews, many of which I happily acknowledge raise a number of very serious issues that demand urgent attention.
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 View all Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2023 - (24 Mar 2023)
Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 View all Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 View all Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 View all Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Firearms Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Firearms Act 2023 View all Firearms Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Sarfraz be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Viscount Camrose.
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 View all Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-VIII Eighth Marshalled list for Committee - (23 Mar 2023)
Baroness Parminter
Local nature recovery strategies(1) A local planning authority must ensure that their development plan (taken as a whole) incorporates such policies and proposals so as to deliver the objectives of the local nature recovery strategy.(2) Any policies or proposals in subsection (1) must be consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s plan making functions.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause sets out the relationship between local nature recovery strategies (LNRSs) and statutory development plans to ensure LNRSs objectives are delivered and aligned with development plans. This is to help secure implementation of Environment Act requirements.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 184ZA and 242I, which are in my name and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, cannot be in her place today as she has tested positive for Covid; she is sorry she cannot be here to add strength to the weight of the case.
The point of these two amendments is to do the job that local nature recovery strategies need to do—as the Government set out in their Environment Act in only 2021—which is to help restore our much-depleted nature. As the strategies currently stand, they will not be able to do that unless they are given further significant weight in the planning processes. As we all know, nature is all about place; it is a spatial matter, so we need to protect the areas where our birds, species and ecosystems are placed. For noble Lords who are not familiar with local nature recovery strategies, I explain that they are a new requirement of the Environment Act which are due to come into place next month. They are spatial plans across England that will help us to identify where places are special in terms of biodiversity and habitats, to put together policies to enable us to protect areas, and to encourage our local authorities to build protection into their plans. There are about 40 of them across England, mainly at the county level. As local authorities currently need only to have regard to them rather than take account of them, there is a real danger they will not be able to do the job we need them to do. This is a job that the Office for Environmental Protection said earlier this year was essential because the Government are not delivering at the speed and the level we need them to in order to protect our environment.
All of us in this Chamber—particularly those of us who have been local councillors—know that when push comes to shove, nature often gets pushed aside if there is a planning application for a housing development or some other form of infrastructure. We need these local nature recovery strategies, which are done principally at the county level, to have some purchase on the unitary, district and borough plans of councils, as they seek to ensure that our areas meet the needs of local people and protect our nature at the same time. This amendment is needed because currently local authorities need only to have regard to these principally county-level plans. I think the plans will probably take a year or two to come into force, so there is time for us to get this right.
However, I acknowledge that the plans for county councils and other groups which will be drawing the local nature recovery strategies together were produced last week. For those of us who have had the chance to review that guidance to the local authorities, there are some significant concerns about what is being proposed. I know that we as a House will have our chance to say something on that, because a statutory instrument will have to come forward. This is the guidance to the county councils that will be bringing the local nature recovery strategies together. They will be bringing together different landowners and local people to pull all these elements together so that there is an agreed sense of what, on a landscape scale, our priorities for the future are. Bringing people together as part of that job is really important. It is also important that the plans are evidenced. It is extremely good news that Natural England is going to resource each one of these local nature recovery strategies with a policy officer in support so that the evidence is there, because we have to make sure that these are evidence-led.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Natural Capital Research Ltd. I speak in total support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Parminter. I have a few brief points to add. As a country, we agreed last year at COP 15 to a number of international agreements and legislation to enhance and protect nature for the benefits that it provides. It is not just something nice to look at; it provides the most critical ecosystem services we rely on, including benefits for carbon sequestration, clean water, green space and health and education.
We also have our national targets that are set out in the Environment Act 2022. However, when looking at these, there is a huge void in what we say we are going to do and what we are doing on the ground. One of the biggest obstacles behind this large gap is to do with the planning system, where nature is still very firmly viewed as a secondary consideration. Nature is viewed as a thing that can be moved elsewhere, or it can be depleted or fragmented, because it does not matter as much as the other things we are considering. I totally disagree with that. A lot of nature is spatially constrained.
An important step leading on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, is to move nature into the first tier of the planning legislation, in the sense that it is viewed in the same terms as anything else that we are reviewing. A local planning authority must ensure that its development plan, taken as a whole, incorporates these policies, and that the policies are in the local nature recovery strategy.
The outlines of the local nature recovery strategy were published by Defra last Friday. I have some serious concerns about it. First and foremost, most of the work is based around habitats, whereas a lot of the things we need to consider are to do with species and things such as soils, which are not in the guidance at all. We also have no guidance on how to make existing protected areas bigger or more joined up: the two key cornerstones of how we are going to get nature to recover. However, it is a first step in the right direction and the inclusion of this amendment ensures that local authorities must incorporate these strategies into their planning policy and local plans. As such, I strongly support this as the right way forward for nature in England and the UK more generally.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the other cosignatories on putting forward the two amendments in this group. My only concern is what time commitment and resources would be required of the local authorities, given the fact that they are very heavily challenged at this time. I pay tribute to the lead local authorities, especially on the work they are doing on flood prevention, which is already a major resource commitment timewise. I know it has made a big difference already in areas such as north Yorkshire, which I am most familiar with, where we do have a number of functional flood plains. Across the country, the advice of the Environment Agency is not always pursued.
As regards the habitats directive, we need a firm steer from the Government on how we are going to steer this path, where we have the retained EU law Bill where, presumably, we are going to park the habitats directive on one side. But there is a possibility here, through this group of amendments, for nature recovery strategies to try to achieve a balance.
I end by saying that my noble friend is only too aware of my commitment to farming and ensuring that, within nature recovery, farming is recognised as a major contributor to these strategies.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register. I came in to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because I thought I liked the wording of her amendment. Having listened to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, I am absolutely convinced of the justice of their case. As my noble friend will know, one of the most crucial parts of the Environment Act is local nature recovery strategies—it is what it is all about in many ways. At the moment, the Bill says merely that local authorities must “have regard to” it. We all know—the lawyers present will explain no doubt ad nauseum and for a reasonable fee—that “having regard to” is fairly meaningless in many ways. A local authority could “have regard to” a local nature recovery strategy and then find a dozen reasons to reject it, because they had regard to it but for this reason or that reason did not wish to pursue it.
I particularly like the wording here, which does not seem to tie local authorities’ hands. It says that they
“must ensure that their development plan (taken as a whole) incorporates such policies and proposals so as to deliver the objectives of the local nature recovery strategy”.
It does not tell them what to do or how to do it; it just says that they have a free hand to invent their own policies that deliver the objectives of local nature recovery strategies. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what is the point of us developing local nature recovery strategies at a national level if they are not going to be implemented locally in local development plans?
I do not think that my noble friend is right that there will be great additional cost to local authorities in doing this—I can see nothing here to suggest that—but, if local nature recovery strategies are to work as every single person in this Chamber wants them to, the wording of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is probably the only way to deliver that. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain to me what the problem is with the noble Baroness’s wording.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. The noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, have made an absolutely convincing and compelling case for strengthening the responsibility of local planning authorities to consider local nature recovery strategies.
This is exactly the arrangement that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, set out when he was trying to persuade us not to press our amendments on this issue to a vote during the passage of the Environment Bill. At that time, he made it clear that the Government viewed local nature recovery strategies as key to identifying where action for nature and the environment would have the most impact. He went on to make it clear that Defra was working with the then Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop planning reforms that would contain a defining role for local nature recovery strategies and set them at the heart of decision-making. Obviously, there have been some changes in government and some movement on this since then, but that does not alter the nature of the pledges that were given at that time.
Since then, we have made good progress on establishing a network of local nature recovery strategies around the country. They are getting on with the job of surveying their local biodiversity priorities, providing crucial local data and mapping their local habitats. Their local knowledge and insight are proving crucial in identifying what action and resources can best be targeted. Through their partnership in stakeholder roles, they are also bringing together a wide group of interests to support a local strategic biodiversity recovery plan. However, what is the point of them doing all this work if local planning authorities can simply override their work and priorities? If we are not careful, those involved in drawing up these strategies will quickly become disillusioned and this will be seen as yet another talking shop.
This matters because, as we know, we have crucial statutory targets; for example, to halt the decline of species abundance by 2030, to deliver on our COP commitment to protect 30% of land and nature by 2030, and to deliver the many nature recovery targets set out in the environmental improvement plan. These are simply not going to happen unless local planning authorities put nature recovery at the heart of their decision-making. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, pointed out, there is widespread support for greater weighting to be placed on these local biodiversity recovery plans. There is also a real concern that, when it comes to the crunch, those nature recovery strategies will once again slide down the list of priorities and be seen as a second-tier concern.
I am grateful for the Minister’s letter to me and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone on this issue. Again, she flagged up that the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 commits to publishing guidance on how local nature recovery strategies can be reflected in local plans. As we have heard, we have received statutory guidance since then; however, it does not answer the central challenge that, unless we have wording along the lines of Amendment 184ZA or something very similar, the current imbalance will continue and local nature recovery strategies will not play their deserved and necessary part in decision-making.
This is not a total determination but about getting the balance right and ensuring that local nature recovery strategies are part of the decision-making. I am very pleased to hear so much support for these amendments from around the Chamber today. I hope that the Minister is hearing that strong case and can reassure us that the Government will take this away and come back with a stronger commitment, along the lines of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, local nature recovery strategies are one of the triumphs of the Government’s Environment Act, which I welcomed at the time, as did the whole House. We wanted to ensure that they had a little bit more edge and power than they had when that Bill went through this House. We now have the chance.
Local nature recovery strategies are not a nice to have; they are essential. They are essential not only for nature and the environment but for the future of our economy, which is supported by so many of the ecosystems that I am sure the Minister, given his ministerial experience, is more aware of than I am. This is something that is vital, rather than, as I said, a nice to have. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was right when she said that we have a problem here if the thousands of people who will be involved in writing these strategies are not convinced that any notice will be taken of their words.
However, I have some really good news here as chair of the local nature partnership in Cornwall and Scilly. Cornwall—not Scilly, although we are now involving Scilly in the final plan—was involved in a pilot local nature recovery strategy, along with four other areas. This was not seen by the various parties in Cornwall as being a pain to do, as something that the local authority and the local nature partnership had to urge, nudge and cajole them to do. It was something that people genuinely wanted to be involved with. The consultation exercise spread right across all sorts of organisations, individuals and households.
A strategy came out that was welcomed and that everybody wanted to happen. The great thing was that it was local. The Cornish aspects were particularly around things such as Cornish hedges, which are very different from other hedges elsewhere in the country. We also involve marine because, for a peninsula such as Cornwall, marine is so important. I was disappointed that the guidance that has come out does not mention marine. Marine is essential. It is part of the same ecosystems for those areas which are coastal.
My message is short: these local nature recovery strategies are vital to our future. We have, as we all know, one of the most nature-depleted areas in the UK. Even Cornwall, the environment of which is loved, has the same problems of retreating nature. This is the chance to have the turnaround in the environmental improvement plan. It is completely within the Government’s strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, the UK was at COP 15 in Montreal last year. We signed up to the global target of 30% being managed for nature. That is a UK target as well, as put out by the Government. Many local authorities, including in the south-west, have taken that target as well.
I urge the Government to take this step of ensuring that these plans really mean something. Let the thousands of people who will be involved and who will volunteer to participate know that not only will their voices be heard but their policies will be implemented.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we have had some very powerful speeches in support of incorporating local nature recovery plans into the planning system. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson, and others such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They made powerful speeches, so I do not need to add to their arguments.
However, I want to make two points, the first of which is the importance of stitching together different strategies across different government departments. This, in essence, is what Amendment 184ZA is about—that what was agreed in the Environment Act must be incorporated where it matters: in local plans and national development management planning.
Secondly, the Environment Act currently requires local plans and local planning authorities to achieve a 10% biodiversity net gain in any planning application, but it is not that straightforward. If the applicant is unable to improve the site on which it is developing by a 10% net gain—and a recent application I had resulted in a minus 19% biodiversity figure—the next option in the cascade of biodiversity options is for the applicant to purchase a nearby greenfield site and improve the biodiversity there. If that does not work, you get to commuted sums, whereby the applicant has to provide a sum of money for the local authority to improve biodiversity somewhere else entirely. To me, that is not what biodiversity net gain should be about.
As I have declared on many occasions, I am a councillor in Kirklees. Recently, I had a major application in my ward, and the applicant was unable to pursue any of those options. The commuted sum was for somewhere else entirely, and biodiversity was depleted in the area applied for. That is why these local nature recovery strategies are so important: they put that at the heart of local planning policies and outcomes, so that applications cannot fob off a lack of biodiversity net gain into some other part of a council district.
This amendment has my wholehearted support, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report if the Government will not accede to it now.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very good debate, and there clearly is a lot of support for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We also strongly support them.
As has been discussed, the Environment Act created the local nature recovery strategies and introduced the statement of biodiversity priorities for local areas, accompanied by the habitat map, which identifies where people can contribute to enhancing biodiversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, these are not just nice to have; they are essential if we are to not simply reverse the decline but improve the situation. We know that local nature recovery strategies have the potential to really drive forward the recovery that is so badly needed. Importantly, they bring local knowledge and expertise into play. Also, as we have heard, the duty to apply the local nature recovery strategies in decision-making such as planning is too weak and will have a negative impact on their effectiveness.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch pointed out that the Government chose not to accept amendments tabled during the passage of the Environment Bill that would have required local authorities to take close account of local nature recovery strategy land identifications when making planning decisions. She also referred to the pledges made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Some of us who spent a lot of time considering that Bill had expectations in this area, and I am pleased that the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments so that we can debate those expectations.
The noble Baroness made it clear that the guidance for authorities on the application of the strategies is just not strong enough. As a result, despite groups mapping sites that will be essential to nature recovery in a local area, local authorities will not necessarily have to take proper notice if they do not want to. That is the fundamental problem, and we do not want lots of time and effort on the part of local nature recovery strategy groups and supporting bodies such as Natural England to be wasted, and opportunities then completely missed.
These amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and supported by many noble Lords, would rightly prevent any wasted effort and enable the local nature recovery strategies to achieve their full potential. Incorporating them into local planning authorities’ development plans is surely an obvious way to go about this. We do not want them to be weak documents, sitting on a shelf somewhere and not informing proper strategic day-to-day planning decisions. We need them to make a real difference, not just a tangible one.
As we have heard, many people think that greater weight should be given in planning to local nature recovery strategies. The Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection have supported this approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, talked about our commitments at COP 26, saying that there is a gap between what we say we will do and what we actually do, and that planning plays a very important role in nature recovery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked, what are our priorities for the future? How will we meet the government targets? Surely, anything that helps deliver the local nature recovery strategies is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, certainly thought this: he made it very clear that he thinks it important that this be included.
I hope that the Minister agrees with those who have spoken today and sees the absolute sense in accepting these amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I start by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, a speedy recovery, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, and others, for bringing forward these amendments. There is a lot of unity in this Chamber regarding what we are seeking to achieve here, and I have listened with great interest to the debate.
On the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, this is an attempt to hard-wire nature into our planning system. Many will argue that it already is, but as has been pointed out by many others, nature continues to be depleted. Species decline is now a serious crisis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, pointed out, this is not just an environmental crisis but an economic one, as the Dasgupta review so vitally illustrated.
Amendments 184ZA and 242I in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, provide a revision of the prior amendment, Amendment 184, to set out the relationship between local nature recovery strategies and development plans, to ensure that local nature recovery strategies’ objectives are reflected in development plans. These amendments would require that the Secretary of State’s guidance on how to have regard to local nature recovery strategies must include information on the degree of compliance with them.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope that my noble friend will reflect. As he started his remarks, I was buoyed with confidence that the Government had taken on board the sheer difficulty of turning what throughout my lifetime has been a process of depleting nature into a process of augmenting nature. It requires difficult internal decisions in all sorts of processes to get this right. Unless we give the process a good deal of strength and power, it will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, just be ignored; there will always be an excuse for letting it go. I urge my noble friend that this may be the time for a little too much force on the tiller, to make sure that we make this change. If we find that we are clogging up the development system, we can perhaps let it go a bit, but we have been headed in the wrong direction for so long that we need to be absolutely sure that we are doing enough to turn the corner.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his wise intervention. We have come a very long way. Over a decade ago, the natural environment White Paper created local nature partnerships. Some of those have been incredibly successful but some have not. What we are trying to create here on a statutory basis is something that will see around 50 of these right across the country, with consistency and a determination to draw the threads of the desire to restore nature through the planning system and get good decision-making as a result. I am happy to work with my colleagues and anyone in this House to see whether that can be tweaked but, at this stage, I think we are going a long way towards creating the kind of regulatory and statutory basis that we need to see the proper restoration of nature.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am straying on to the next set of amendments, but the Minister made it very clear that, regarding building up local plans, there needs to be flexibility and that something statutory in the Bill would stop that. However, under Clause 86, if there is a difference between the local plan and national guidance, statutorily, in the Bill, it says that national guidance must be followed—so there is no flexibility. Can he explain that contradiction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
As the noble Lord says, he is perhaps straying on to the next group. What we are concerned with here is making sure that we are creating a plan that is agreed locally under very clear guidelines, and that has a proper weight in planning decisions across the country. We will then see an understanding of where the nature-rich areas are, where nature can be improved and what the particular features are in those areas that need restoration, all unpinned with an understanding of what species exist and where they can be increased in abundance. That is what we are trying to achieve here. We all want the same thing. I think we have gone a long way to achieving that and I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It was not a matter of the plans. The Minister has said that, as a matter of principle, the reason to reject the amendment was that flexibility is needed and that statutory provision for the automatic assumption to accept another plan should not be in the Bill. But Clause 86 says exactly that. I am trying to tease out why it is okay for one national plan but it is not okay for these local environment plans. What is the difference, as a matter of principle, if flexibility is required for local plans in every area, as the Minister said?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are over 200 clauses in the Bill, and what good legislation seeks to do is to achieve the right balance between the needs of society—new houses, energy and the rest of it—and the understanding that we have a serious problem. We think we have that degree of flexibility about right here. There may be other parts of the Bill that are more rigid in what they seek to achieve, but I have tried to explain that if flexibility did not exist here, rather timid plans might be created, and we want ambitious plans to be created for these local nature recovery strategies. That is why we think this degree of flexibility is the right way forward.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and for the fact that he recognised the strength of feeling right around the Committee. As he said, we all want the same thing; we all want to restore nature from its depleted state, and these local nature recovery strategies are a brilliant tool. As my noble friend Lord Teverson acknowledged, on these Benches and others we think this was a good initiative by the Government. The trouble is that it is not going quite far enough. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, I was initially buoyed by the Minister’s comments. In his words, this is about hard-wiring nature into the planning system. It is—that is what we are trying to do. Frankly, it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to respond to the challenges that nature faces and that the citizens in our country are desperate for us to address.
Guidance alone will not be enough; it will not cut it—we know that. There are enough people in this Chamber who have been or are councillors who know that, when push comes to shove, if there is not some purchase on the planning system—if the local plan is not clear that the local nature recovery strategies are a key evidence base for the local plan—it just will not happen. Nature is not something you can just talk about, and the Government are good at getting plans together on local nature recovery. You can make as many targets as you like but if you do not will the means we will get nowhere.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove inserted subsection (5C), which would give primacy to the national development management policies over a development plan in the event of a conflict.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the previous discussion highlighted some of the concerns we have about the contradictions between the matters that have been enshrined in the Bill, which some of us might think are not quite so important, and those which have been left out. Getting the balance right is clearly important. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Hayman all said, now really is the time for nature recovery and such issues to be a clear focus and for them to be put into the Bill.
We have had lengthy earlier discussions relating to the unwelcome and centralising shift represented by the introduction of NDMPs. I hope that the Government have been left in no doubt about the deep disquiet in the local government community about this provision. Further to the earlier comments made on those serious planning matters, we believe that the Bill is simply not clear enough about how conflicts between local plans and NDMPs are to be dealt with. Our amendments in this group therefore address these issues.
Amendment 185A in my name seeks to take out the lines from Clause 86 that give automatic primacy to the NDMP where a conflict arises between it and the local plan. It is simply unthinkable that this could happen by virtue of statute, with no dialogue relating to why the local authority or the combined county authority considered it necessary to depart from the NDMP. Let me be provocative and suggest that it would, in effect, mean there was almost no point in preparing a local plan at all, if any conflict arising is to be determined in favour of the NDMP—which is, after all, determined in Whitehall. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on this. Surely the provision goes against the key principles of devolution.
Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is similar but refers to “insignificant conflicts” between the local development plans and the NDMPs. If I know local government, I fear that this would involve considerable arguments, perhaps even resulting in legal arguments about what is and is not insignificant.
My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 187 aims to clarify the situation relating to how conflicts between local plans and the NDMP might be dealt with. It would add a further subsection to Clause 86, setting out how conflicts could be resolved in favour of the local development plan where a CCA had been handed powers over planning, highways, the environment and other functions of public bodies under the circumstances outlined in Schedules 16 and 17 or where the development plan comes under a joint spatial development strategy, or if it is in Greater London.
Amendment 192 is a probing amendment. It would insert a clause in the Bill setting out the primacy of the development plan over the NDMP, should there be a conflict. This amendment sits alongside other amendments to Clause 87 which aim to ensure—I want to be really clear about this—that the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives have the primacy in determining the development of local areas.
Amendments 193 and 195 probe if there is to be any role for parliamentary scrutiny of how conflicts between development plans and the NDMP are resolved and/or whether Parliament is to be informed of the Secretary of State’s intention to override the local process. They also probe what role there is to be for a CCA whose constituent member or members may find themselves in a conflict between their development plan and the NDMP.
In summary, what is the mediation process to be? Surely there will not be an automatic assumption in favour of the policies produced centrally with no reference to local people. There is not much in the way of devolution in that proposal. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 186, 187 and 187A because of pre-emption.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 186 and 187B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. When we concluded the debate last Wednesday, my noble friend the Minister explained the Government’s reason for the introduction of the national development management policies. I reiterate to my noble friend that I very much welcome and anticipate a further response to clarify how the NPPF and NDMP relate to one another, perhaps by particular reference to the example of the chapter on green-belt policies.
If I can paraphrase, my noble friend said that a key reason was to make local plans more local. She said that, when making a determination of a planning application, the local plan policies will “sit alongside” the national development policies. But what if they are not consistent? This group of amendments looks at that question. The present position is that applications for planning permission must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Clause 86 of the Bill inserts
“and any national development management policies.”
Therefore, applications must be made in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies. The material considerations would need to “strongly indicate otherwise”. We argued that point last Wednesday.
Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that, if a policy
“in a development plan … conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document”—
so it is simply a matter of which is the most recent. In future, that conflict may be between a development plan and the national development management policies. The Government, to resolve that question, state in Clause 86(2):
“If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”
We have heard from the noble Baroness moving Amendment 185A that it proposes that proposed new subsection (5C) created by Clause 86(2) be deleted. Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would give precedence to the development plan. This turns the Government’s intention on its head. However, I have to say that it runs a serious risk of undermining national policies by virtue of local plan-making and turning the whole problem the other way around.
My Amendment 186, tabled with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, would add the word “significant” to make the phrase, “if to any significant extent” there is a conflict. That would have the simple benefit of avoiding the disapplication of development plan policies because of an insignificant difference between that and an NDMP. It would run the risk—I have to acknowledge—of debate over what “significant” means. However, if the Minister were to object to the insertion of the word “significant” because of the risk of litigation, I will return to the question of the litigation that might arise through the insertion of the word “strongly”, which the Government resisted on those grounds.
Amendment 187, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would reverse the primacy of NDMP over the development plan where there is a substantial set of devolved responsibilities given to a combined county authority. These are, in effect, the planning powers of the constituent local planning authorities, so I have to confess that I am not at all clear why, if the powers are vested in a CCA, as opposed to a local planning authority, the primacy should be switched simply on those grounds.
Overall, we have a group of amendments here that illustrate the problem but do not offer a solution. The development plan should not be inconsistent with the NDMP. The new Section 15C of PCPA 2004, to be inserted by Schedule 7, states this. On page 294 of the Bill, it can be seen that the intention of the Government is that there should not be any inconsistency between the two. However, in practice, such inconsistencies will arise in relation to specific planning applications. That is where the problem emerges. When they do, as the Minister herself made clear, this is a plan-led system, and a decision should, so far as possible, be made in accordance with the development plan. As the NPPF makes clear, where there is no relevant plan policy or no up-to-date plan—our Amendments 187A and 187B are relevant here about the necessity of an up-to-date plan—then the decision should be made by reference to the national development management policies, which will continue to be given statutory weight, by virtue of this legislation, even if the plan is out of date.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to reflect on this question and whether the primacy of the national development management policies should be achieved through the plan-making process—that is, sustain that question of there being no inconsistencies—but also where no up-to-date plan applies. However, if there is an up-to-date plan, then that should be the basis of the decision. That would retain the principle that those seeking planning permission should do so in accordance with an up-to-date local plan. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, when we come back to this on Report, that might be the basis for amending the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendment 187, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has attached her name. She is mostly handling the planning parts of this Bill, but she is otherwise engaged at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made a very interesting speech. It comes down to the question of what we mean by “inconsistency”. Do we mean that the local plan is trying to set higher standards than the national guidelines? If that is so, what we should have are national plans that set minimum standards. It should be within the power of local authorities to set higher standards if they so desire and if they think those are appropriate or necessary for the local area.
The noble Lord asked why this should apply particularly to CCAs, given that they are essentially a compilation of existing powers. The situation is that, where you have a CCA that has been created and handed the highways, environmental and other powers, certainly in local perception, in the understanding of people who have elected people on to those local bodies, the power that has been handed to this local body should rest in that local body.
Here, we have to look at the context of what it is like on the ground. I spent the weekend visiting various local areas outside London and hearing lots of complaints about local councillors’ lack of power to do what local residents want them to do. National planning rules have become far too bloated, and local councillors simply do not have the power to shape what happens in their local community in the way that residents expect them to. For example, people are surprised at how little power councils can have over the types of business established on a local high street. Massive international chains such as Starbucks can undermine the character and charm of a local scene, and the local planning authority and councillors are left wrestling over how the signage looks—which is not the issue that local people are most concerned about. There are more than 550 Green councillors around the country now, and this probably gets to the heart of what I hear from them so often: expressions of frustration at how power is centralised here in Westminster.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the main debate on the new plan hierarchy was clearly spelled out in this Chamber last week, but Covid prevented me from joining in, although I listened with interest. I will not waste time going over that debate, but I still want to reiterate certain facts. As was well demonstrated in the debate on the last group, it is a fact that so much detail is still missing and so many important matters are still out for consultation—that is probably why there are so many amendments and why there is so much anxiety around the content of NDMPs. In particular, as was well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, what will truly be left over for local councillors and their communities to shape their place? The Bill is very strong on the rhetoric of place shaping, but it feels that we are being disempowered to do that.
Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I will say that it is absolutely clear that the potential for conflict is significant. Without some clarity and legal clout from the Bill—not just ministerial promises that there will be more details in the revised NPPF, or that it will be more clear when we have the NDMPs—what will happen as a result of this is that there will be plenty of work for the planning chambers and litigators going forward. There will be a long transition period—the Government are quite sensibly allowing for that—because this is a new system, so there will be quite some time before we get precedents set, we get used to it and we get to see which way it is going.
The amendments have regard to the obvious potential conflicts between NDMPs and local development plans, and they also question the increasingly all-powerful Secretary of State role and the position of combined authorities. The issues concerning Secretary of State powers have also been well articulated, but, as drafted, Clause 86, which was previously debated, and Clause 87 very clearly—I do not think there is any ambiguity—favour NDMPs over development plans. But they also transfer significant policy-making powers directly to the Secretary of State—this is yet another area of concern and potential conflict because, as we know, NDMPs come with no minimum public consultation or primary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Despite the Government’s previous assurances that this undemocratic effect was not the intention of the clauses, no legal safeguards have been introduced, so this is an area in which we would certainly hope to see movement from the Government.
My first question for the Minister on this group is on the issue of local plan soundness, as it seems to me that a lot of conflict could and should be avoided if both the NDMPs and the local development plan are very clear about what they are trying to achieve, where the boundaries of their scope are, and where one might take over from another—I was envisaging the Venn diagram and hoping that there was not very much in the middle. It seems highly desirable that the overlap should be almost impossibly small, or as limited as possible, so can the Minister confirm whether a plan would be found sound under the new regime if it contained policies that were at variance with NDMPs?
The proposed introduction of gateway checks, which is an excellent suggestion, would seem to indicate that the intention is, on the one hand, to allow both parties an opportunity to point out unacceptable variance, or, on the other, for the local planning authority to present its evidence as to why local policies should deviate from the NDMPs and therefore receive advice and engage in constructive dialogue. From the thrust of the questions of the NPPF consultations and the subsequent Written Ministerial Statements, it seems that local variance is both expected and accounted for—good.
If that is the case, why do we need new subsection (5C), and why can we not just accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor? It is very definite and legally tight—too definite and legally tight to allow for circumstances when it might be absolutely legitimate to give the local plan precedence. Is that deemed to be a bad thing by the Government? If not, under the current system, in which decisions are now weighed and balanced, surely a degree of leeway is desirable—the more so, as has already been mentioned, as the main criticism around NDMPs is the worry that they will set a low floor and stifle ambition and innovation, which has always been, in the main, local authority-led. New subsection (5C) might sound definite, final and firm, and therefore intended to reduce conflict—but at what cost? Could there be unintended consequences?
If the Government do not accept that proposal, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, provides a more nuanced response to a very complex issue to allow for a time when the NDMP may not necessarily be “Top Trumps” because it is appropriate in those local circumstances. I believe that the weight of new subsection (5C) does not allow that for that discretion, so we will certainly support that amendment. As to the discussion of the word “significant”, I respectfully suggest that planners, inspectors and litigators have always weighed up, and probably always will weigh up, these words. It is part of their bread and butter, it is what they do all the time, and this will be no exception.
Amendment 187 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is a natural extension of that same logic. She can envisage times when a local plan can and should take precedence, especially if it relates to the additional responsibilities in a larger geographical area. On these Benches, we believe that there is real value in the Government incentivising, encouraging and supporting local authorities to work together to get a larger—and, dare we use the word, regional—spatial strategy of that sort. In effect, we would not want any barriers to be put in the way of that, because there is far more at stake in a local area, such as economic growth, than just meeting housing need.
The noble Baroness’s Amendments 192 and 195 are an interesting extension of this dilemma. I wonder whether her Amendment 193 could be logistically challenging, as the Secretary of State would have to actually hear and know about every single challenge and conflict. But the principle of a feedback loop regarding conflicts seems a good one, particularly during a period of transition, as all this will all new and very different territory for everyone. I think we would all like to know where the pinch points and places with the most disagreement are and, more importantly, how they are being resolved. We will be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this thread of feedback, reporting, learning and, presumably, revising.
Amendment 187B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seems very sensible. If the Bill is, as we hear all the time, to truly make the system a plan-led system, it absolutely makes sense that local plans must and should be up to date. My concern, particularly now, is with the removal of the tilted balance and planning by appeal, plus the supremacy of NDMPs. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise councils to keep their plans up to date? I cannot see how that will be done, as there appears to be no disincentives to do otherwise.
We will support any amendment to insert a 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, as has been set out in the Planning Act 2008 and is already deemed necessary for national policy statements. If local authorities are rightly required to consult on such policies when preparing local plans today, in future it must be right that Secretaries of State be held to account by the public and Parliament in a similar way. As with national policy statements, we ask that Parliament be required to scrutinise NDMPs and that the public be allowed to consult on proposed changes to them.
There are loads of possible advantages of NDMPs, and there seems to be a general acceptance of this in principle, but the devil will always be in the detail. The unprecedented level of central control for planning that they introduce means that safeguards are needed to maintain local consent. These amendments touch on only a few areas of potential conflict, and we had plenty in the previous group. We have yet to touch on street votes versus local plans, neighbourhood policy statements versus the rest, and—one matter that is starting to come to the fore—the turning of supplementary planning documents into supplementary plans and all that this will entail. Those are debates for another day.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I want to add a short footnote to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and to try to understand in what circumstances the conflict that we have been debating can arise—that is, the conflict between the local plan and the national development management policy.
Page 294 of the Bill—I appreciate that we have not got quite that far yet—describes the process that a local authority must go through when it prepares its local plan. New section 15CA(5) states that:
“In preparing their local plan, a local planning authority must have regard to … any observations or advice received from a person appointed by the Secretary of State … other national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State”.
If that process has been gone through, the local plan should already be consistent with the national development management policies—it would have been spotted. So is it the case that the only time a conflict can arise is when, subsequent to a conforming local development plan having been adopted, the Government actually change the policy? Is that the only time that a conflict can arise? It cannot arise if a plan has gone through the process under the current NDMP.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on the conflicts that will inevitably exist between the national development management policies and local plans. I thank my noble friend for pointing out in great detail the difficulties that may arise.
At the heart of this is the fact that, at the moment, we have no idea what will be included in the NDMP. Frankly, that is fairly critical as to whether or not there will be conflict. It will depend on whether these will be very high-level national policies, as in the current National Planning Policy Framework. It will depend on whether they will set standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has suggested. It will depend on whether they will simply reflect what is currently national planning policy but put it into a statutory situation for local planning authorities and local councils to agree to.
In Committee on the Bill last Wednesday, the Minister suggested that we would have a round table to try to tease out the detail and meaning behind the Government’s proposals in the Bill. It is absolutely vital that that happens as soon as possible. Throughout our debate on the plan-led process, it became clear that, if the intentions of the Government for the national development management policies are not understood, there will be conflict—as this group of amendments makes clear—around the degree to which local people have power and influence over local plans at this stage, and around the degree to which planning inspectors who are set to look at the local plans that are drawn up have power and influence over local plans. That is why it is really important that we hear from the Minister as soon as possible. What sort of policies are going to be included in NDMPs? At the moment, it is a fairly blank screen.
I have only one other thing to say, which has been raised by my noble friend. New subsection (3) inserted by Clause 87, which is about revoking or changing the NDMP, says that
“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.”
I hope the Minister will be willing to take away “if any” in that clause and reflect how important it is for local plans to be accepted by local residents. That means that the NDMP has to be acceptable to and accepted by local residents, as it is going to dictate the content or the direction of travel of local plan decision-making. There is a lot that hangs on the content of the NDMP, so I hope that when the Minister replies she is able to give us some hints as to what it will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendments 185A and 192 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seek to remove or reverse the precedence given to national development management policies over the development plan in planning decisions where there is a conflict between them. I welcome this further opportunity to explain the objectives behind this aspect of the Bill.
As I indicated in our debate on this issue last week, national development management policies are intended to bring greater clarity to the important role that national policy already plays in decisions on planning applications. A clear and concise set of policies with statutory weight will make sure that important safeguards, such as protections for designated landscapes and heritage assets, are taken fully into account, without these basic matters having to be repeated in local plans to give them the statutory recognition they deserve.
These amendments deal specifically with what to do in the event that there is a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. The amendments would remove the certainty created by the Bill that up-to-date national policies on important issues, such as climate change or flood protection, would have precedence over plans that may well have been made a long time ago.
Some local plans are woefully out of date; for example, some date back to the 1990s. Only around 40% of local planning authorities adopted a local plan within the last five years. It would, in our view, be wrong to say that, in the event of a conflict, national policy does not take precedence over out-of-date policies in these plans, which is what these amendments would achieve. This point is particularly crucial because we wish to use national policies to drive higher standards, especially on good design, the environment and tackling climate change, and it is important that these take precedence in the event of a conflict with out-of-date policies in plans.
Nevertheless, I expect such conflicts to be very limited in future as we are making it easier to produce plans and keep them up to date, and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies. Given the important role that national development management policies will perform and their benefits in providing certainty, I hope noble Lords understand that we are not able to support this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that few, if any, conflicts should arise under this new way of working.
Amendment 186 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley would give national development management policies precedence over the development plan only where there was a “significant” conflict between the relevant policies. Where a local policy and national development management policy are both relevant considerations but not in any conflict, it will still be for the decision-maker to decide how much weight is afforded to these policies based on their relevance to the proposed development. Our clause sets out only what should be done in the event of a conflict between policies where they contradict one another. My noble friend brought up the green belt. Policies controlling development in the green belt are standard nationally and will be set out in the NDMPs. Local plans could—will—define the boundaries of the green belt, as they do now, so I do not think there should be any conflict between those two issues.
We have explained why we believe it is important that NDMPs are prioritised in the event of such a conflict, and we expect such conflicts to be limited, as I have said.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I fear I was not clear enough about what I asked about last week and hoped to hear more about. Chapter 13 of the NPPF describes the green-belt policies. It forms two parts: the first relates to plan-making and the second, from new paragraph 149 onwards, to how these policies should be applied in relation to development in the green belt and the determination of planning applications. My assumption has been—partly answering the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we do not know what the NDMPs are; this is a good illustration—that the latter will be NDMPs, the former will not. There will continue to be guidance in the NPPF. If I am wrong, I would be glad to be advised; otherwise, it would be helpful to understand how these things divide up.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry. Obviously, I got the issue slightly wrong in the last debate. I thought that we were talking about a conflict between two green-belt policies. I will go back to Hansard. Obviously, my answer is not relevant, therefore, but I will check that out and give my noble friend a proper answer in writing. I think that is the best way to do it, as we got it wrong.
Additionally, the suggested wording of Amendment 186 would also generate uncertainty and associated litigation, because the term “significant” would be open to considerable interpretation. Therefore, as the amendment would cut across the greater certainty which we hope to bring to planning decisions, it is not one that we feel able to accept.
My noble friend Lord Lansley also brought up the decision-making role of the NDMPs being constrained by matters not covered by an up-to-date plan. NDMPs will focus on matters of national importance that have general application. This will enable the local plans to be produced more quickly so that they no longer move to repeat the things that are in the national plans. It is important that there should not be—as there is now—this duplication in plans. I think this makes it simpler and less open to conflict.
Amendment 187 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which relates to higher-tier authorities with planning powers, would give precedence to the development plan over national development management policies, where a mayor or combined authority has strategic planning powers, or where a group of local planning authorities have produced a joint spatial development strategy.
As I have set out, we believe that there are good reasons why, in certain cases, national development management policies may need to take precedence over those in the development plan. National development management policies will underpin, with statutory weight, key national policy protections in cases where plan policies, including spatial development strategies, become out-of-date.
I note that the Secretary of State already has powers to direct amendments that must be made to draft versions of spatial development strategies before they are published, where he thinks it is expedient to do so, to avoid any inconsistency with current national policies. These powers have been used sparingly in the past, although they have been used where important national policies were duplicated but inappropriately amended.
For these reasons, we believe it is right that national development management policies would be able to override the development plan in those cases where it is absolutely necessary, even where there is a strategic plan-making body in place. Thus, this is not an amendment that we feel able to support.
I think I answered my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in a previous debate, but I will repeat what I said for those Members who were not here last time. Amendment 187B in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham aims to ensure that decisions on planning applications are taken in line with an up-to-date plan, with an up-to-date plan being defined as 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 at least once every five years and they should then be updated as necessary. We intend to replace this current review requirement, which is a source of confusion and argument. It has been described in this place as a loophole and I have some sympathy for that characterisation.
In the Bill policy paper published last May, we committed to set out a new, clearer requirement in regulations for authorities to commence an update of their local plans every five years. It is, however, important that we do not create a cliff edge in law 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, have the effect of weakening green belt protections very considerably.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but my point relates to having an up-to-date plan. My noble friend has made clear her rather compelling points about the national development management policies taking precedence over an out-of-date plan but, if there is in place an up-to-date plan that works and is both recent and relevant, why should an NDMP seek primacy over an up-to-date local plan?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
What I am trying to explain to noble Lords is that there should be no conflict because they deal with different things. The national development management policies are likely to cover common issues that are already being dealt with in national planning policies, such as the green belt, areas at risk of flooding and heritage areas. They would not impinge on local policies for shaping development, nor would they direct what land should be allocated for a particular area. They are totally different things. Looking to the future, therefore, I cannot see what conflict there would be.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I just want to explore this further, if the Minister will agree to it. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is at the heart of this issue. Where there is an existing, up-to-date local plan, why should that not have primacy over the national development management policies, because it will have taken cognisance of those in developing the local plan?
Can the Minister help me here? In the NPPF, there are 16 national planning policies. Does she anticipate that those will be translated into the NDMPs? It is at that level that we need to understand this because, when it comes to local plans, the NPPF is part of them; as the Minister rightly argued, it is put into local plans. But then they are then interpreted locally, for local reasons, which is why I am concerned about an NDMP having primacy over up-to-date local plans.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The national development management policies are dealing with the top-level issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are out to review those issues of consultation. These issues have come back. We have not got the list yet, but your local plan will accept those as being there and will then deal with issues that are local. As my noble friend said, there will be issues such as the green belt, but they will take into account the national policies on green belt and deal only with very localised policies on it, so there should be no conflict. I do not see where that conflict can be. But we are going to have a meeting on this to further discuss and probably have, not arguments, but strong debates—those are the words—on these issues.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am more confused than I was when the debate started. If there is no conflict, what is the point in having the clause?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The point is to make clear that there is no conflict.
Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to
“lay a Statement before both Houses of Parliament”
if there is
“a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan”.
As I have noted, actual instances of conflict between national development plan policies and those being included in the plans should be relatively unusual, as the Bill makes clear that planning policies should avoid such conflicts—something that will, in cases of doubt, be assessed transparently through public examination of those emerging plans as they are made. Should any conflicts arise when considering individual planning applications or appeals—for example, where the local plan has become very out of date—this will need to be made very clear through the report on the application, or the evidence before the planning inspector. These procedures will ensure transparency for communities. At the same time, it would be impossible for the Government to track every instance of such a conflict arising and to report to Parliament on it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will understand that this is not an amendment we can support.
Amendment 195, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to consult county combined authorities if it is deemed that there is a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan. As I have already explained, where any inconsistencies arise between an emerging plan and the national development management policies, these will be evident during the plan preparation and examination. We expect that any county combined authority will be engaged in this process at the local level. There is no need for an additional statutory requirement to be placed on the Secretary of State in the way the amendment would do.
I have also pointed out the impracticality of applying a requirement of this nature in relation to any inconsistencies which might arise in the handling of individual planning applications, the great majority of which will not be cases that the Government are party to. Consequently, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we are unable to support this amendment. I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her Amendment 185 and for other amendments in this group not to be moved as they are reached.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked what intervention powers the Government will have to get involved. We think that local authorities know their area best and, unequivocally, are best placed to produce their own local plans. However, if local plans are not produced or are failing, or if something is absolutely wrong with that plan, the Secretary of State will retain the power to intervene if necessary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, one of the problems that those of us who have been very involved in the planning system are having is that we cannot see how this all fits together and works in practice. In her last statement, the Minister said that local authorities know their area best, and those who have been involved in this system would certainly agree with that but, as we go through the process of looking closely at the Bill, it is getting more rather than less confusing.
We had a good discussion and some key issues have emerged, first around how little detail there is about the hierarchy of this new planning process. I accept that the Minister has offered to have a round table with us to discuss what that structure looks like and to listen to more of our concerns about how this is going to work in practice. There was a great deal of consideration of the issues around the strategic development plans for these new CCAs. A lot of work will go into the joint working on those strategic development plans, with their constituent members and partners. They reflect the significant new powers that they will have over transport, environment and issues relating to some other public bodies—potentially health, policing and so on. Some of us are struggling to understand why, after all the work that has gone in, there may be an intervention from the Government via the NDMPs to say that the planning process has to be intervened in or overturned. That is also of concern.
Another element was the consideration of whether this would be different depending on whether an up-to-date plan is in place or not. That is a key consideration and I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it may make a great difference as we go through the consideration of how these plans will work and what the review requirements are. We made the point in previous discussions, and I will make it again, that the big difference between the NPPF and the new NDMP is that the NPPF is guidance. As we have discussed previously, it can be flexible to local needs and often is, whereas the NDMP is going to be statutory. For example, how would it deal with applications made within the green belt? These are some of the practical issues with which some of us are wrestling, and I hope that a round-table discussion helps clear some of that up.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave a very clear exposition of how he sees the word “significant” making a difference. I appreciate that. Of course, lawyers will be lawyers—I know there are some in this Chamber, so I will not take this line too far—but they embrace any words that can be interpreted in different ways, as we know. Those of us who have been in legal battles around these things before have the scars to show for it. My concern about that amendment was simply that it would result in a great deal of litigation.
We were discussing the planning powers of constituent local authorities and, of course, the role of these new CCAs will be very different from the role of either district councils, when they are doing their local plan, or county planning authorities, when they do things such as mineral and waste plans. I think we need some careful consideration of how those much more strategic plans will relate to NDMPs.
I have commented on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about up-to-date plans; I think, where we have one, they should take precedence. The Minister also talked about how, if the neighbourhood plan is more up to date than the local plan, the neighbourhood plan would take precedence. By logic then, if the local plan is more up to date than the NDMP and there is a conflict between them, the local plan should take precedence. I cannot see why one would apply and the other would not.
Lord Crisp
“Duty to promote health and well-beingThe Secretary of State must ensure that national planning policy and guidance are designed to secure positive improvements in the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England.”
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, who have added their names to my amendments in this group. I very much look forward to their contributions today.
Amendment 188 sets out that:
“The Secretary of State must ensure that national planning policy and guidance are designed to secure positive improvements in the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England.”
There is currently no provision for promoting health and well-being in planning legislation and guidance. Even in the key paragraph 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where the Government set down requirements on strategic policies in local plans, there is no mention of promoting health and well-being but simply a reference to the provision of healthcare facilities. This seems to be a very old-fashioned view of health which equates health with healthcare.
If nothing else, the pandemic has accelerated public understanding that health in the broadest sense, and well-being, are central to place-making, communities and the levelling-up missions. Our homes and neighbourhoods deeply influence our health, for good and for bad, and this all influences our life chances. If we want to level up and create the circumstances in which people can flourish, health and well-being must have central roles in our planning system.
I recognise that this is a big change. The amendment is very carefully worded to say “designed” to secure positive improvements. This is not just an add-on: it places health and well-being at the heart of the system. There is an opportunity here to create the conditions for levelling up and for people to flourish. We can use the planning system to ensure that we are providing healthy environments and healthy homes that are fit for purpose.
I refer briefly to the amendments in this group that are not in my name. They cover very similar territory. While I will not speak to them, I support them.
I turn to Amendments 394 to 399, which are specifically about healthy homes. I will briefly explain the background to these and why I think they are necessary, before going into some detail.
I am delighted that the Government recognise that housing and health are key to levelling up, and that, in the Minister’s letter to Peers on 27 January, she wrote that the Government support the objective within the Healthy Homes Bill. However, she went on to say that this is dealt with by existing laws and/or alternative policy. With respect, I do not believe that that is the case. There is no overall statutory duty with regard to healthy homes, and it is clear to all of us that existing laws and guidance are simply not producing the results that we all want. There is some existing policy—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that addresses some of these issues, but even this is not mandatory and can be set aside by local decision-makers.
More directly, we can all see that existing policies are not working—we need only to look at some of the results. I have a photo book, which I will send to the Minister, of some of the worst examples around the country. I am happy to send it to any other noble Lord who wishes to have a copy. It contains examples of some recently developed homes. Many of them are permitted developments with, for example, redundant office blocks on industrial sites providing appalling accommodation, but this is not just about PDR.
It is reasonable to ask, and I have been asked, whether the requirements proposed in these amendments will add cost. The argument goes that you could perhaps get a larger number of homes for the same sort of money. But that is the wrong question. This is not about higher or lower cost or quality. The purpose is to eliminate homes being developed that are simply not fit for purpose. It is not about the relative cost.
I know that there are other objections around this being extra regulation, although this is not the principal barrier to development generally. I have met with high-quality developers around the country and looked at how they are developing homes and neighbourhoods. There is very little in this that they are not already doing, and they have internal processes to ensure that it happens. More generally, for the regulation system as a whole, I believe that an overarching requirement to promote health, safety and well-being will help align planning and building regulations better and could be used to reduce complexity.
Turning to the detail of the amendments, I think they provide a very sensible structure. I do not claim credit for it; it was proposed by Dr Hugh Ellis of the TCPA. In essence, they set out a duty on the Secretary of State to secure health, safety and well-being in new homes in accordance with 11 healthy homes principles, which the Secretary of State can then establish the policy on. This is not set in stone but can change from time to time as appropriate and can be interpreted differently by the Secretary of State for different areas, such as country and town areas. There is also a duty to report on progress. The key point is that this is all mandatory and that it should be reported on regularly.
Amendment 394 would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to secure healthy homes. Amendment 395 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement explaining how the healthy homes principles will be used. Amendment 396 sets out the principles. Amendment 397 would require a draft of the statement on interpretation to be available to Parliament for possible comment. Amendment 398 describes the effect of the statement on different authorities. Amendment 399 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual progress report.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships as a way of securing new homes that are fit for purpose, which would also enhance health and reduce the burden on the health and care system, because we should note that unhealthy homes, far from being a cost-neutral or light-cost option, cost the NHS roughly £1.4 billion every year. Most importantly, the amendments would provide homes that offer a secure foundation for the lives of individuals and families, helping them to thrive. They would also play a significant role in levelling up. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 188, headed as it is by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Young, sounds like an advertisement for a supermarket lettuce. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, I supported the Healthy Homes Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on 15 July, along with many other noble Lords who all spoke in favour at Second Reading. When the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, replied to the debate, after expressing his disappointment that the Government were not supportive of his Bill, he said:
“I will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look for opportunities for this in current legislation.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1707.]
He then did what did not always happened when I was Chief Whip in another place: he followed my advice. His amendments would simply insert his Bill into this one, so today we have an opportunity to build on what was said on that occasion in July and take the debate forward.
I looked again at what the Minister said in reply to that debate:
“The Government oppose this Bill, not because they take issue with the premise of noble Lords’ arguments, but rather because they believe that the problems highlighted in the Bill are already being dealt with via alternative policy routes … Many of the proposed healthy homes principles are already covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF must be taken into account by local authorities in the preparation of their development plans, and it is a material consideration in planning decisions.”
She went on to say:
“We are intending to review the NPPF to support the programme of changes to the planning system. This will provide an opportunity to ensure that the NPPF contributes to sustainable development as fully as possible.”
So two options are available. One is to do what the amendments would do and incorporate the Healthy Homes Bill into primary legislation. The other—and I hold no negotiating brief for the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—is for the Government to undertake that the revised NPPF will incorporate the relevant commitments in Amendments 394 to 399.
Those amendments build on what is already in the NPPF. In the Minister’s own words:
“The social objective focuses on supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places with accessible services and open spaces. More specifically, the framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. This should support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs.”
The Minister went on to say:
“This means that all plans should promote sustainable patterns of growth to meet local need, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; cols. 1702-03.]
But that is not a million miles away from what is in the noble Lord’s amendments. The Minister may want to reflect on the precise wording and have a dialogue with the noble Lord, but her objective of mitigating climate change, which I just referred to, is not a million miles from proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 396, that
“all new homes should secure radical reductions in carbon emissions in line with the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008”.
If my noble friend the Minister has “resist” on the top of her speaking notes, is she prepared to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, how his agenda can best be taken forward?
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 484. I thank my supporters: the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I also declare my interests as a director of Peers for the Planet, and as a project director working for Atkins.
It would be helpful if I started with some definitions; I hope I am not teaching too many noble Lords to suck eggs. There are two types of emissions from buildings: operational carbon, which is those emissions due to energy and water use; and embodied carbon, which is those emissions related to construction materials. Operational carbon emissions are already limited by Part L of the Building Regulations, but there is no such parallel regulation limiting embodied carbon emissions.
For a long time, operational carbon emissions have accounted for the majority of buildings’ emissions. However, with decarbonisation of the grid, operational carbon has reduced in recent years and that trend is set to continue, particularly with the introduction of electric heating. As such, the embodied carbon emissions in construction contribute an increasing proportion of the whole-life carbon emissions for most buildings, with one study indicating that over two-thirds of a low-energy new building’s emissions are embodied.
UK embodied carbon emissions represent some 50 million tonnes of emissions per year, which is more than aviation and shipping combined—a huge quantity of emissions that is completely unregulated and has increased in recent years. We think of the huge effort that is going into mitigating the carbon emissions of aviation and shipping: we have a sustainable aviation fuels plan, jet zero and plans for corridors for emission-free shipping based on ammonia and hydrogen. But for embodied carbon the current plans in place are sparse—although industry is making some good progress in reporting—so we have a problem.
Lord Boyce, who sat on these Benches but passed away, sadly, late last year, had a saying which went something like, “There is no such thing as problems, only solutions in disguise”. The solution here is a fantastic campaign, which has been under way for a number of years, to add a new part, Part Z, to the building regulations; this would start with reporting and then move on to regulation of embodied carbon emissions. It has wide support across industry; 200 of the country’s leading developers, clients, contractors, architects, engineers and institutions have written statements of support. These include organisations such as British Land, Willmott Dixon, Sir Robert McAlpine and Laing O’Rourke—I could go on—and industry bodies such as the Construction Industry Council, the Concrete Centre and the Steel Construction Institute; so there is wide support right across industry.
Industry already has the tools necessary to respond to Amendment 484 and, indeed, is voluntarily using them. Regulation would simply unlock the final door to enable the existing mechanisms to run smoothly and to ensure a level playing field. It has already been the subject of a Private Member’s Bill put forward by Jerome Mayhew in another place, which has enjoyed wide cross-party support.
Many countries in Europe are already proceeding with the approach outlined in the amendment. These include France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Norway. It is not only about the emissions cost; we risk being left behind in the opportunities that the amendment will unlock if we do not proceed with it soon. These opportunities include the benefits of a standardised approach to reporting—rather than the patchwork quilt of the many approaches that exist currently—which would reduce overall costs to industry, and the treasure trove of data that would be generated and could then be used to inform further decarbonisation efforts, both in voluntary targets and in leading towards eventual regulation.
To add to this, the policy signal provided by this amendment would mean that the UK could then develop in growing markets such as steel recycling, an important area that could be developed in the UK. Rather than exporting scrap and importing recycled steel as we currently do, we could invest in that industry in the UK, as is currently done in the US and Europe. Low-carbon cement is another example; if the signal were given, attracting investment and moving that from lab scale to implementation would be much more of a priority—likewise, low-carbon building materials such as non-plastic insulation and the retrofit and reuse market.
So what is currently going on within government? The Government’s construction playbook calls for carbon assessments on all public projects. However, it provides no details as to how that should take place or what an appropriate carbon emissions level is. This leads to many inefficiencies in differing approaches to assessments, increasing overall costs to the taxpayer.
The key ongoing activity is a DHLUC consultation on embodied carbon reporting, which is due to report later this year. Our amendment has been drafted to align with that consultation; it states that regulations must be made within six months of the Act being passed. This amendment would give the Government a ready-made legislative vehicle to implement these regulations once the outputs of the consultation have been defined. All the pieces of the puzzle would then be in place; otherwise, I fear that we would have much longer to wait to make parliamentary time available—we need to move quickly and seize the opportunity here.
Working in business myself, one area of concern that I am very conscious of is to avoid placing additional burdens upon small and medium-sized enterprises. Whole-life carbon assessments will involve some additional costs to businesses, at least initially while tools and approaches are being refined. This is why we have placed limits within the amendment; it applies only to building works with a total useful floor area of 1,000 square metres or over and to developments with more than 10 dwellings. This shields smaller developers from the initial costs of undertaking whole-life carbon assessments.
Finally, I will go into a little more detail on how the amendment would work. The overall strategy is to “report first, limit later”. This follows the precedents set elsewhere in Europe and makes the transition towards zero-carbon construction easier, while sending a clear signal that legislated limits are coming. The amendment deals with the initial reporting aspect, with the intent that later regulations would cover embodied carbon limits, which would in themselves be informed by the initial reporting phase. As I alluded to earlier, approaches to many of the aspects in the amendment have already been developed and are being used voluntarily by industry; for example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has defined a methodology for calculating embodied carbon.
The emissions footprint that embodied carbon represents means that we need to move forward with urgency and help to enable industry to bring forward solutions. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is an ideal and timely enabler to make this happen.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 484 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, which was so comprehensively and expertly laid out before us. I declare my interests as president of the Sustainable Energy Association and a member of the Peers for the Planet coalition.
This amendment would require housebuilders and other developers to produce an assessment of the amount of carbon for which the construction of a proposed project would be responsible over its life. This includes the carbon embodied in the building materials used and the construction processes deployed.
Everyone recognises the necessity of building in ways that limit carbon emissions once the building is constructed, but that is only half the story. Half of total emissions—possibly more—associated with new building come from the carbon embodied in its construction. Concrete, steel and other materials use vast quantities of fossil fuels, as does transportation, sometimes across continents, of heavy building materials.
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has shown that—as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said—the embodied carbon in new buildings accounts for more emissions than aviation and shipping put together; that is a great statistic. Yet this huge contributor to climate change is virtually invisible. Measuring and assessing embodied carbon alongside the subsequent emissions over a building’s lifespan should make all parties think harder when choosing building materials. There are many alternatives to the worst-offending components. This amendment will provide the basis for eliciting the evidence for more sophisticated decision-making.
The amendment could also lead to greater priority being given to making the best use of the buildings we already have before demolishing and replacing existing structures and adding to landfill. Demolition and construction also create dust and air pollution on a massive scale, amounting to some 30% of harmful particulates in urban areas. Retaining—rather than clearing and replacing—existing housing can also have social and community benefits. Demolition of Victorian terraced streets in the 1960s and 1970s is now seen to have been, in many cases, an unfortunate mistake. The amendment forces us to pay more attention in the wider levelling-up agenda to the regeneration of the homes we have today, rather than concentrating, as the Bill does, on the planning and delivery of new homes.
Action to upgrade existing properties—with green grants, regulations on energy efficiency for lettings, tax incentives and more—does not only address the decarbonisation challenge, it improves quality of life, reduces fuel poverty and saves NHS budgets. Recent research by the Building Research Establishment found that excessively cold homes, for example, are costing the NHS £540 million a year. The improvement of existing housing would also be accelerated, and the stock of available affordable homes increased, by the introduction of a national housing conversion fund to finance acquisition and modernisation of poor-quality, privately rented properties.
As the levelling-up programme moves onward, these regeneration measures will demand more of government’s attention. In the meantime, this amendment would achieve a more credible basis for judging the environmental impact of building practices and I strongly support it and the creation of a new Part Z to the building regulations.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his amendments, and join the noble Lord, Lord Stunell and Lord Young, in doing so. I spoke on the Healthy Homes Bill on Friday morning, so I will try to not repeat all of it, because some Members here in Committee will have been there on that occasion. I will just say that designing for the future and retrofitting for the present go hand in hand. It is a no-brainer that homes need to be both warm and well ventilated. It is a no-brainer that the community around the dwellings we have and those we build needs to be both sustainable and a contributor to the health and well-being of those living in those homes.
I recall one small occasion when my predecessor as leader of Sheffield City Council was getting deeply frustrated at the cost of building. He decided to design his own bungalow on the back of fag packet. This bungalow’s heating was to be provided by a gas fire that was strategically placed so that when the door of the one bedroom was open, it would heat the lounge, the bedroom and, if you were lucky, might get some heat into the small kitchen as well. When I took over, I am afraid we decided not to go ahead with these mini-dwellings, but we tried to put in standards that would be lasting, supportive of the well-being of individuals and their families, and sustainable in terms of the different uses to which they would be put.
In the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the word “safety” is also used. We should be planning, as we age, to stay in dwellings—as well as moving to more suitable accommodation—because they have been planned or redesigned to allow that. Doing it from the beginning is obviously a great deal more affordable, but doing it now will save an enormous amount of resources in future. I said, on the Healthy Homes Bill, that if in Lanarkshire and west Yorkshire, Rowntree and Cadbury, and even Wedgwood—who was not the greatest of employers but understood entirely that his workers could not come to work and be able to work if they did not live in healthy homes—could do that all those years ago, surely we can get it right now. It is beholden on us to ensure that the guidance and support from the centre encourages the best possible practice at local level.
To finish, one of my very long-standing friends was canvassing in the local elections in Sheffield a week or two ago. He came across a Labour Party member who said she was not going to vote Labour on this occasion. When he asked why, she said it was because the Labour Party would impose 15-minute neighbourhoods in which people would be forced to live in a very confined area, and she was against it. Well, I am against it as well; it is not Labour Party policy. So I will put a word out as a vice president of the TCPA. When planners come up with very good ideas about how we should be able to reach good facilities easily and in a carbon-neutral way, and when we encourage people to rebuild the communities of the past in new ways—as people would aspire to do in villages if, as we discussed last Monday, they were not being taken over by holiday homes—we have to be very careful in the language we use, because there are people on the internet who believe that the best intentions of many people are somehow a conspiracy. We live in a crazy world; we need to get it right.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I am glad that today we have the opportunity to consider the health and well-being dimensions of planning. It is my view that development planning cannot be truly successful if it does not also enhance health and well-being. I speak first in favour of Amendment 188 and Amendments 394 to 399 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The right reverend Prelates the Lord Bishop of London, the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford, the Lord Bishop of Manchester and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, who have previously spoken on these issues, regret they cannot be in their place today. However, I have no doubt they would want to give their support to these amendments were they in the Chamber.
I am sure noble Lords will recall stories of what can happen when living conditions deteriorate. Awaab Ishak’s death in December 2020 from a respiratory condition caused by “extensive mould” was an incredibly tragic story, as was that of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s death, partly caused by toxic air near where she lived. It is welcome that the Government are working to deliver Awaab’s Law through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and that Ella’s Law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, continues its journey through Parliament in the other place.
Today, we have the opportunity to put health and well-being at the heart of regulating our built environment: an essential step to preventing such awful outcomes and instead facilitating the flourishing of individuals and communities. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, set out the healthy homes principles for new housing stock. Those 11 principles range from safety
“in relation to the risk of fire”
to
“year-round thermal comfort”
and more. Surely these are planning standards that we all can agree are good to uphold.
Not only that but, as we have heard, these principles would significantly benefit the public purse. Research by the Building Research Establishment found that 2.6 million homes in England—roughly 11% of them—were of poor quality and hazardous to their occupants. As a result, those poor-quality homes cost the NHS, as we have heard, up to £1.4 billion every year. My view echoes that of the Archbishops’ housing commission that
“good housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying”.
Such housing would significantly reduce the strain placed on the NHS. I believe these amendments to be a valuable addition to this Bill.
The Government have acknowledged that housing and health are key to the levelling-up agenda. However, the Bill as it stands contains no clear provisions that achieve that objective. I echo the challenge to the assertion made by the Minister’s all-Peers letter of 27 January that the healthy homes provisions are being dealt with by existing laws or alternative policy. While the NPPF and national technical housing standards cover some elements of issues addressed by these principles, these are not mandatory legal duties for local decision makers, and nor is there an overall statutory duty on the Secretary of State to uphold the healthy homes principles. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept these amendments.
Amendment 241, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, would also be an invaluable addition to the Bill. Its introduction of a new statutory duty to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being would also help the Government to address poor health, described in their own levelling up White Paper, as we have heard, as
“One of the gravest inequalities faced by our most disadvantaged communities”.
By requiring local authorities to include policies that meet this objective in their local development plans, his amendment will help to transform our built environments into spaces that help create good health and well-being, and, as such, reduce health inequalities.
As pointed out by the Better Planning Coalition, this proposed new clause is a necessary addition given that pre-existing documents and provisions have not been sufficient to stop the growing health inequalities in recent years. I refer to research by Professor Sir Michael Marmot of the Institute of Health Equity, which found that the health gap between wealthy and deprived areas grew between 2010 and 2020. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider this amendment.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and the fact that I have a family member currently working in the energy efficiency space. I added my name to Amendment 484, which was so comprehensively explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It concerns an important and underrecognised area in terms of climate change and the reduction of emissions. I hope that the Minister will take it very seriously.
I have tabled Amendment 504GF in this group, which deals with the urgent need to make progress in energy efficiency through a warmer homes and businesses action plan. The contributions already made today show clearly the synergy between the amendments on healthy homes and my amendment on energy efficiency. The health of those who live in the UK’s housing stock which is damp, cold or leaky, and worse than the housing stock in most of Europe, is impacted day in and day out by the conditions in which they live. We should all be concerned about this, but it is not only the health of those of our fellow citizens that would be addressed by taking action on energy efficiency, such as insulation or new forms of heating.
Investing in insulation and decarbonisation has many other benefits for individuals and society. It reduces costs not only for bill payers but for the taxpayer, who is currently spending vast sums subsidising energy bills through the energy price guarantee. It helps to reduce greenhouse gases and improve our air quality. It contributes to our net-zero target and, in an increasingly unstable world, electrifying the heat in our homes and making them energy efficient has become an issue of national security as well. Yet we appear as a nation to be in a position of stasis on energy efficiency.
Short-term scheme after short-term scheme underdelivers, damaging confidence that the wider task can be achieved. Scandalously, hundreds of thousands of homes are being built every year which will require future retrofitting because we did not implement the standards early enough. We have our most vulnerable citizens living in fuel poverty in cold and leaky homes. We have an industry largely waiting for confirmation from the Government before they get on with what will be a huge job of scaling up the market and developing the skills we need. Insulating, retrofitting and installing low-carbon technology all play a significant role, but so too do the planning system, funding and government leadership. We need to make the progress that will bring with it good jobs, economic security and benefits in reducing our carbon emissions.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has put before the Committee a powerful programme, which is actually a renewal programme for our country and for every community and household within it. He set out a compelling case for doing so, obviously based on a lot of campaigning skill and professional skill as well. Other noble Lords have added a lot of detail about the benefits that would come.
I have put my name to seven of the amendments. I do not plan to say everything that has already been said. However, I will pick up one or two points that have already arisen. First, we can anticipate that the Minister is going to say, “Don’t worry, it is all fixed. Everything is already included”. I say to the Minister that our confidence in that would certainly be improved if we did not have a record of permitted development rights which have put into play not just a few but tens of thousands of homes that are deliberately below the standards mandated for and expected of all other new homes. The Government apparently support the Healthy Homes Bill in principle, but you have to get past the principle. All the work has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It is all here. All the Minister needs to say is, “That’s fine, we will accept the amendments”.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby spoke about the impact on health in communities. I would add life expectancy in communities. There is a very significant connection between well-being and life expectancy and the number of healthy years that people can expect to live. It is surely the essence of the levelling-up agenda that those discrepancies and disparities are put right. I hope to hear some favourable words from the Minister, particularly as it is the next big step needed at a time when the traditional reliance on economic growth as the sole measurement of a country’s strength and resilience is losing traction.
It is losing traction not just with pale green fringe operators such as me but with tens of thousands of ordinary households around the country, which have seen all the economic growth bypass them completely. They have seen a standstill in their living standards, with little hope of progression. Building their resilience and well-being, leading to community growth, is the way ahead. It is, surely, a direction of travel that the Minister can accept. Almost by definition, the biggest losers of the mirage of growth of the last decade are those most in need of levelling up, which this Bill is supposed to be delivering. I urge the Government to listen to this debate with great care and convey to their colleagues in Whitehall the urgency of responding in a positive way to all that they hear today on this pivotal issue.
I have also put my name to Amendment 484 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The noble Lord made a compelling case for improving our 23 million homes and all other buildings in England to support the health and well-being of those who live in them and to make them carbon-neutral. If I had spotted it in time, I would have certainly added my name to Amendment 504GF in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I agree with every word she used.
I remind noble Lords that I am an honorary fellow of the ICE and an honorary president of the National Home Improvement Council. I also lay claim to steering through the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 in the other place, which set in train the subsequent uplifting of building standards on energy performance. However, that does not give me any grounds for complacency.
As the noble Baroness said in introducing her amendment, we have been building homes to a lower standard in energy-efficiency terms than we needed to, because in 2016 the new Conservative Government scrapped the move to zero-carbon standards which the coalition Government had signed off. We have built, pretty slowly and with lots of hiccups, 1 million new homes since then to lower standards than would have been the case if those proposals had come into force in 2016. That means that those 1 million homes themselves will have to be upgraded before we get to the standard required by 2050.
Of course, I have already mentioned the rush of converted homes under permitted development rights. It is not just energy performance that is bad but even basics such as daylighting may be missing in their case. The Town and Country Planning Association drew attention to that in its brief. Again, I have been pre-empted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby quoting the Building Research Establishment figures of the millions of people living in unhealthy homes with hazardous conditions far away from the well-being that should be the case—all of whom would be beneficiaries of a fresh start with a healthy homes policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out that the existing regulations are not tough enough even to capture all operational carbon emissions, which are responsible for about 30% of our carbon emissions. It is not a small slice, but he is also right in saying that the slice is declining because slowly we are decarbonising the way that we run our homes. However, the still provisional date of 2025 to finally catch up with the standards that were going to come in 2016 means that every lost year is adding more poor-quality housing stock and building in costs for the future.
Amendment 484 aims higher and goes further in requiring the Secretary of State to get cracking on the regulations to measure and limit the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has laid out very clearly what that is and how it can be achieved. This is not a wild swing at an impossible task; it is based on serious and important work by those who have been developing the Part Z initiative to be a new part of the building regulations. It has, as he said, the backing of the industry as well as many others. I hope again that we can hear the Minister say that there will not be any more dilly-dallying in the department, that it is moving forward to see what its version of Part Z would be and will be bringing it to us in the form of regulations very shortly. Just for once I will not make my traditional complaint about too many regulations. This is one that is needed, and it is needed very quickly.
That is a practical first step to cutting carbon emissions from our built environment. It opens the way to thinking in new ways about how to use and reuse existing buildings—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Best, also made. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and I look forward to hearing that he is going to take back to the department and to his officials that the route to zero carbon needs to be taken seriously and that the need to level up by adopting the healthy homes standards set out in these amendments should be followed through. If, in response to all of this, the answer is no and the intention to act is “not at all”, Ministers can expect to hear more about all these issues on Report.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 241 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I support the various amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has tabled on healthy homes, and other amendments in this group.
I start by taking my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who said, rightly, that we need to be open and explicit in what we are asking for. That is quite a straightforward challenge. I suspect that most people in this country want to live in congenial and liveable neighbourhoods where kids can walk to school, where there is somewhere to play outdoors in the holidays, where older folks can pop along to a local shop, perhaps bumping into a neighbour along the way; neighbourhoods in which we design out pollution, obesity and crime. All of that is the art of the possible. Not doing so, even though in the short term it may appear that it will be more costly to get it right, has hidden long-term costs for the taxpayer, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned—whether that is obesity, pollution or crime. The fact is that these decisions, when they are made in the built environment, have consequences which last for a generation. Bad decisions have consequences which spill over for many years to come.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but am also attracted to others in this group. I note what the noble Baroness said about the synergy of the amendments in this group, which relate to health, housing and energy efficiency, and I think that is quite true. I declare my interests as set out in the register and note that I am also a member of Peers for the Planet.
The amendment in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is not overly prescriptive. It simply requires the Government to set out details of how buildings can be decarbonised and become more energy efficient. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has set out, this can be achieved in a variety of ways. It is for the Government to set out the precise trajectory, but it is important that that trajectory is set.
Your Lordships have debated similar amendments to other Bills, as the noble Baroness has said. There might be an element of Groundhog Day, certainly for the Minister; but I think there is an element of Groundhog Day for the rest of us as well, because it is normally met with the cry of either “It is already being done”—which I think is open to question—or “It does not need to be done”, which is certainly open to question. I hope, therefore, that we can, ahead of Report, agree some constructive moves on how we can improve some of the oldest housing stock in Europe; the need to update and enhance that housing stock is very clear.
The benefits of fixing the old and leaking properties are not limited to simply helping people with their bills, although it will of course do that. It is not simply a question of creating more jobs in the green economy, although it would do that too. It is also, in an increasingly unstable world, with geopolitical complexities that we see every day, important that we modify our buildings, that they become more energy efficient and that we are able to be more energy self-sufficient. Also, as has been noted by the noble Baroness, we are looking at this in terms of pressure on public resources. This will enable the Government and the country to spend less on subsidising people’s energy bills if those bills come down. So it is a win-win in just about every situation.
Homes with good insulation, a heat pump and solar panels will pay 60% of the average UK energy bill. That is a considerable achievement and something that we should be looking to do. We need progress in the area. The Government should demonstrate leadership in this area at a time when we have seen leadership fail elsewhere, notably in the United States when President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris climate change agreement. That now has been rectified by the current President, but there is every need for action internationally on climate change. There is a pressing imperative for us to do more. So I hope the Government will accept this amendment—certainly the spirit of this amendment—and sit down and discuss how we can achieve things, not just on this amendment but on others in this group. I lend my support to the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I particularly want to speak to Amendments 241 and 504GF, which essentially seek to embrace the planning system within wider health and well-being and health-inequality policies. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to be positive in his response.
I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, rather took me back when he mentioned Herbert Manzoni, who was city engineer in Birmingham from 1935 to 1963.When I became a councillor in Birmingham in 1980, I was reliably informed in the induction programme that the Manzoni plans were kept in the safe in the city engineer’s office, and that policy on roads in the city continued to be dictated not by the political control of the city council but by what Manzoni had drawn in his plans.
I have seen academic arguments that suggest that, by the late 1970s, the city had started to change; but I think it was actually in the 1990s when the proposals to bypass Kings Heath/Moseley with a huge dual carriageway, along the lines of the Aston Expressway, were defeated by a group of people, including my wife Selina Stewart, called Birmingham United Against the Motorway Plans. When the noble Lord described the kind of neighbourhood that he thought we would all want to live in, he was, of course, describing Kings Heath as is, as a result of that campaign. Later in the year, of course, we will see the reopening of Kings Heath railway station, which will be the pièce de resistance of the wonderful community that I live in, in the most beautiful city in this country.
I want to make three points just to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said. We know that the scale of health inequalities in this country is frighteningly large. The work produced by Oxford University and the London School of Tropical Medicine last week showed that, in 1952, the UK had one of the best life-expectancy records of any country. We have now slipped down to the low 20s, and the widening gap between the poorest and the richest people is really quite frightening and extraordinary. In the context of a levelling-up Bill, surely we have to focus on it.
Secondly, we know that local authorities have long had a tradition of seeking to improve public health. Prior to 1974, they were the principal public health bodies; from 2012, they resumed that position. During Covid, the directors of public health in particular showed their mettle when they had to take some very tough decisions at the local level.
Various mechanisms enable local authorities to influence health: health and well-being boards and, under the new arrangements of the integrated care system, integrated care partnerships. Those are all designed to give local government more say in the direction of health and, by definition, in dealing with health inequalities. The issue is whether they have enough beef: do they have the levers to make their potential influence felt? We obviously know their role in planning, air quality, the environment, leisure and various other facets. We know that they can have a really important role for health, but so far that influence has been patchy. We are seeking here to put some levers in place to use the planning system to enhance the promotion of good public health and tackling health inequalities.
There will be discussions between now and Report because it is clear that warmer homes comes within that wider context. In the end, I hope the House can assert itself to ensure that, within the planning system and guidance, a reflection on the need for planning to contribute to overall health will be part of local authorities’ responsibilities in the future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in the group and will speak briefly in favour of Amendments 188 and 241, on reducing health inequalities and improving well-being. These excellent amendments pick up the theme of Amendment 28, ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and to which I added my name. All of these amendments emphasise the importance of walkable neighbourhoods and safe walking and cycling routes in nature to improve health and well-being, which is one of the themes of this debate.
I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, which is collaborating with local health providers and volunteers to encourage not only disadvantaged groups but individuals with specific health challenges to make better use of the downs.
There is an increasing body of evidence to show that access to nature and green spaces has a positive impact on health and well-being outcomes. It can help to address a range of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety and loneliness. The Government themselves have accepted the health benefits of access to nature in pursuing the idea of social prescribing pilots, which also have the benefit of cutting back on expensive and often ineffective drug prescriptions. The NHS has supported social prescribing being rolled out on a local basis, but this can work only if there are the facilities and infrastructure to expand access to nature and walking therapies. These amendments would enable joined-up government policies, in a way that is all too often lacking. That would require local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of 20-minute neighbourhoods and access to nature.
This is not just an issue of health outcomes; it is also fundamental for inequalities. In her earlier contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, quoted a Public Health England report which says that
“the most affluent 20% of wards in England have five times the amount of parks or general green space compared with the most deprived 10% of wards”.
We know that those living in the poorest and most nature-depleted areas also suffer the impact of premature death and illness from air pollution.
There is an urgent need to rescue abandoned and neglected community areas to recreate green space and plant more trees. There is also a need to create green pathways and networks that can lead out to larger areas of green parks and waterways. We should encourage communities’ rights to reclaim unused and derelict land for microparks and growing spaces to feed their neighbourhoods. This should be built into the planning system in the way that these amendments require, and I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to support them. If the Government do not feel able to provide that support today, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Young, will return to this on Report.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I feel compelled to say, “Hear, hear”, every time a noble Lord gets up to speak on this. As a chartered surveyor, I am, in effect, a witness of evidence to the fact here, having spent a very large part of my career looking at and advising on older buildings, defective modern buildings and everything in between. I support all the amendments in this group, which are at the heart of what we know needs to be delivered by way of appropriate housing standards. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his untiring efforts on the healthy homes standard; he deserves all of our appreciation for that.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, there appears to be a clear consensus across your Lordships’ House that we need to improve the mental and physical health and overall well-being of citizens, and that we can do that, in part, by improving the area around where people live and the homes in which they live.
Amendment 241, to which I have added my name, and which was powerfully introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, deals with the issue of the area around people’s homes and how it could be improved. A very good example of that is access to nature, and it is worth remembering that the Environment Secretary, Thérèse Coffey, very recently said:
“Nature is vital for our survival, crucial to our food security, clean air, and clean water as well as health and well-being”.
So access to nature is important for health and well-being purposes, as well as the other things that she mentioned.
When I was a Minister in what was then the Department for Communities and Local Government, I had a responsibility, for a while, for green spaces, and I had an opportunity to see some tremendous work being done by some planners. However, I was very acutely aware of the enormous pressures that they were under to achieve further access to green spaces. They faced huge conflicts, where many other issues often took priority over access to green spaces, and therefore priority over citizens’ health.
As part of the Government’s recently announced plans for nature recovery—which, in part, we were discussing in relation to earlier amendments—the House will know that the Government have set a target to ensure that everyone will live within 15 minutes of a green space or water, but, unfortunately, there is very little detail expressing how that will be achieved. So one of the benefits of Amendment 241, it seems to me, is that it will help the Government achieve that particular objective. However, as others have said, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, this is about more than just access to green spaces: it is about access to amenities and being able to get to them easily by walking, wheeling or cycling, which are all forms of exercise that improve health.
It is worth noting that in 2021 Sustrans carried out a survey that found that walking, wheeling and cycling together prevented almost 130,000 serious long-term health conditions every year. Yet we are still building developments that are far from existing settlements, and where you cannot even buy a pint—perhaps I should say a litre these days—of milk, or at least you will not be able to until a later phase of development. So people have to resort to using their cars or, where it is available, public transport, thereby again reducing exercise opportunities.
Planning departments can play a role in enabling people to exercise as part of their everyday lives, but they need help. We know from the Sustrans survey that 64% of planners who responded called for “robust … guidance or regulation” to help them prioritise health and well-being. I believe that this amendment—which is based, as we have heard, on the 20-minute neighbourhood approach—would help achieve that, while also providing the flexibility that planners need because they know their area best.
As we have heard, subsequent amendments in the group look at ways in which we can improve the housing in which people live in order to improve their overall well-being. Like others, I pay enormous tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for the work he has done leading so many of us in the direction he has taken us with his string of amendments, which I very much hope will be incorporated, in some form, in the final version of the Bill.
I will pick up on one aspect that is not covered by his amendments, but is covered by Amendment 504GF, which was very well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and to which I have added my name. It does not deal with new homes being built but looks at existing properties and how they could be improved to help the health and well-being of their residents and to achieve our net-zero target.
One of the reasons I am particularly attracted to this amendment—there are many others—is that it introduces into legislation targets for improving the energy efficiency of existing properties. As the Minister knows, this is an issue that I have raised on very many occasions in your Lordships’ House. I am always pointing out that there are 17 million homes that are currently below the acceptable energy efficiency level. In one of my many attempts to do this, I referred three years ago to the report by the Climate Change Committee, UK Housing: Fit for the Future?, which assessed the preparedness of our housing stock for the challenge of climate change. It concluded that the measures to reduce
“emissions … from the UK’s 29 million homes”—
responsible for 17% of all carbon emissions—had
“stalled, while energy use in homes”
had increased, and adaptations of housing stock to meet the impact of climate change were
“lagging far behind what is needed to keep us safe and comfortable”.
Three years on, the CCC’s most recent report shows that the situation is still dire. The decline in work to retrofit existing properties has hardly been halted. It says:
“Installation rates for building insulation have plummeted over the last decade, and are far below the level they need to be”
to deliver on UK climate targets.
Of course, as I have said in your Lordships’ House on previous occasions, I welcome a number of recent initiatives by this Government—ECO+, for example, and the announcement only three days ago of £1.4 billion to improve energy efficiency in social housing, although it is from a pot that was previously announced—and I look forward to hearing plans from the newly established Energy Efficiency Taskforce.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I hope the Lords spiritual will forgive me for borrowing from their script, but I feel like I am in green heaven, because everything I have just been hearing from all sides of the Committee is what I and the Green Party have been banging on about for the last decade and, indeed, much longer. I was looking back at an interview I did with Red Pepper just after I was elected as Green leader in 2012, talking about how people were being left in cold homes, mourning something that has not been mentioned tonight but that we really should talk about: the hideous level of the UK’s excess winter deaths. That picks up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the way our society is going backwards in life expectancy, particularly healthy life expectancy.
Green policy for decades has said that environmental and social justice are indivisible. By environment, we mean the physical built environment as well as the natural environment. So you will not find any Green names on any of these amendments, because we did not need to be there. Nearly all these amendments have full cross-party backing, including from the Conservative Party, and non-party backing—and I join many others in applauding the huge amount of work done by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the issue of buildings. All this fits together. In Oral Questions earlier today, in a debate about diets, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that it is not just about diets; it is also about exercise. Well, how about we have homes built with active transport in mind; how about we have walking paths, cycling paths and safe ways to get around?
The noble Lord just referred to access to nature and a children’s right to nature. How about we write that into law and say that every child has that right? The proposals in this amendment point us in that direction and put them, crucially, into the Bill. I am not going to repeat everything that has been said, because so much has been said. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, picked up something I have long been banging on about, and that is security by design. Rather than talking about bobbies on the beat, rather than trying to deal with the problem we have already created, let us build out the problem of neighbourhoods that work for people and that are secure.
I am going to really restrain myself here, because I could just get so excited hearing so many things that I agree with from every side of the Committee, but I will not: I am going to do the classic Green thing and point out some hard truths. One of these is that, while I said this was green heaven, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, put some silver sprinkles on that heaven by bringing up growth. We have had growth for decades; we have chased GDP growth and look where it has got us. Look at the actual fabric of our society, the utter ill health, mental and physical, of our society. I say to both of the largest parties, who are currently waging a political duel about who can offer more growth: let us talk about the healthy society that the amendments here would collectively put together in the Bill.
The other awkward truth is what is behind all this. Who is building these homes that immediately need to be retrofitted to be even basically liveable and healthy? Who is building these homes in places where there is no public transport and no provision for active transport? We have a handful of mass housebuilders who are driven by profit. It is the legal responsibility of the directors to maximise profit, which is why we need these amendments to the Bill. All parts of our society need to see that there are controls on the profit motive, so our society works for people and planet and does not keep being milked for profit at the cost of the rest of us.
We have to have these controls and rules, and these rules have to come from government, and from Parliament if they are not going to come directly from government. I would say that your Lordships’ House has a huge opportunity with this Bill, and not just this Bill: tomorrow, we will be on the Energy Bill; and how about Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, who has a big drive on for solar panels on every suitable new home? Why on earth not? We need to join all this up and make it happen: this is our responsibility to the people of today for the climate, and our responsibility to the people of the future.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have been listening to an excellent debate, and I just want to say one thing that relates to Amendment 484 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others. I just hope that, when my noble friend is responding or takes some of these very important points away, he responds not simply to the question of what is required in Building Regulations but what is achievable in terms of the sustainable framework for buildings. I declare a registered interest as counsel to Low Associates, which, between 2018 and 2020 was working with the European Commission on Level(s), which is a European Commission sustainable framework for buildings.
Such certification schemes exist. In this country, we have the Building Research Establishment’s environmental assessment method; the Americans have Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; in France, they have gone further and legislated in RE 2020. The point I want to make is that, yes, we should focus on what is needed in order to secure an assessment of whole life-cycle carbon emissions in a building, but actually that is not enough, in my view. We should be increasingly looking at greenhouse gas emissions in total, at a circular economy and the reuse and recycling of materials, including in the demolition of buildings or the repurposing of buildings. We should be looking at water use and water resources. And we can put these, as many organisations increasingly do in certification schemes, in formats that are also very relevant to the performance assessment, including the cost assessment, of buildings, for those who have to invest in buildings, and indeed, in the public sector for those whose job it is to procure buildings.
We have structures that are available. We can see both voluntary schemes and—in the case of France and one or two others—legislative schemes that can focus on the broader environmental, health-related and social objectives of our buildings. These schemes recognise that, across Europe, 36% of greenhouse gas emissions are derived from our building stock. We have to deal with this; it is a central part of our environmental objectives. I hope Ministers are looking at both the statutory minimum requirements and a certification process that encourages the whole industry to move to a higher level of performance.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, yesterday I had the privilege of walking along a body of water called Frenchman’s Creek, which—some noble Lords may know—was made famous by the novel of Daphne du Maurier. I was walking through what is one of the remains of the UK’s temperate rainforest. I was in a green space, and I was next to a blue space, which fed out into the Helford River, which went out into the channel. You could see the ocean beyond that. That is why I support Amendment 241, in particular. This amendment is all about giving everybody access to those green and blue spaces, which is a privilege I have, living in the far south-west of this nation. I was walking, but I might have been running or cycling, although I do not think I would have been wheeling. All those types of exercise are absolutely vital to everybody.
To me, the theme of this debate has been that if we really want to level up, as my noble friend Lord Stunell mentioned, health and life expectancy are fundamental to that. That is why I support Amendment 241 and many others here as well. I hope that the Government will be able to positively respond to that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very important discussion—a very long discussion—with an awful lot for the Minister to consider, both in his summing up and afterwards. It has been important because it is about how our planning system affects our health. It has also brought some specific tangible changes which could be prioritised to make a difference, and which are currently ignored in the Bill and in the National Planning Policy Framework review. This is despite the fact that there are not just missions on decent homes but missions on narrowing the gap of healthy life expectancy and on improving well-being. If this is a levelling-up Bill, these threads need to go through it. The planning section is an important area whereby we can make changes to health and well-being. I think the link to planning is particularly relevant when you look at homes, home standards and the standards of our future homes. The amendments here address these gaps. If we are genuinely going to make a difference here, we have to put people right at the centre of our planning system.
First, I will look at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I have an amendment in this group to probe the supply of healthy homes, but the debate around the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, have clearly covered what my amendment was looking to probe, in a far more effective way. As has already been said, we need to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on his tenacity and refusal to give up on the fact that people’s health and well-being need to be put right at the heart of how we regulate the built environment. We should also congratulate the Town and Country Planning Association and its campaign to do the same. This is a very important issue.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the owner of let residential property. As we have heard, all the amendments in this group draw attention in their different ways to the healthy homes agenda, whether relating to the health of the population or that of the planet, as regards both planning policy and the physical delivery of new homes. There is a lot to cover, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if my response is fairly lengthy.
I begin by paying tribute, as other noble Lords have, to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for the assiduous work he has done in championing the healthy homes agenda—including through his Private Member’s Bill, which is currently proceeding through your Lordships’ House. Amendments 188 and 395 to 399, which articulate the key principles for healthy homes and are supported by Amendments 241 and 281D in this group, transport us back to the Second Reading debate of that Bill, which took place last July. Members of the Committee will recall from that debate that what separated the noble Lord’s position from that of the Government was not any issue of principle around the desirability of healthy homes. Where we had to part company with him—and, I am afraid, must continue to do so—was on the extent to which new legislation should duplicate legal provisions already in place, and, to the extent that it does not duplicate it, how much more prescriptive the law should be about the way in which new housing is planned for and designed.
Healthy homes and neighbourhoods are important for our communities, and it is because of this that our existing laws, systems, planning policy and design guidance all focus on achieving that objective. Indeed, the whole purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. That is why the National Planning Policy Framework already contains very clear policy on sustainable development. It includes good design; how to plan for sustainable modes of transport, including walking and cycling; an integrated approach to the location of housing; economic uses; and the requirement for community services and facilities. It recognises the importance of open space and green infrastructure for health, well-being and recreation, and it contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places.
One part of achieving sustainable development is ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. Local planning authorities should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places and make sufficient provision for housing. The framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes, while at the same time ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.
The framework sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future. It should help to shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience, encourage the reuse of existing resources and support renewable and low-carbon energy. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I really appreciate the detail that the Minister is going into but would he concede that these initiatives are all by way of announcements rather than actual programmes for action? Every week, I hear from people who work in the industry about their uncertainty over the actual programme that the Government have and the strength of belief that they should put into the assurances issued because there have been so many false dawns. I do not want to rejoin the debate completely but I urge the Minister not just to read out a catalogue of initiatives and press releases but to tell us some hard news about progress planned and delivered.
Earl Howe (Con)
I have already spoken for rather a long time. If I can add some further detail to what I have already said, I think it would be appropriate for me to write to noble Lords about that. I hope and believe that the Committee will welcome the announcements that the Government have made and the direction of travel that we have set. We could be criticised if we had not announced such a direction of travel because there is no disagreement in principle between any of us as to how important this agenda is.
On the goal that I have set out—the phasing out of fossil fuel boilers and the scaling up of heat pump deployment—we are currently taking steps towards decarbonising heat, including through the £450 million boiler upgrade scheme and a new market mechanism in the heating appliance market, along with heat network trials zoning. The Government are already working with industry and local authorities to develop new heat networks and improve existing ones, investing more than £500 million in funds and programmes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that real money is being put behind these programmes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I want to make one point on the quality of building, in particular the safety of new-build homes. In 2021, the average new-build property had 157 defects, up 96% from 2005. Would the Minister care to tell me when he thinks we might get back to the defect levels of 2005 and how the Government will achieve that?
Earl Howe (Con)
I would love to tell the noble Baroness how that is to be done. I will consult my officials and do my best to do so.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, there have been many tremendous debates in your Lordships’ Chamber, and this has certainly been one of them. I am very grateful to everyone who spoke in support of the amendments that I and other noble Lords tabled. I am also grateful for the personal comments that noble Lords have made, and I will pass those straight on to the TCPA, which actually did the work behind the scenes on this entire campaign.
I was thinking of how to sum this up without going through everything. If the Government will forgive me, in today’s debate were the makings of a very decent levelling up Bill. If we could bring these things together, it would have ambition and vision, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others, talked about. It would also be strategic and systemic; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a point about the environmental and energy issues being deeply integrated with health and well-being. We need to see some systemic change if we are to make the differences that we are talking about. There are also practical things that can be done here—people have talked about levers and specifics. They are also guided by experience. I was very heartened to hear very experienced Members from different backgrounds, including noble Lords who understand these issues because they meet them in their professional lives. So, such a Bill would have a lot of important ingredients and a broadly shared vision.
I was struck by another thing, which planners will be pleased about. Planning is often seen as a negative, but all noble Lords described it as something that could enable the creation of the flourishing individuals, society and communities that we all want.
I will not take up any more time, except to respond to the noble Earl’s response. At Second Reading of the Healthy Homes Bill, I got a very similar response from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. My response was that:
“I was not necessarily surprised and therefore not necessarily disappointed”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1706.]
I am not surprised, but I would like to think that there is some route for discussion. The big difference here is between guidance and what is required. In my comments, I have been trying to hammer in that we need to build houses that are fit for purpose. We also need to return to the health and well-being issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and by me. I would be very happy to meet the Government if it were useful to discuss these things further. Maybe there is some useful discussion to be had around the NPPF. I am not sure whether there will be but, if not, I expect us to debate this again in this Chamber sometime after the Coronation—I am not quite sure when. I suspect that we may also be debating health and well-being.
I finish by returning to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who was kindly encouraging me to negotiate. I will look to him for advice on how best to do that, but I cannot resist replying to his very first comment, which noble Lords may remember—two hours and 17 minutes ago or whenever it was—that, as “Young and Crisp”, we sound like a supermarket selling lettuces. It reminded me of another Member—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—making a similar comment a few years ago. In a debate on Africa, he said something similar about sandwiches and crisps. I can only say that I am extremely fortunate in my business partners.
On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendments 196A, 197 and 197A relate to implications from clauses in the Bill that impact specifically on London. The devolution proposals are, perhaps understandably, focused on areas outside London, with an emphasis on mayoral authorities, and do not always recognise the unique governance arrangements within London. London councils continue to make the case for further devolution to London and that boroughs should have a central role in this alongside the mayor.
Amendment 196A would clarify the ambiguity in the current wording of the Bill regarding the spatial development strategy for the development and use of land in Greater London. Policies that the mayor considers to be of strategic importance are included in that statement.
Amendment 197 would ensure that there are no unintended consequences of precluding policies that may apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London uniquely.
Amendment 197A refers again to an issue that we discussed extensively last week. We were very clean to clarify it, but I am not sure we did to any great extent. It would remove the words that specifically preclude any clause from the NDMP being put into the spatial development strategy. In the case of London, as elsewhere, the Bill is saying that the strategy must neither be inconsistent with nor repeat anything in the NDMP. Surely all development plans will necessarily set out how they are using the NDMP and adapting it for their local context. In some cases, this may mean repeating what is in the NDMP.
My next amendment in this group, Amendment 199, would remove the restriction in Schedule 7 that a combined authority may not prepare a joint spatial development strategy. Combined authorities set up under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 may have established working arrangements that could well be used to work constructively towards developing joint spatial development strategies. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view about why they should be explicitly excluded from doing so in this clause.
I am interested to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to her Amendments 198A and 198B, but to confer powers to develop spatial development strategies on county councils would be yet another major change to the current planning system. Combined authorities will already have authorities within them that have planning powers. County councils, as the system stands, have powers only over mineral and waste plans. Is it the noble Baroness’s intention that we should also have this major restructuring of the planning system in two-tier areas?
Amendment 200 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would include a permissive clause to enable the joint spatial strategy to include strategic employment sites. This goes over and above the more general provision in Schedule 7 for new Section 15AA(2)(c), which is a general power to promote or improve economic well-being in the area. This seems a very sensible inclusion for the Bill.
Similarly, my noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 200A is a permissive amendment to Schedule 7 to allow the inclusion of specific sites for health and social care purposes—including, importantly, palliative care services—in joint spatial strategies.
The amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, point to the need for those preparing joint spatial strategies to identify sites for vital infrastructure needed to support development at an early stage in strategic planning. This helps communities that are engaged in considering developments to be reassured that the infrastructure has been considered in detail and gives certainty, in the case of employment sites, to investors, and, in the case of health and social care sites, to both public and private providers, that their needs are being fully considered.
Amendments 202 to 204, my next three in this group, refer to the sub-paragraphs in Schedule 7 on consultation and engagement with all those who may have an interest in the plan. Amendment 202 is designed as a catch-all to ensure that all community groups are considered. The current provision refers to voluntary bodies; groups representing racial, ethnic or national groups or religious groups; and business organisations. Every area is different and has its own network of community organisations, so this would make sure that every relevant group is included.
Amendment 203 is very important. It removes the inexplicable sub-paragraph in the Bill that states:
“No person is to have a right to be heard at an examination in public.”
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 contains specific provisions relating to when representations may be disregarded, but it seems a singularly swingeing provision for the Bill to suggest that no one has a right to be heard. I suspect that the intention is that the emphasis is on “right” rather than “no one”, but, at a time when we are trying to encourage more engagement of the public in planning and democracy generally, the wording here is particularly off-putting.
One of the huge issues that councils face is that the public often do not engage with the planning process at all until an application that immediately affects them is submitted. We should be encouraging more public engagement at a time when, for example, sites and land uses are being designated, so that the public feel that they have been able to contribute their local knowledge and views. I have another amendment in a later group on this. Will the Minister reflect on this wording?
People should absolutely have a right to be heard at an examination in public. For that reason, we have included Amendment 204, which adds an additional subsection to proposed new Clause 15AC, after proposed new subsection (7). At the moment, it states that only
“participating authorities, and … any person invited to do so by the person conducting the examination in public”
may attend. We believe that this should be amended so that people who have made representations to the inquiry in public and wish to attend should be able to. We appreciate that consideration may have to be given so that the examiner can decide not to hear representations, for example where they are not legitimate planning matters or are vexatious. In those cases, the individual should be informed of the reasons why they are not invited to appear.
Amendment 205, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, sets out a new provision in the Bill to ensure that all relevant authorities in a travel to work area of a joint spatial development strategy are engaged in the preparation of the strategy. It has been a feature of planning in recent years that, increasingly, travel to work areas are a key consideration of the planning process. Indeed, as far back as 2014, in a letter addressed to the Planning Inspectorate, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis, urged that local plans take account of travel to work areas for their strategic housing market assessments. As borders between authorities become more fluid due to their economic profile, housing markets, transport and infrastructure; because the factors associated with climate change mitigation cannot operate within tight boundaries; and because of the strategic nature of joint spatial strategy preparation, it makes sense to us to incorporate this provision, which we would support.
In a similar vein, for the reasons that I have just explained, my Amendment 206 writes into the Bill a duty to co-operate where there is no joint spatial development strategy in place. In effect, most areas are already undertaking such joint planning exercises, and it would be unusual for a planning inspector or public inquiry not to look at this in some depth. It seems sensible to ensure that this is now enshrined in the Bill to give it the necessary foundation in law, and certainty to local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 200 and 205 which are tabled in my name. I will also talk about one or two other amendments in this group, which were very helpfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who set out not only the purposes of her amendments but gave a very straightforward description of all the other amendments. I am most grateful for that.
As noble Lords will have heard, Amendment 200 would enable a joint spatial development strategy to
“specify or describe employment sites the provision of which the participating authorities consider to be of strategic importance to the joint strategy area”.
The reason for this is that at this point in Schedule 7 there is reference to infrastructure that is relevant to the joint strategy area as a whole, not just to one participating authority. There is then a reference to affordable housing. I am not quite sure where that came from, since it is not obviously the case that affordable housing necessarily has implications of strategic importance beyond the participating authority in which the affordable housing is to be provided, but leave that on one side.
If one is to identify and specify in this part of Schedule 7, which is about making a spatial development strategy and looking at what is of strategic importance, it seems fairly obvious that employment sites—which, by their nature, will be the large employment sites—absolutely give rise to a need for them to be identified in a joint spatial development strategy. That links directly to the question of infrastructure and, in due course, to housing need. The infrastructure point is where the SDS really comes from. The SDS is about enabling that strategic planning to be achieved.
On a later group I will reiterate a broad point, which I will return to on a number of occasions in our debates, which is that, if we do nothing else, I hope we can identify and move towards opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated, not just land use planning but transport planning, utilities planning, power supply and water supply. These all need to be properly integrated to have the best overall effect.
How is this to be achieved? I should remind noble Lords again that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum; that is a registered interest of mine. Back at the beginning of the year, we had a very good presentation by Graham Pointer from WSP, who worked on the integrated planning processes in New South Wales. The essence of it was very straightforward: integrated planning of land use, transport, power, water and the environment and ensuring that these plans were then able to be funded together. We are not going to get into the funding mechanisms, but we can certainly ensure that there are integrated plans, ideally on integrated timetables.
One would imagine that this is very straightforward and it should be possible to make it happen. It almost never happens in the places I go to. There are constantly different tiers of administration in local areas that are conducting different aspects of planning at different times and with different parameters. We really need to try to integrate planning. If my noble friends on the Front Bench can push that forward, using spatial development strategies, that would be really useful. At the Westminster Social Policy Forum, I chaired a discussion on the OxCam corridor the Friday before last. It was one of the strongest messages to come out. Here is a key economic area. On travel to work areas, as a consequence of, for example, the east-west rail development, those areas may well be extended, so that the travel to work area for Cambridge extends potentially to new sites and settlements in Bedfordshire, and the travel to work area for Oxford and Harwell might well extend increasingly to settlements in and around Milton Keynes.
Increasingly, we have different authorities in different counties whose planning processes need to be co-ordinated and integrated together. Spatial development strategies are a way of doing that. I am old enough to remember when we had the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities and we used to do planning processes through regional mechanisms. We do not have regional planning now but that does not mean that we need to abandon the concept of strategic planning. Strategy does not require us to have integrated and large-scale authorities; it just means that the authorities need to come together.
Amendment 200 is specifically about employment sites, because of their relative strategic importance to an area or combined areas. Amendment 205 is about bringing additional authorities with a role to play into the process. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for its assistance in shaping an amendment for this purpose. I added the reference to travel to work areas, so I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, commended that it should extend specifically to those authorities within a travel to work area, even if they are not one of the participating authorities. That is why we want to focus particularly on district councils, which may not join in the SDS but need to be consulted in the process. Also, counties and county combined authorities should be included in the consultation.
This engagement and consultation is in relation to their functions but it does not make them participants in the spatial development strategy itself. It does not give them a veto over the spatial development strategy but is confined to their bringing to the party the things that they can do. Given that for counties it includes something as integral as transport planning, this is fundamental to a spatial development strategy being able to work effectively. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing that amendment. I confess that I cannot see that we can put counties into the spatial development strategies as such, because of the difficulties of their not having planning powers—this is a combination of those that do have the planning powers—but it is absolutely right that they should be involved.
Apart from my own amendments, I want to say a word about Amendment 199. When I read it, I asked myself why the combined authorities are not part of this. The only reason I can think of is that they already have a non-statutory spatial strategy power. Frankly, I think that should come to the party. If noble Lords have a moment, I suggest they look at pages 288 and 299 of the Bill, and the new subsections at 15AI to be inserted. This is about what happens when a combined authority is created, and where these areas are already engaged in a joint spatial development strategy. It is awful. Basically, it collapses and it is cancelled; it is all withdrawn. That is the last thing you want. Where participating authorities are working together on a spatial development strategy, the creation of a combined authority should supplement that and enable them to accomplish it more effectively, not cause it all to be withdrawn or cancelled. The language is terrible, but the intention seems to me to be wrong too. I would much rather combined authorities joined in.
In the Cambridge area, we have the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The need for planning in that key economic hub extends out from Cambridge to Royston in Hertfordshire, to Haverhill in Suffolk, to Thetford in Norfolk, and to Bedford and Cranfield. It is obviously a candidate that is not only economically important but requires the joint working of local authorities and integrated planning across a wider region. It seems to me that spatial development strategies are a good thing, designed to enable that to happen, but we need the legislation to be more permissive. I would particularly focus on Amendment 205. I hope my noble friend will indicate that Ministers are sympathetic to the ability of counties, and other county combined authorities, to get involved in this way.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow 11 minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explaining the amendments. I have tabled amendments in this group and supported others because of the potential importance of strategic planning in tackling the climate emergency. We need to embed it in everything that councils do, alongside solving the acute housing crisis in this country.
Mine are probing amendments to find out how the Government see the role of county councils within the production of a joint spatial development strategy. County councils sit one tier above planning authorities, but many have strategic functions—for example, transport, health, social care or education. It seems slightly odd that they do not have a planning role as well.
Schedule 7 as currently drafted would need participating planning authorities to consult the county council once a draft strategy has been produced. It seems to me that this perhaps misses the opportunity to involve county councils actively in the development of the strategy, which I think they could very much contribute to. Taken to its highest level, the county council could even initiate the process and convene the planning authorities to work together. It seems to me that that is likely to happen anyway.
I would like to know the Minister’s thinking on how the Government see the role of county councils in strategic planning and whether they might explore the opportunity of more fully involving counties in spatial development plans.
For most Bills, the more I get involved the more fascinating they become. This Bill is an example of that not working at all. I am finding it incredibly difficult, and I sympathise with the Minister dealing with it. It is very difficult to find a coherent thread through this whole Bill. I applaud her and the Labour Front Bench for toughing it out.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder if my noble friend would accept that it sounds a bit odd to those of us who live in the countryside that counties should be left out. I know why it was; I can see the civil servant saying to her, “Well, you know, counties don’t have planning powers, except for minerals, so it really doesn’t count here. It’s the district councils that have it”. I know what they have said; they would have said it to me all those years ago—that is what they would do. I say to my noble friend that I will not easily be dissuaded from the fact that the county council is crucially important if you go in for spatial planning. I do not see how you do it otherwise.
Take the planning authority for Ipswich. Several of the housing developments and industrial sites that anybody else would have thought were in Ipswich are not; they are outside it, in another district council. The county council has to provide many of the services that service the whole group. If the county council is excluded from this, it is not just a bit odd but it will not work—the county council is crucial.
The second reason why I ask my noble friend to look again is a simple matter. We had the welcome announcement of a new relationship between national and local government. I am distressed by the way that national government often treats local government as if it is a sort of incubus, and I am afraid that civil servants often have a view of local government officers which is other than entirely polite. They say, “Better not, Minister—you never know what they might they do. Therefore, don’t give them any powers without us being able to pull them back.” I am afraid that is the view of many of the civil servants who serviced Ministers and continue to do so, so I want to break into that.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, how do I follow that? I will not, as it is dangerous territory.
This is a very interesting and important debate because it is about creating part of the hierarchy of a plan-led process. At the moment, we have quite a mixed pattern across England. Obviously, London has the ability to make a spatial strategy policy and plan; so do just some of the metro combined authorities, as they are known. In 2018, there was a statutory instrument which enabled three combined authorities to create spatial strategic plans: they were Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West of England. The others do not. Why not?
Here is an opportunity to create a more coherent approach to spatial development strategies across the country. I am speaking as someone living in a metro area, in West Yorkshire. It does not have the ability to make a spatial development plan but is getting round it by creating lots of plans which it hopes will be adopted by the constituent authorities so that it, in essence, has one. That is not satisfactory because what is needed is an overarching approach that all the constituent authorities can agree on. At the minute, it is a series of plans for different elements—for example, flooding, transport or economic development.
It is not just the county areas which are being omitted from a coherent approach. I hope that, given this debate, the Minister will be able to give us some hope that there will be a bit more coherence attached to this for all the metro mayors and—as has quite rightly been argued—for the counties. It is a nonsense otherwise. I do not know how you can plan, certainly for economic development and transport infrastructure, unless you have an overall approach which a spatial development strategy would enable.
I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about thinking about which elements we would want included in a spatial development strategy. He quite rightly included economic development in Amendment 200. I do not know how you could have a spatial development strategy without thinking about economic development and setting aside sites for business development. That must be included.
Having said that, you need to include transport infrastructure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, climate change must be a part of that as well. Alongside that, if you have housing sites and a broad approach to spatial development and business development, you need to think about public service facilities. At the moment, even in a big metro area such as where I am, these are often so piecemeal, and it is so frustrating. Why can we not have people think about what you need for schools, hospitals, and local general practices, for instance? What about thinking about provision for nature, which was the subject of the first group of amendments this afternoon on local nature recovery plans? That ought to be integrated into an approach to spatial development, as well as leisure facilities. All that needs to be there.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who talked about using travel to work areas as the boundary. That makes it extraordinarily difficult if those are not coterminous with the local authority boundaries which are being used. I will give noble Lords an example from my own experience. Travel to work areas in West Yorkshire include York, Barnsley in South Yorkshire and even Doncaster. People from Manchester come and work in West Yorkshire and Leeds and vice versa.
One of the challenges for the Minister is to try to come up with an answer to what boundaries are used because Schedule 7 talks, quite rightly, about the constituent authorities and members of a combined authority, a combined county authority or even—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben—just a county council. You need to know what boundaries you are using.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I think it is actually a bit simpler than that. The participating authorities that choose to be in the spatial development strategy choose to be in it and bring their territory with them. Everybody else, from my point of view in Amendment 205, are other authorities that are consulted. They are not making the strategy, they are consulted about it, so their geography does not matter so much.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My experience is that that was not quite how it worked. In West Yorkshire, Harrogate—which is just north of Leeds—was included, even though it is in North Yorkshire, because it is part of what they call the “golden triangle”. I think it is a challenge, and I hope the Government will just decide which boundaries they use—I presume it will be local authority boundaries, because that makes sense—and the others are just part of a negotiation.
Those are the key points I wanted to make. It is an interesting group to think about how it all works. I notice in the schedule it says that spatial strategies have to be mindful of, and consistent with, the national development management plans. I would like to hear from the Minister how spatial strategies will operate across a wider region, because if you are talking about transport—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, picked up on this—you need to think in a wider area than just a small combined authority area.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns strategic planning and spatial development strategies. As these are to date a very rare form of plan, it might be useful to set out some background. The Government recognise that it is often desirable to plan over areas, as we have just heard, wider than a single planning authority in order to properly address the strategic and cross-boundary issues that have been brought up in this debate so far. However, it is important to stress that a spatial development strategy cannot allocate sites; instead, it can set broad indications of how much and what type of development should go where.
Once a spatial development strategy is adopted, local plans within its area must be in general conformity with it; that is, they must generally follow that strategy and its policies. Most of us will not actually have dealt with a spatial development strategy, because only one exists at the moment, and that is in London, which the mayor refers to as the London Plan. Other combined authorities are able to request the equivalent spatial development strategy powers as part of their devolution agreement. Three areas have done so already—Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, and the West of England, as noble Lords have heard—but for various reasons, none has produced a strategy as yet. Moreover, the Government have agreed to give a spatial development strategy power to the West Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.
Through the Bill, we are extending the powers to produce a spatial development strategy, on a voluntary basis, to other local planning authorities, as we are aware that in other parts of the country—such as Hertfordshire, Essex, Leicestershire and around Nottingham—some of them have already sought to progress strategic plans over recent years. The Government would like to support and enable these efforts at more strategic planning.
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend has just said how much she wants the counties to be involved, but why can they not just be part of it? I do not understand this—it seems that there is no reason for it, except that it is in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I disagree. The district councils, about which we have been hearing, are the planning authorities in those areas, and the county council is not. So it is important that we make sure that this is district-led but that the county has the important role of statutory consultee. But that will be different in different counties, depending on whether they are unitary authorities; in which case, they will of course be the planning authority and therefore can lead on this spatial strategy.
Lord Deben (Con)
The county authority is the mineral planning authority, so how can we talk about spatial planning if we exclude the things for which the county authority is a planning authority. Making the distinction between being consulted—having a consultant role—and being part of the decision-making seems to me to be a false distinction. As the planning authority for minerals and similar things, it has to be part of such a spatial plan. I just do not understand the distinction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think that there is a distinction. They can be, and will be, part of it. I am sure that they will be part of whether that particular geographic area or group of councils will decide to go to a spatial strategy in the first place—that is how local government works. But I will give it some more thought; I am sure that we will come back to the issue on Report.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend moves on from this point about counties, can she confirm whether, when she says that they are a statutory consultee, she is referring to new Section 15A), to be inserted by Schedule 7, where they are consulted after the preparation of a draft, which is then deposited with various people? That is substantively different from securing the advice and participation of counties, related districts and others in the preparation of that draft spatial development strategy.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will take the point back and consider it further, because some important issues have been brought up. I will make sure that, having given it some thought, we will discuss it further before Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before we move on from this topic, I will add another observation: the county members are the ones that have the places on the combined authority. The districts do not have voting rights on those combined authorities. So I do not understand how it will work if the counties will not be included and cannot make decisions over planning when they are the constituent members with the powers to put the plan through. I think that this needs a little more thinking through.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I quite agree, and that is why I will take the point back and think further on it. As a county person myself, I have a lot of sympathy.
To make sure that our plan for a joint spatial development strategy happens, we are giving county councils the formal status of statutory consultee, as I said, so they can bring forward their expertise, particularly on matters relating to transport, highways, flood risk management, education, and minerals and waste, as noble Lords have said. Planning inspectors examining a joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence that the work on these key issues has been done, and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.
Amendment 199, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would leave out new Section 15A(2)(b), which is inserted by Schedule 7. This would enable local planning authorities within a combined authority to be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In an area with elected mayors, we believe that it is vital that the mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why the authorities within a combined authority should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the mayor, with the support of the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for the spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal. Obviously, we do not want to see competing spatial development strategies in any area.
Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would extend the list of groups that local planning authorities must consult to include community groups. Although I understand the reasons for this, the list of bodies in new Section 15AB(3) that participating authorities should consider sending a draft joint spatial development strategy to is already comprehensive and can reasonably be assumed to include most community organisations. It is not, however, an exhaustive list, and authorities are free to send drafts to whichever organisations they feel necessary.
The noble Baroness’s Amendments 203 and 204 would give people a right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to a joint spatial development plan. The current procedure for the examination of a spatial development strategy is now well established and, although it is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right to appear in person, we are confident that the current arrangements are fair, proportionate and effective. Experience shows that planning inspectors ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations for spatial development strategies.
The final amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness is Amendment 206. This would introduce a new clause mandating a duty to co-operate where no joint spatial development strategy exists. Unfortunately, the duty to co-operate is widely agreed to have been an ineffective mechanism for achieving co-operation. It has been criticised as an inflexible and burdensome bureaucratic exercise, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. We intend to replace the duty with a more flexible policy requirement within the revised National Planning Policy Framework, providing local planning authorities with greater flexibility.
Clause 93 introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making to ensure that the key stakeholders whose involvement is vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure, are required to be involved. This places a requirement on specific bodies with public functions—an example would be Historic England—to assist in the plan-making process if requested by a plan-making authority. Taken together, these measures mean that there is no need to revert to the duty to co-operate in any circumstances.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
How does the Minister see the role of town and parish councils within all this? Clearly, they will have an interest, yet they are not mentioned anywhere.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I foresee that their views would go up through the stages, and any good district council would ask for their views. Also, of course, they would probably be involved in any neighbourhood planning that is happening as well, so those plans would also move on up into it.
Amendment 200A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the provision of sites for health and social care within a joint spatial development strategy. There is already broad provision for considering these needs in a joint spatial development strategy, through new Sections 15AA(1) and (2) which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. These provisions are written deliberately broadly to enable planning authorities to consider the full range of land use and infrastructure requirements that are important to an area. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will accept that the current wording in the Bill continues to enable the consideration of issues relating to the provision of health and care services in an area.
Amendment 200, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, is intended to ensure that any joint spatial development strategy includes provision for employment sites which are of strategic importance for the economic development of an area. I can reassure my noble friend that new Section 15AA(1) already provides that a joint SDS may include policy relating to
“the development and use of land in the joint strategy area”.
This is a flexible provision that allows the planning authorities to include whatever policies they feel are necessary, with some caveats relating to those policies being of strategic importance and relating to the characteristics or circumstances of the area. For this reason, I do not think that we need a more specific provision at this point.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for a good debate on these topics relating to spatial planning. They are very important issues, and this is a key part of the Bill.
There are some key themes that have emerged as part of this discussion. The first is the integration of plans and timetables and how important that is going to be as we move forward with these proposals.
Secondly, we have had long discussions around the services that county councils deliver and their engagement in the process of the strategic development strategies. As well as transport, highways, minerals, waste and so on, we had an earlier discussion in the Committee about healthy homes. Our county councils look after a huge range of services that relate to social care provision and so on, and that is another reason why it is essential they get involved in strategic planning at this level. I should have referred to my interests in the register as a county councillor and a district councillor; I wear both hats in this respect.
The third overall point was around the inclusion of combined authorities. I know it is late but I want to relate the experience in Hertfordshire. Without having any of the processes of the Bill in place, the 10 Hertfordshire authorities and the county council have got together, separating Hertfordshire into two clusters, to work on employment, housing sites, climate change, transport—including a new mass rapid transit facility that we have been planning for—community wealth-building, town centre regeneration, digital infrastructure and a number of other things. In Hertfordshire, we are helped by having coterminous boundaries with both the local enterprise partnership and policing. We do not have coterminous borders with health, but I do not think anybody does—that is a little more complicated. We do not necessarily need legislation to do this. However, I am anxious that, as a part of the Bill, we do not stop people doing things which are ambitious and have vision for their areas.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think that is an important point. That is what I was saying: the Bill will not stop that; it will give the opportunity to do something. Many authorities do great things informally, but sometimes, if there is a formal agreement to it, other doors are opened. That is part of what we are trying to do.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance.
We had some discussions around borders—I will say more about that in a moment—but Herts has boundaries with London in the south of the county and with very rural areas in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire in the north of the county.
The other key point we mentioned was the urban-rural split, on which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke very powerfully, and the value of counties understanding how this helps move the development agenda forward for rural areas as well as urban ones. I echo the point that people feel that this is largely related to urban areas. It is important for us to make sure that people in rural areas feel that their interests are taken into account in both levelling up and regeneration.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated. I have referred to the points on healthy homes that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made earlier in the debate. We need to give some more thought to that before Report and to how we can make sure that we take the opportunities the Bill might offer to better co-ordinate planning processes. The point about timetables is very well made. We have lots of different plans that run on lots of different timetables in local government and in other parts of the public sector, and it would be helpful if we could think about how we might bring some of that together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about the very important potential of the Bill to enable us to tackle climate change and the housing emergency in a more co-ordinated way. I do not want to miss those opportunities, which is why these points about planning are so important. She mentioned the ability of county councils to convene councils to work together. That has certainly been my experience, and I hope we can find a way to develop that.
I have mentioned the points that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made about making sure that we focus on rural as well as urban areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the travel to work areas. The point is not that we do not want to make plans for boundaries, but you have to think beyond the boundaries and take them into account, particularly with employment sites—otherwise, for example, you will not be planning properly for your transport arrangements. We have to think about what we are doing in a wider sense than the boundaries of local authorities as they would appear on the Boundary Commission register.
To summarise briefly, we have to be careful. We could miss opportunities for combined authorities and for the ambition we all have for levelling up to reach right across the huge areas of our country that are covered by two-tier local government—or three tiers in some cases, as we know. I know the Minister wants to reassure us that rural areas will be included, but the picture in this planning realm can still be a bit confused, particularly with the way that there are different plans for different places, which do not seem to be particularly well co-ordinated. I hope we can give that some more thought.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her detailed answer to all our amendments. That said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 196A.
“Deliberative democracy: local planning(1) Before preparing any development or outline plan, a local planning authority must undertake a process of deliberative democracy involving the community to set—(a) the balance of economic, environmental, infrastructure and special plans,(b) the type of housing to be delivered,(c) the infrastructure that is required to be hosted,(d) the type of economic space, and(e) environmental considerations, including making sites sustainable.(2) A process of deliberative democracy under this section must—(a) invite all residents of the local authority area to apply to be a representative in the deliberative democracy process,(b) include measures to try to ensure that there will be a diverse representation of that community in the process, and(c) provide for a forum of representatives that—(i) will determine its terms of reference, number of meetings and agenda at its first meeting, and(ii) will produce a report from the deliberative democracy process.(3) A report under subsection (2)(c)(ii) may determine the scope of development on a site.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce a deliberative democracy forum comprised of members of the public prior to the formation of a new development plan or outline plan.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that we come to these amendments so late in the evening. Amendment 198 and the subsequent amendments are things I feel particularly strongly about. Amendment 198 would introduce the principle of deliberative democracy as part of the planning process. Recent years have seen a wave of interest in doing democracy in a more deliberative way, enabling citizens to participate in a reflective and informed discussion about key policy questions before any of us, who are decision-makers, reach those decisions.
The Constitution Unit at University College London has been at the forefront of applying such approaches in the UK. In two recent projects, it took part in running citizens’ assemblies to explore how such bodies could help resolve complex policy problems. In other projects, the unit has examined ways in which deliberative approaches to politics could be applied in the UK context. Rather than go into the realms of theory and testing everyone’s patience at this time of night, I shall briefly give the rationale and two quick examples of how this type of engagement with complex issues can help develop understanding and buy-in with complex policy decisions.
In terms of planning, as I said earlier, residents often do not engage with planning at the stage of the local plan and by the time they are faced with a planning application they object to, the land use, housing numbers, infrastructure requirements, environmental policies and so on are already set out and have been through the extensive local plan process. They have often been through the inspectorate and a public inquiry as well. This leads to a great deal of frustration for residents, who may feel that the process, in this case the local plan, has been done to them, rather than with them. Even where residents do engage with the local plan process, the formality of proceedings can be daunting and impenetrable.
The introduction of a deliberative democracy element into the planning process would give the opportunity for local people to get more involved in a meaningful way much earlier in the process. The format can be designed to encourage debate and contributions and careful facilitation can draw out the minority views as well as those with the loudest voices. All this can help inform the local authority or the combined authority as it goes into the formal stages of developing its plan. This approach also enables participants to be provided with information that is accurate, relevant, accessible and balanced. It helps to tackle misinformation and enables deliberations to be informed by accurate, fact-checked data; for example, that provided in the UK by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
In Stevenage, we have used this method to enable debates on our budget process. As the cuts to local government funding deepened, we wanted to hear our residents’ views on how we should tackle the subsequent budget exercise, so we asked an independent agency to pull together a group of around 50 people from a mixed demographic. Using independent facilitators, we took them through an exercise of information sharing on the challenges we faced and carried out exercises of budget prioritisation with them, to see what their preferences would be. The learning was considerable on both sides. Some participants told me at the end of the day that they were glad it was not them who had to make the decisions. The other impact was that a group of people was then out in our community with all the facts of decision-making to take into conversations at work and in social settings, et cetera.
The Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change involved a randomly selected representative sample of 50 Oxford residents, who learned about climate change and explored different options to cut carbon emissions through a combination of presentations from experts and facilitated workshops. Oxford was the first city in the UK to deliver a citizens’ assembly on climate change. As the evidence around man-made climate change is clear and overwhelming, it was treated as a given, and the assembly was not asked to consider whether or not that was a reality, but participants considered measures to reduce Oxford’s carbon emissions to net zero and, as part of this, measures to reduce Oxford City Council’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030. In that case, Ipsos MORI was appointed to undertake the recruitment of participants and provide overall facilitation for the Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change. Following that approach, Oxford has been able to undertake an ambitious programme of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
We want the Bill to be ambitious in the way that it tackles levelling up in all its aspects. We believe that a move to deliberative democracy in the planning system will create a whole new dimension for community engagement and provide a channel for our residents to contribute to tackling the complex challenges of the modern planning process.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will contribute to this group in relation to the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. In existing legislation, Section 19(1B) and (1C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that:
“Each local planning authority must identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area… Policies to address those priorities must be set out in the local planning authority’s development plan documents (taken as a whole).”
Therefore, the legislation has it that strategic priorities must be set out and policies must be set out to meet them.
Paragraph 21 of the National Planning Policy Framework in the consultation document recently issued says that:
“Plans should make explicit which policies are strategic policies. These should be limited to those necessary to address the strategic priorities of the area”.
Paragraph 17 states that the development plan
“must include strategic policies to address each local planning authority’s priorities for the development and use of land in its area.”
Therefore, the legislation is carried through into the National Planning Policy Framework. Also, the NPPF is clear that there is an important distinction to be made between strategic and non-strategic policies. I will not dwell on those now, as it is not relevant for this purpose. Suffice to say that “strategic” in front of policies seems important.
However, the Government have decided to omit “strategic”, to omit any reference to strategic priorities or a requirement that the local plan in a plan-making process should identify those priorities and show how policies meet them. I cannot for the life of me understand why. I admit that these are probing amendments to find out why. I do not think that, as a proposition, the structure of the NPPF in paragraphs 17 and 21 should be left stranded, with the relevant legislative provisions in Section 19 of the 2004 Act being omitted and not being substituted with anything in the current legislation that gives rise to that part of the NPPF.
The Government may say, “Well, it’s guidance and that’s fine—that’s what we’re saying”. Until now it has been perfectly understood that there is a legislative structure, and that the guidance follows it. I am not sure that we should arrive at a position where there is guidance with no legislative structure underpinning it. I cannot see any mischief in putting the strategic priorities and strategic policies back in. I see no mischief in putting “strategic” in front of “policies”. It avoids any lack of clarity about what kind of policies we are talking about. I cannot see why the Bill should not be amended to put it in line with where the current situation is and where the NPPF intends to go.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I briefly follow-up on that question which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has left hanging.
We seem to have several moving parts here. I do not want to detain anybody any longer than necessary. We have the guidance of the NPPF, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has outlined its current impact on how local plans are developed. We now have the statutory NDMPs. Eventually we will get used to that acronym, I guess. Earlier this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, told noble Lords that she thought that the occasions of conflict between the NDMPs and local plans would be very rare, so rare that they did not need referencing but, on the other hand, possibly so onerous that it would be burdensome to make every one be referred back to your Lordships.
However, the political context of the NDMPs is of trying to retrieve a situation that was created last year by multiple changes in direction within the department, and by Ministers, about what they wanted local plans to achieve. Do they want them to achieve a very large number of houses, no houses at all, or as many houses as the local area thinks are appropriate?
All that will be resolved when—eventually—the NDMPs are published, because that is when we will be told what the Government intend local plans to produce. At that point it seems foreseeable—I say only foreseeable, not certain—that there will be areas of conflict between the citizens’ assemblies brought forward by the noble Baroness’s amendment and the common consultation process that we have traditionally followed, as the local plan emerges and the NDMPs dictate a different course of action. Where does the guidance to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred fit into that? Which fits into what and at which part?
In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also said, perhaps not with the conviction that I had hoped to hear, that, in the event of a neighbourhood plan being more up to date than a local plan—hence in date—it would stand up against an NDMP central government directive. I would be delighted if that is true, but I would be substantially surprised if she says that she did say that; I must have misheard something.
We have some moving parts here, and it is a terribly inconvenient time of the day to resolve those difficulties. A lengthy letter may be the solution, but I just pose those questions. This is the fundamental way in which the current Government are aiming to square a circle out of their national planning policy. Whether they want more houses, where they want them and how fast—all those things—are driven by what comes out of local plans, and they will be framed by what is in the NDMPs, which are not published. Forgive me if I am jumping to a conclusion here; perhaps the planning management policy that comes out will say, “It is okay, guys; do your own thing and send your local plans in when they are ready”, but I have a feeling that that is not the context in which they are being drawn up.
Anything that the noble Earl or the noble Baroness can say to clarify that situation, either this evening or in a subsequent written report, would be gratefully received on this side, because we are baffled and bemused by how this is all supposed to hang together, as things stand.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and myself but, before I do, I will speak briefly to two amendments mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.
Amendment 198 is about deliberative democracy or citizens’ forums as they are sometimes known. When I, as somebody who has been a councillor and an MP, first heard of this, I was slightly suspicious of this alternative form of problem-solving. It struck me as slightly random and unaccountable. But the more I looked into it, with the help of Graham Allen, the former Labour MP who championed the cause of deliberative democracy, I began to change my mind. The Government have actually been funding three experimental projects using deliberative democracy—one in Dudley looking at the future of two shopping centres, one in Cambridge looking at how to solve congestion, and one in Romsey looking at how to solve problems around a local bus station. It struck me that these were actually ways of complementing and reinforcing local democracy, rather than substituting it.
At a time when democracies are struggling to retain public confidence, we should look at every possible means of refreshing democracy in a way that is relevant to the modern world. This is what that amendment wants. Like others, I have been to planning meetings where people have been shouting at each other; there must be a better way to find a way through. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness who moved this amendment, as she obviously has considerable experience. Perhaps the Minister will let me know, following the three trials funded by the DCMS, whether her department will engage with the Local Government Association to see how we can best take that debate forward.
I am afraid that I disagree entirely with Amendment 223 and the suggestion that the adopted plan should be up for review after a local election. The one thing going through this debate since it began is the need for certainty and clarity about the local plan. It has to go through a process to become adopted. If there is a local election just after it has been adopted and control changes hands and it is up for review, what then is the status of that local plan? I very much hope that my noble friend will resist, perhaps more politely than I have done, the suggestion in Amendment 223.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have been trying not to get into a lot of the groups on the Bill but I regret not getting into this one. Amendment 198 makes such good sense because politics is a fairly dire arrangement these days. A lot of voters have lost interest and do not trust us. Getting people involved at the local level is an excellent way of stimulating their appetite for more politics at different levels, so I very much support Amendment 198.
I quite like Amendment 209, but somehow “environmental issues” is just thrown in—you have to say it, do you not? I do not know what it means. I would like it to mean a lot but I am not sure that it means very much at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, quotes to us the Conservative Party manifesto when the Government have broken so many promises and back-tracked on so many things. I hardly think it is a very good example for any of us to hold up as something we need to follow. Plus, his comments about the green belt were absolutely outrageous. It is not for people with gardens or people with country estates; it is for people who live in inner cities, who have no gardens or green space to walk about in. The green belt has a huge value for them, so please let us not forget that.
Amendment 211 is from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have huge respect, by the way. My telling him that the Conservative Party manifesto might as well be thrown in the bin—as it has been by the Conservative Party—does not mean that I do not have huge respect for him. Again, this amendment is about economic growth. We went through this in the Budget. Growth is not about well-being or prosperity; it is about grabbing more and more of the earth’s resources. It is not necessarily something that we want to keep promoting. If we are going to talk about growth, can we please talk about well-being, green spaces and environmental support, and not just constantly about businesses, inward investment and that sort of thing?
Let us please try to remember that we have a climate crisis. It does not matter whether you believe it or not; the fact is that the IPCC has published a report that was gone through by dozens of Governments and hundreds of scientists. They all quibbled over it, but they finally came to a report that is absolutely devastating. We really should be looking at that. Every time we put down an amendment, we should have that at the back of our minds, so that we say things that will help us in the future and help our children and grandchildren. At the moment, we are not doing that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but the noble Lord, Lord Young, summed up one of the problems with this Bill in general: we have an important Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that does not tackle the crisis of housing supply—something I talked about at Second Reading.
I want to clarify at this stage in the evening that, while the points made by the noble Lord about the green belt are not by any stretch of the imagination that every part of the green belt should be built on or concreted over, it is a misnomer to suggest that the green belt is a beautiful green area for people who do not have country homes, gardens or parks to go to. Lots of it is actually unusable by the public. What the noble Lord suggested was a review. If the review indicated that it was valuable for the well-being of the nation, that would be fine, but it would be able to show that huge swathes of the green belt are misnamed and could be productively used for housing for young people and people who are desperately in need of homes.
My final quick point is that economic growth has to be the solution for austerity and the cost of living crisis. You cannot tackle the fact that people are too poor unless you produce more. That is called economic growth. Austerity is unpleasant, nasty and brutish, even when dressed in eco clothes. We need more growth, not less, especially at this time. People’s well-being will not be tackled or helped if they do not have the proceeds of economic development and growth.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
This is utter nonsense—absolute nonsense.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that we disagree. I thought the point was that we would disagree well in Committee. I have sat and listened to this debate for many hours. I just wanted to clarify why I think economic development is important: we will not be able to build any houses and nobody’s well-being will be helped if we stand still economically or go backwards. I do not relish austerity for the masses. Therefore, I think we need economic growth, mass housebuilding and the supply side to be tackled.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
It is with trepidation that I follow the last two speakers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Fox. I will say just one small thing about the green belt. The green belt, as part of local plan making, is reviewed and, as appropriate, areas are taken out of the green belt for housebuilding and development. That is what happens. It happens at the right time and place when there is proper public consultation.
I start with Amendment 198 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I have lots of sympathy with the idea of deliberative democracy. It is always worth exploring new ways of engaging with local people, involving them in developing ideas and understanding about what is going on, and helping to inform decisions before decision-makers finalise plans. I am concerned that the plan the noble Baroness lays out in Amendment 198 will probably work okay in a district council, but in an area such as the one where I am a councillor, for 450,000 residents, it becomes more challenging.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses local plans: the critical planning documents that local planning authorities prepare with their communities to plan for sustainable growth.
Amendment 198, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require deliberative democracy forums to be involved in the early stages of plan-making. Yes, I have seen this work, and very successfully, but there are other ways of doing it as well so I do not think we would want to be too prescriptive. However, I thank the noble Baroness for this amendment because it provides me with the opportunity to talk about community engagement.
The English planning system already gives communities a key role so that they can take an active part in shaping their areas and, in so doing, build local pride and belonging. We are not changing this; in fact, we are strengthening it through the Bill. Communities must be consulted on local plans and on individual planning applications. However, we know that current levels of engagement can sometimes fall below our ambitions. That is why, through the Bill, we will be increasing opportunities for communities to get involved in planning for their area to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bill reforms the process for producing a local plan so that it is simpler, faster and easier for communities to engage with. A number of measures in the Bill will create wholly new opportunities for people to engage with planning in their communities. Neighbourhood priorities statements will make it easier and quicker for local communities to set out the priorities for their area. Similarly, mandatory design codes will ensure that communities will be directly involved in making rules on how they want the new developments in their area to look and feel.
Measures to digitise the planning system will also transform the way that information about plans, planning applications and the evidence underpinning them is made available. We have funded 45 pilots, including in councils that have some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country, to demonstrate how digital approaches to engagement can make the planning system more accountable, democratic and inclusive. We have also committed to producing new guidance on community, which will show the different ways in which communities and industry can get involved and highlight best practice, including the opportunity that digital technology offers.
I hope that I have made clear the work that we are already doing to drive forward progress in improving community engagement. With regard to the three pilots from DCMS, I will undertake to ask that department where they are and what they intend to do with them, including discussing them with the LGA. I will come back to the noble Lord when I have an answer.
On Amendments 209 and 211 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham—I keep thinking that we are getting to the 2000s of these because we have been going so long—the Government want the planning system to be truly plan-led, to give communities more certainty that the right homes will be built in the right places. To achieve that, plans will be given more weight in decision-making. They will be faster to produce and easier to navigate and understand. We expect that future local plans should continue to provide a positive vision for the future of each area, and policies to deliver that vision. However, as was remarked in the other place, currently communities and applicants can face an alphabet soup of planning documents and terms, leaving all but the most seasoned planning professionals confused; so the Bill introduces a simple requirement for authorities to prepare a single local plan for their area, and provides clear requirements on what future local plans must, and may, include. Authorities may wish to include strategic priorities and policies in future local plans. There is nothing in the Bill to stop them.
There was quite a discussion provided by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on homes, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on things such as build-out. I have looked forward, and these issues will be discussed in much more detail in future debates, so if those noble Lords do not mind if I do not answer them today, I might answer them on Thursday. Perhaps we could wait for the relevant groups of amendments on those two things.
On the specific subject of local plan polices to deliver sustainable economic growth, I make it clear that we are retaining the current legal requirement at Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for authorities to prepare plans with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
I turn to Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This amendment would amend Schedule 7 to the Bill to allow a local planning authority—
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend said that there was nothing in the Bill that stops local authorities specifying what are strategic policies. My point is a completely contrary one to that. It is that the NPPF says that they should set out what their strategic priorities and strategic policies are; so why does the Bill not say that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think that we have got to the NPPF yet. It is out for review, and let us see what is in it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My point is that we know what the Government are proposing to say in the NPPF. The Bill is inconsistent with that. Is my noble friend suggesting that she has already decided that the NPPF will not make a distinction between strategic and non-strategic policies? Frankly, that is not going to happen. If she looks at the green-belt section, the distinction between strategic and non-strategic policies in relation to green-belt designation is an absolutely central distinction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I am saying that we have not made that decision yet, but this is as it is in this part of the Bill.
Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would amend Schedule 7 to the Bill to allow local planning authorities to use their local plan to amend the details of existing outline planning permissions, so that they are in accordance with the adopted local plan. Our planning reforms seek to ensure that plans, produced following consultation with local communities, have a greater influence over individual planning decisions to ensure that development reflects what those local communities want. In particular, our new decision-making framework under Clause 86 will deliver to a more plan-led system, providing greater certainty for these communities.
Enabling local plans to effectively revise existing outline planning permissions, even where development has already started, undermines this certainty. It also runs counter to the long-standing position that the grant of planning permission is a development right that also provides the certainty that developers need to raise finance and implement the permission. I fear that small and medium-sized builders would be especially impacted by such a change and would face significant wasted costs and delays at a time when we need to support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for a very interesting debate on very important aspects of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response on all the amendments that have been discussed in the debate.
I will address the key themes coming out of the debate, starting with my first amendment in this group on deliberative democracy. I was very grateful for the comments on this from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Like him, I was a bit of a convert to this; I was a bit sceptical about it when I first heard about it. However, the intention of deliberative democracy is to complement and support the work of decision-makers, not to take it over, and it can provide a very useful technique. Now that we have all been through Covid and we all know how to use things such as Teams and Zoom, it can be greatly assisted and facilitated by digital engagement as well. So it is a good technique for developing a wider picture and for engaging our citizens in the important aspects of planning.
On the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this subject, from my understanding of how deliberative democracy works, it does not matter what size your authority is, because you would engage a representative group and there are plenty of places where you can go to get help to draw together your representative group. There is nothing in deliberative democracy that excludes the contribution of parish councils; they have their own methods of communicating and engaging with the planning process. While I accept there are a variety of techniques to engage local citizens in the planning process, I think that it will be important for us all to consider how we will refresh and review not just the ability for people to get involved but the methods we use to engage them. We all know that there are flaws at the moment in the way we try to engage people, and anything that can help to improve that would be useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to having a legislative structure which should underpin what is in the guidance, and we would certainly support that. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have seen that there are not always clear links. We are told that one aspect is in guidance and that another aspect will be in the Bill, but the links between the two are not always as clear as they should be. We should be using the process of the Bill in Committee to help to resolve some of those issues where it is not as clear as it should be. I think that a clear distinction between policies which are strategic and not strategic will be quite important for those people tasked with delivering the plans going forward, so I hope that some thought might be given to that.
We had some comments on the need for certainty and clarity on the local plan in response to my noble friend Lady Hayman’s amendment on the possibility of amending after local elections. There were some fair points made there, and we will go back and look again at aspects of the Bill that enable local authorities to review parts of their plan. Although we do not want to overturn the plan every time there is an election, it will be important that people can look at things. As the picture changes in a local area, it may be necessary to undertake reviews for that reason, not just because there has been an election. I think we need to have another look at that as the Bill goes forward.
It really rang a bell with me when the noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the need to boost the supply of homes. We have further groups of amendments that cover that topic. He referred to not weakening or removing levers for housing. Those of us who have been trying to deliver more housing over the last few years feel as though sometimes we have had our hands tied behind our backs on housing delivery and that that has gone on for too long.
We must be ambitious and work on delivering the housing we need, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is quite right to say that growth must incorporatethe issues that we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House on the environment, sustainable employment and sustainable housing growth. However, that makes planning more important, not less. Communities should be planned, not just the delivery of housing. After the Second World War, at a time when more than 100,000 homes a year were being built, there was still time set aside for master-planning and building for communities, not just delivering housing in dormitories. I suggest that deliberative democracy might play a part in that process.
The other aspect that was discussed extensively in this short debate was environmental outcome reports. I hear the Minister’s words of reassurance around how they might be incorporated in the planning process, but I think we would want to go through some of the other discussions around climate change to make sure we understand how that works. The Minister described the plans as an alphabet soup, which is probably a good description. We heard her talking about neighbourhood priority statements. This aspect of the Bill is another layer of planning that sits in this new hierarchy. It is difficult to understand from what is in the Bill exactly where it sits, so we look forward to the round table that will help clarify some of these issues. As for neighbourhood priority statements, it saysthat any of the authorities involved can make these neighbourhood priority statements, but it is not clear exactly how that works.
This has been a good debate on these very important planning issues. As I said, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, and I am sure that some of the issues we raised will come up again in future debates. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.